Slashdot Mirror


PayPal Freezes the Assets of Wikileaks.org

matsh sends word that PayPal has frozen the assets of wikileaks.org. From their Web site: "Paypal has as of 23rd of January 2010 frozen WikiLeaks assets. This is the second time that this happens. The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue. By working with the respected and recognized German foundation Wau Holland Stiftung we tried to avoid this from happening again — apparently without avail." The submitter adds: "Hopefully we can pressure PayPal to resolve this quickly, since this seems like a dangerous political decision."

403 comments

  1. Unsurprising by LightPhoenix7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has been going on for many years, with many different groups. Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen. Mayhap Wikileaks should try and dig up information on Paypal.

    1. Re:Unsurprising by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen.

      The Government has to step up and declare Paypal a bank. Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does) - only the government can do that if you are in breach of laws.

      Now that the Government found their balls to stand up to China for once, maybe it can do the same with corporations.

    2. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interestingly this is only a problem in US and western countries. Russia and Eastern Bloc almost fully uses WebMoney. There is no problems with locking accounts, transactions fees are really low and you can pay your phone, internet or tv bill with it (along with countless of other services). Cards to put money in to account are sold in every kiosk. Security is better too, if you require they send you one-time auth sms or you can have keyfiles to login.

      Paypal is shit.

    3. Re:Unsurprising by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now that the Government found their balls to stand up to China for once, maybe it can do the same with corporations.

      Fail, fail. The government is standing up to China on behalf of a corporation. If our government actually believed in human rights, we wouldn't favor trade with China above all other nations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Unsurprising by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does)

      It's actually worse than that... they can take and freeze your money because they don't like what one of your business partners does...

      Now that the Government found their balls to stand up to China for once, maybe it can do the same with corporations.

      It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!

    5. Re:Unsurprising by the+simurgh · · Score: 0, Insightful

      i wonder if wiki leaks knows that paypal is still operating in violation of a court order that states that their terms of service is illegal.

    6. Re:Unsurprising by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's actually worse than that... they can take and freeze your money because they don't like what one of your business partners does...

      I think you're being overly generous. PayPal can take and freeze your money because they feel like it.

    7. Re:Unsurprising by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!

      When the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) calls out the Chinese about the hack attacks, I'd say that's the US Gov't finding a pair.
      I look forward to someone in the Government calling out PayPal/E-Bay for their shitty business practices.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's actually worse than that... they (banks) can take and freeze your money because they don't like what one of your business partners does...

      Or they can simply hold the country's economy for ransom, take your money by government payout, issue themselves enormous bonuses, lend nothing and tell you to go fuck yourselves.

      At least the French knew when it was time for revolution.

    9. Re:Unsurprising by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our government does believe in human rights. It is just that Corporations are more human than any individual citizen.

    10. Re:Unsurprising by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does)

      It's actually worse than that... they can take and freeze your money because they don't like what one of your business partners does...

      They can screw you for just about anything, and have. http://www.paypalsucks.com/ Old news, but for some reason, no one knows.

    11. Re:Unsurprising by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Still amazed that no one at wikileaks has seen http://www.paypalsucks.com/ yet. No way I would trust paypal with anything, ever.

    12. Re:Unsurprising by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trade and wealth are essential for preserving peace which is needed to transition to a more free government without massive loss of life.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    13. Re:Unsurprising by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until people stop using Paypal

      Absolutely right. I keep cash on paypal in order to make purchases online. I will withdraw all of it immediately and let them know that their freezing wikileaks' assets is the reason.

      It probably won't make a difference to them, but it makes a difference to me.

      Paypal is poison.

      They need to unfreeze wikileaks' account right now.

      If corporations are going to play in politics, then it's got to be up to us to show them the consequences.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!

      Umm, no.

      China cut Googles balls off and displayed them to the entire world. That's when Google got pissed. Before that, Google was just fine with how China was doing.

      Because Sergei and Larry were able to make a few more billions of dollars. Google didn't get pissed until THAT opportunity was gone. THEN Google acted against China.

    15. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought China was interested in the US is so they can one day recover the obscene US dept they financed. The US however, plays dumb and keeps spending. China is upset and want the US to succeed so they meet to work things out. Hence they punish their people by paying them nothing so Americans can afford cheap clothes. This way they will be less of a burden but since the US is politically unstable (compared to China), China is getting corporations involved in this game.

      We are being screwed by ourselves and there's no getting out of it. EVER.

    16. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!

      When the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) calls out the Chinese about the hack attacks, I'd say that's the US Gov't finding a pair.
      I look forward to someone in the Government calling out PayPal/E-Bay for their shitty business practices.

      Kinda sad that Hillary has more balls than 0bama.

    17. Re:Unsurprising by russotto · · Score: 1

      Fail, fail. The government is standing up to China on behalf of a corporation. If our government actually believed in human rights, we wouldn't favor trade with China above all other nations.

      We don't. What was once called "Most Favored Nation" status is now called "Normal Trade Relations", and pretty much every country but North Korea, Cuba, and Libya is on it (maybe a few others as well; I'm not sure about Iraq, for instance). Of course among those, not all are equal, but when you put it all together likely the absolutely most favored would be Canada.

    18. Re:Unsurprising by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 3, Interesting

      paypal is a bank in europe

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
    19. Re:Unsurprising by GaryOlson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Although this may be interesting, a little financial homework is required.
      wmtransfer.com domain is registered by SMP Bank, Moscow. From Moody's bank rating service,

      ...SMP Bank's currently limited franchise (which is in Moody's view to a substantial extent reliant on the bank's shareholders), high credit risk concentrations, low diversification of the bank's funding base and potentially volatile profitability

      .

      AS “SMP Bank” (until 17 June 2008 AS “Multibanka” – the Bank) was incorporated in the Republic of Latvia as a joint stock company “Multibanka” in 1994, in Riga and is licensed as a bank offering a wide range of financial services to enterprises and individuals. The address of the Bank’s registered office is Elizabetes iela 57, Riga, Latvia. The Bank has a branch in Liepaja and 12 offices in Riga, an office in Ventspils and Olaine, two offices in Daugavpils and representative offices in Moscow

      Once you read the financial statement, disbursement of profits, and this web of bank ownership, do you really want to use wmtranser.com?

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    20. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So it is an actual bank while PayPal isn't?

    21. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably won't make a difference to them, but it makes a difference to me.

      Which is, actually, the *best* reason to do things!

      I do believe, btw, that if enough people would do this, paypal would change their ways. I don't know what "enough" would be for paypal though ;-)

    22. Re:Unsurprising by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I take it that's the current bullet point explanation that is used to prevent you from having to say "It's cheaper over there and we don't have to give a damn who gets hurt because of it"?

    23. Re:Unsurprising by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 2, Informative

      What koolaid did you drink?

      The only reason the U.S. is so in bed with China is that the Chinese own a large portion of the U.S. debt. Congress over spends by huge margins and then sells the loans to China, who then threatens to call it in if they don't get favorable trade deals.

      It's a brilliant plan, interest on the money, control in government and every manufacturing contract and associated I.P. the U.S. has.

    24. Re:Unsurprising by no-body · · Score: 4, Informative

      > "they feel like it"

      Most of it is automated. They are running risk rules on transactions and if one hits a score, the account is frozen - they call it "limited".

      Can be anything - they sure won't publish their algorithms.

      And:

      Prohibited Activities

      You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

      violate any law, statute, ORDINANCE or REGULATION

      (emphasis mine)

    25. Re:Unsurprising by AlamedaStone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!

      When the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) calls out the Chinese about the hack attacks, I'd say that's the US Gov't finding a pair.
      I look forward to someone in the Government calling out PayPal/E-Bay for their shitty business practices.

      I watched parts of that speech. Was I the only one yelling at my TV, saying "WHAT ABOUT AUSTRALIA'S CENSORSHIP".

      But of course, despite naming an assortment of "bad" countries (you know. where they nais pas parle englais) that are filtering the internet, she didn't mention our friends in the AU.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    26. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god, read a book, you sound like a goddamn moron, That's not what "Most Favored Nation" status means.

    27. Re:Unsurprising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Of course among those, not all are equal, but when you put it all together likely the absolutely most favored would be Canada.

      Most Canadian trade in this direction is crude. Shell, Exxon, and UNOCAL (AKA Chevron) account for a significant portion of this, so while the oil may be coming from Canada and the money is counted as going to Canada, much of it comes right back to the USA (or indeed, never actually goes there; though some taxes are ostensibly paid.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Its like calling your friend an idiot and then asking him for $1,100.00

      I don't see how we can depend on China for so much yet make demands of them too.

    29. Re:Unsurprising by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Australia's government does not (to anybody's knowledge) materially support hacking businesses in other countries to help quash dissent in their own. I agree that Australia's censorship schemes are reprehensible, but the main issue with China is state-sponsored hacking, and Google is the first big name to take a stand on that, and they are using the long-running 'human rights debate' as their weapon of face-losing revenge.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    30. Re:Unsurprising by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed. Having been the buyer in a transaction that PayPal froze (which was only resolved quickly because one of the other people who was getting screwed knew one of their VPs), I can't imagine why any nonprofit organization trusts them as far as they can throw them. There are plenty of real credit card processors that don't act like thugs. I would urge Wikileaks to pick one and terminate their relationship with PayPal ASAP.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    31. Re:Unsurprising by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if the above comment (#30873050) is correct or not, but I don't see why it is marked as flamebait. Is it possible the moderator who did this works for paypal?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    32. Re:Unsurprising by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Well, they are higher up, but they sure are bigger!

    33. Re:Unsurprising by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you overestimate how important the US feels its debts are. The U.S. is in debt for trillions with the Federal Reserve Bank. The debt with China is insignificant by comparison.

    34. Re:Unsurprising by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article is a twitter post.

      Why is this even on /.? Is twitter considered a credible source?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    35. Re:Unsurprising by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The real question is why the other banks don't step up and stop doing business with them. I mean, they come right out and say "we'll run your credit card so you can do business with shady characters who can't meet the requirements to get a merchant account."

      I mean, I suppose they like them because they screw up the charge dispute process, but they also are skimming off business who could be getting real merchant accounts.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    36. Re:Unsurprising by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least the French knew when it was time for revolution.

      There was no TV then..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    37. Re:Unsurprising by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Old news, but for some reason, no one knows.

      Correction.. No one cares..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    38. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China's in it for the long haul. They're going to let the US help them rise to the top by using the US to "jump-start" their own economic success. First, they sell things to the US for cheap (and remain profitable by abusing their people's rights). To keep the US spending, they lend them as much money as they need (it's ok, it only means the plan will take longer). Then, they slowly build their own consumer-culture (this is the phase they're in now). Then, once they're in position #2, they cut the US funding off and watch them fall (leaving the top spot open for them). They'll put up with as much nonsense as we can sling at them until they complete this phase. There are some disadvantages to leaders who know they only have to worry about the next 8 years and CEOs who only worry about the next quarter..

      With your analogy, it's more getting $100 a week from your friend, then spending $150 at his very-reasonably-priced store every week (the $50 is yours), thus driving his business up, then once he's successful and doesn't need you, he cuts you off to $10/week with interest, and you're totally helpless because you were so reliant on his money.

    39. Re:Unsurprising by schon · · Score: 2, Informative

      paypal is still operating in violation of a court order that states that their terms of service is illegal.

      Citation please?

      I loathe paypal, and won't use them because of their "terms" - I'd love some hard core reason to show to people who insist on 'sending' me money through them. (Yeah, like I'm gonna give PayPal my bank account information.)

    40. Re:Unsurprising by GaryOlson · · Score: 4, Informative

      SMP Bank has filed all the proper papers and provides the appearance of a bank. But, given that two of the bank council members are kleptocrats, whether or not SMP Bank is a bank is not the question. Are they any more trustworthy than Paypal?

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    41. Re:Unsurprising by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Informative


      We'll find out whether people care or not when there's an alternative.

      I formerly subscribed to Slashdot but I don't anymore because they now only accept Paypal. When they go back to accepting credit cards, I'll subscribe again. There have been other instances where I've avoided doing business with someone because it meant using Paypal. Don't trust them. Likely never will. It seems statistically unlikely that I'm the only one with this attitude toward them.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    42. Re:Unsurprising by nemesisrocks · · Score: 1

      Arguably, PayPal is just a "transaction provider", like Western Union or Visa. The only difference is they allow you to store your money with them until you feel like transferring it elsewhere.

      Paranoid people (like me) who are forced to use PayPal transfer money straight out into a bank account as soon as it arrives. The less time my money spends in PayPal's coffers, the less risk there is of them taking my money.

      On another note, in many countries (e.g. Australia), PayPal has had to meet many of the regulations that apply to banks in order to deal with the public's money.

    43. Re:Unsurprising by Briareos · · Score: 1

      The article is a twitter post.

      If you take a closer look at TFS you'll find there's also a link to wikileaks.org, which - whoop-de-freaking-do - states the very same.

      Of course, why the editors had to leave that twit in there is anyone's guess - probably the usual laziness...

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    44. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      where is Moody's rating of paypal?

    45. Re:Unsurprising by skine · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Also, some corporations are more corporationy than others.

    46. Re:Unsurprising by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Any merchant account will hold a percentage of the funds from your transactions for 3-6 months in case Visa decides to reverse any of your transactions upon closure of your account. Many even do it on an ongoing basis. Meaning you must leave 15% of your average quarterly transaction funds in your merchant account at all times.

      I guess the only difference with Paypal is that they are known to do close accounts without warning or explanation.

    47. Re:Unsurprising by ehrichweiss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a thought for everyone: Corporations were demanding the same rights as individuals, right? How about we demand they have the same *repsonsibilities* as individuals, like being jailed for your crimes. I mean if the corps really want to move in that direction then let's give them enough rope to hang themselves. We've had to live with their laws so perhaps they're asking for this as well.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    48. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, they do live the longest. Remember when both the lehman brothers passed away? That was a pretty sad day, and it affected us all. If only they'd eaten honey nut cheerios to keep their heart healthy longer.

    49. Re:Unsurprising by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 1

      The Government has to step up and declare Paypal a bank. Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does) - only the government can do that if you are in breach of laws.

      Some countries did. Australia, for example. It's made it a lot harder for Paypal to act evilly over here at least; it's a shame the rest of the company isn't forced to behave in a similar fashion.

    50. Re:Unsurprising by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Ummm, China's debt is, to one significant figure, a trillion dollars. And that isn't insignificant.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    51. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course, despite naming an assortment of "bad" countries (you know. where they nais pas parle englais) that are filtering the internet, she didn't mention our friends in the AU.

      It would have been very odd if she had, considering that there's no filtering happening in Australia.

      Yet.

    52. Re:Unsurprising by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      the new you-beat protect the children internet filter which was originally to stop child porn but magically grows a new arm each day to cover something else.

      http://nocleanfeed.com/ for more

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    53. Re:Unsurprising by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      Awesome quote!

    54. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless, in response, they freeze YOUR account and don't let you withdraw your money. ;)

    55. Re:Unsurprising by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Debt owed to citizens, measured in U.S. dollars, is much less of a big deal than debt owed to non-citizens/other countries, measured in something else. Remember, in an absolute worst-case scenario (and realistically this won't happen, but keep reading), if you have no other choice at all, you can always mint money and pay off your citizens. That doesn't work with foreign debt unless it's in dollars.

      --
      $ make available
    56. Re:Unsurprising by damasterwc · · Score: 1

      the "debt" to the fed is one debt i wouldn't mind reorganizing in bankruptcy reorganization.

    57. Re:Unsurprising by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1
      --
      $ make available
    58. Re:Unsurprising by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who the fuck do you think hates wikileaks the most? The fucking government. People, quit relying on your goddamn governments to save the world and realize they are run by men, not angels.

    59. Re:Unsurprising by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a complete free marketer and I agree 100%. There's nothing free market about special corporate legal protections.

    60. Re:Unsurprising by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Because credit card companies are trust worthy right?... I wish online bank payments were the norm... fuck credit cards. And fuck paypal.

    61. Re:Unsurprising by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      No, people need to STOP USING MONEY SERVICES THAT AREN'T BANKS. There's no reason to declare this paypal nonsense a bank. Just stop using things that aren't banks. Declaring paypal a bank would just give it a large aura of legitimacy. They can still be very shady and do things that are ALMOST illegal.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    62. Re:Unsurprising by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the foreign debt is all in dollars, so what's your point?

    63. Re:Unsurprising by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Same here - any effort that has Paypal as its only option will not be getting my support.

    64. Re:Unsurprising by MikeFM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I stopped using PayPal when they froze thousands of dollars of my assets and started giving away refunds to customers for which I provided valid tracking numbers proving their orders had been delivered. They put me out of business. They made it so it was a nightmare trying to prove they were screwing me because they controlled the records. They started freezing the accounts of my friends and family or anyone they had any reason knew me. Now after several years they have the nerve to send me a bill saying I owe them $800. The whole thing was a nightmare and I will never use PayPal again.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    65. Re:Unsurprising by skine · · Score: 1

      (I'm trying to make an allusion to Animal Farm, person who modded me down)

    66. Re:Unsurprising by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're not.
       
      There are a bunch of places that have missed out on my money because they only took PayPal. Free online games which rely on donations, websites like slashdot, places that do micropayments, charities, businesses, etc.
       
      I will NOT do business with PayPal. Period. I don't care what it's for, or how much it may potentially benefit me. I don't even care if it's just paying by credit card through them.
       
      PayPal is not a bank, is not accredited, can't be trusted, and will NEVER EVER touch any of my money or other financial assets. Should they decide to do ANYTHING, my only recompense is to try to sue a corporation with deep pockets.
       
      When it comes to my money, that's a risk I flatly refuse to take.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    67. Re:Unsurprising by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      When my Dad had to set up a Paypal account to sell online, I showed him the paypalsucks.com site, and he set up a separate "clearing" bank account that he swept the money out of as soon as he could. He's never had any issues with Paypal, but better to lose $300 than $3000 or more.

    68. Re:Unsurprising by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Credit card companies may not be trustworthy either, but there is a large difference between what PayPal can get away with and what credit card companies can get away with. It's far easier to protect yourself from adverse action by a credit card company than it is to protect yourself from PayPal freezing your account or draining your attached bank account and/or credit cards.

      Online bank payments aren't necessarily any better: the benefits and risks are simply different. The one major drawback there is that there is no authorization list for ACH transactions, nor can specific entities be easily blacklisted from making ACH requests on a given account. Anyone who gets the account and routing number can attempt to drain your bank account, and unless there is activity that registers on a given bank's list of things that raise red flags they'll happily send the money on its way. You can only respond after it's happened, and it can be a lot harder to reverse than a fraudulent credit card transaction.

    69. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that the Government found their balls to stand up to China for once, maybe it can do the same with corporations.

      Fail, fail. The government is standing up to China on behalf of a corporation. If our government actually believed in human rights, we wouldn't favor trade with China above all other nations.

      fuck China. They've been nothing but trouble. We don't even oppose them like we did the USSR.

    70. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We actually don't favor trade with China *above* all other nations. You probably read that China had "most favored nation" status at some point and were confused.

      "Most favored nation" status does not mean what you think it means.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

    71. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a good idea. PayPal are a bunch of supercilious arseholes.

    72. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by the design style of that website, there have been complaints against Paypal since its founding in 1998.

    73. Re:Unsurprising by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sigh.

      For the 7385th time Slashdot, repeat after me: there is no censorship of the Internet in Australia.

      A couple of senators have put forward a proposal for a filter, that is all. One much more basic than China's. But this filter does not actually exist and probably never will given its widespread unpopularity. In fact it's not even to the stage of being an actual Bill introduced into the House or Senate yet. It's just an idea at this stage. An issue of public debate.

      Not to say we aren't worried about it or that the idea isn't reprehensible. But it doesn't actually ~exist~ at this point ... which is probably why Sen. Clinton wouldn't really say anything.

      There's a rather big difference between a random Senator saying "I would like to do X", and X actually happening.

    74. Re:Unsurprising by rumith · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is an alternative: try Google Checkout.

    75. Re:Unsurprising by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      That's "proposed"
      That's not the same as real.
      In fact, in this case it's much, much closer to imaginary.

      So unless you can point to some actual Internet filtering in Australia, my original point stands.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    76. Re:Unsurprising by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      You mean the filter that actually _does not exist_ and will never exist?

      My point still stands - it would have been very odd for Mrs Clinton to have labelled Australia as an Internet censoring nation for proposed legislation that has not been put before parliament, and is unlikely to pass if and when it gets there.

      BTW, I happen to live in Canberra, so I know damned well that any current Internet filtering in Australia lives only in the minds of Slashdot readers that never read more than a headline.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    77. Re:Unsurprising by mabinogi · · Score: 0

      I find it very interesting that pointing out that Australia does not actually have filtered Internet results in the comment getting buried with 'Overrated' mods. How can a comment with no moderation be overrated? Particularly when it is debunking a myth.

      Do Slashdot mods these days enjoy the aura of hysterical ignorance that has evolved here over time?

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    78. Re:Unsurprising by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The problem is the lack of alternatives.

      Moneybookers are good, but is closed to Americans because of the difficulties of complying with US anti-gambling laws. It is not a bank, but is regulated by the UK's Financial Services Authority.

      Neither Moneybookers nor anyone else has the user base to be a serious alternative, except perhaps Google Checkout.

      Without competition Paypal have no reason to change.

    79. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe his point was that he understands how to cook a goose, but has no earthly idea what a goose looks like.

    80. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But Australia's censorship is MISGUIDED and INEFFECTIVE, and is also AFAICT NOT UP AND RUNNING. Lots of hot air, really, to impress Senator Fielding and his followers. Maybe he should start a cult.

      I hear that China's censorship is PURPOSEFUL, EFFECTIVE and WELL MANAGED by contrast. Maybe Australia needs to take a look. :-)

    81. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Europe PayPal _is_ a bank, based in Luxembourg, and therefore regulated by the CSSF like any other bank.

    82. Re:Unsurprising by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Banks are corporations too. But they have legal oversight, so they can't just abscond with your money (very easily). PayPal has a well-known habit of stealing money left in people's accounts, so the simple remedy is not to leave it there. Just use the service for making transactions, which is what it's actually for.

      If you run a business, you don't just leave your day's takings sitting on a desk or in your pocket, you put it somewhere safe, where either you or someone you can trust is responsible for its security. Anybody who leaves substantial sums of money in a PayPal account is a fool.

      If a bank did go to the extreme of freezing or taking your funds with no legal authority, you at least have the option of making an appointment to see the manager, then taking the opportunity to systematically break his fingers and kneecaps until you're satisfied.

    83. Re:Unsurprising by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But this filter does not actually exist and probably never will given its widespread unpopularity.

      Don't count on it. Governments have enacted universally unpopular legislation with impunity before. Remember the GST? Which was supposed to make things cheaper and fairer for everybody, but which ended up being another windfall for the government...

    84. Re:Unsurprising by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ...based in Luxembourg, and therefore regulated by the CSSF like any other bank.

      So good luck if you live in another country and have any complaint. Your problem will at best make the bottom of someone's in-tray, and at worst the bottom of a wastepaper bin.

    85. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    86. Re:Unsurprising by mpe · · Score: 1

      This has been going on for many years, with many different groups. Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen. Mayhap Wikileaks should try and dig up information on Paypal.

      Since this is the second time that this has happened to them why did they still have assets for Paypal to freeze.

    87. Re:Unsurprising by mpe · · Score: 1

      The Government has to step up and declare Paypal a bank. Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does) - only the government can do that if you are in breach of laws.

      In which case goverments will pass laws allowing them to freeze assets of people they don't like on a whim. e.g. by calling them "terrorists". It's not like Wikileaks hasn't caught several governments with their "pants down".

    88. Re:Unsurprising by mpe · · Score: 1

      So good luck if you live in another country and have any complaint. Your problem will at best make the bottom of someone's in-tray, and at worst the bottom of a wastepaper bin.

      On the other hand this means that you can probably get a court judgement against them quite easily. So as long as they have assets in your country you get you money back.

    89. Re:Unsurprising by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If the US stopped trading with China, do you think China would still lend millions and millions of dollars to the US government every year?
      US is in debt to China.
      US has made itself China's bitch.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    90. Re:Unsurprising by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Just stop using things that aren't banks. Declaring paypal a bank would just give it a large aura of legitimacy. They can still be very shady and do things that are ALMOST illegal.

      So.. uh... like all the other banks then?

    91. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just an idea at this stage. An issue of public debate. ... But it doesn't actually ~exist~ at this point ... which is probably why Sen. Clinton wouldn't really say anything.

      Wouldn't the ideal time to say something be during the public debate?

    92. Re:Unsurprising by libkarl2 · · Score: 1

      I've avoided doing business with someone because it meant using Paypal. Don't trust them. Likely never will. It seems statistically unlikely that I'm the only one with this attitude toward them.

      Hmmm, I thought *I* was the only one.

      To second apoc.famine...

      A great many businesses have missed a great deal of my business because they are paypal only -- and I am paypal never. It sucks. I almost feel like some sort of Luddite because of my nearly morbid disdain of paypal but as was stated accurately before, they are not a bank. They don't operate on any rules other than their own TOS. I have to assume that are not FDIC insured (correct me if I'm wrong). They represent the way I do not handle my money. Period.

      --
      You are where you are at the time you are there.
    93. Re:Unsurprising by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Which time?

    94. Re:Unsurprising by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Credit card companies are also in the business of letting you spend money and will do everything in their power to keep your account active if it seems like you'll ever pay the money back. I always find my life easier when my aims and the aims of the people I do business with are the same.

    95. Re:Unsurprising by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "The Government has to step up and declare Paypal a bank"

      Paypal is a bank in Luxembourg for several years now.
      Perhaps they should sue there?

    96. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the government that found a new pair, but Google!

      Please don't tell me you buy the crap Google is feeding you. Not only are they're not completely in bed with the PRC, but also that they are acting in any way that doesn't further their self-interest. Then there's notion that "reading somebody's email" is something they don't do themselves about, oh, 10 million times per day.

    97. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the GST? Which was supposed to make things cheaper and fairer for everybody, but which ended up being another windfall for the government...

      I dunno, I opposed the GST at the time of its proposal, but it's actually worked out pretty well. It's a hell of a lot better than 20-30%+ sales taxes. Can you imagine if you were still paying 30% taxes on your computers or digital cameras?

    98. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will only see real (non-underground, suitable for general public commerce) alternatives that aren't, when all else fails, gelded by the IRS and the FBI, like e-gold, or toyed with and abandoned by the banks, like e-cash, when the US govt. stops acting as tax collector, no, highwayman, for the banksters. You will know that day has come when the income tax and the Federal Reserve are abolished, and the U.S. Mint once again issues gold and silver coin and certificates for general circulation.

      This can't happen until we Americans give up bread, circuses, Social Security, and being imperialist tools of the Old/New World Order. Until then, don't hold your breath.

      That said, the only problem I've ever had with Paypal is getting money out of an account under an alias that I established back when it allowed considerably more anonymity. I can still get it, but I have to have a CC, and I just haven't bothered to get a CC with that alias yet. It's just not that much money.

      Knocking on wood...

    99. Re:Unsurprising by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

      violate any law, statute, ORDINANCE or REGULATION

      Yeah, I have a paypal account. Another rule is that you may not use it for any item that is prohibited by ebay because it's an ebay company - even if it's perfectly legal and the transaction outside ebay.

      I didn't sell such an item, but someone I did some small transaction with told Paypal that the item he recieved was against ebay regulations. My account was frozen, eventually the money from that transaction was taken (given back to the unscrupulous buyer) and I was also out of the item. Paypal didn't care.

      Again, a bank can't do this simply play with transactions like that, because, say, it's a tatoo parlor and they're against such a thing. It's not Paypal's job to "enforce" the law by themselves either.

      Take your hypothesis and flush it, because it's crap.

    100. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, you know that paypal europe is a bank based on the netherlands, right?

    101. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vous avez dit...." naming an assortment of "bad" countries (you know. where they nais pas parle englais) "

      On parle francais ici au Canada, et nous ne sommes pas une "Pays Mauvaise"!
      Phouqe

    102. Re:Unsurprising by ThatGuyJon · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of real credit card processors that don't act like thugs.

      Please, please tell me who these are. If there are any UK alternatives which charge less than/similar rates to PayPal, I'll be able to switch to them and won't have to implement PayPal's badly documented API.
      The reason for PayPal's dominance is that everybody's heard of them; if you're a small organisation wanted to easily accept credit cards, you pick PayPal without even considering the alternatives.

      --
      I must be new here...
    103. Re:Unsurprising by throx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's hardly a "random senator". It's the Government's Minister of Communications and he's pushing the fact that they've already done trials and found the filters "100% effective".

      I don't think there's that much "widespread unpopularity" either - it's all couched in "if you're against this, then you're on the side of child pornographers", so people aren't really that opposed to it. It's being played very well by the people who want to control the net over here - never mind that once it actually goes in it will be a nightmare to control.

      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    104. Re:Unsurprising by lpq · · Score: 1

      I and a fair number of citizens don't see a problem with that.

      Instead, they get the political clout of virtually unlimited citizenry to prevent citizens being informed enough to demand such reform.

    105. Re:Unsurprising by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ...you can probably get a court judgement against them quite easily. So as long as they have assets in your country you get you money back.

      As I said, good luck with that. It might be possible for someone with deep pockets and plenty of time to obtain such a judgement, but PayPal's user demographic is entirely based on the assumption that you don't have the resources to set up your own transaction processes, so you just don't have that kind of clout.

    106. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least in europe, paypal IS a bank.

    107. Re:Unsurprising by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trade and wealth are essential for preserving peace

      Hmmm. Why is it then that a nation as wealthy as ours is so often at war, and so violent internally?

      When wealth is built by a handful by exploiting the many, when trade is unfair because of deep inequalities of power, then, no, peace will not be preserved.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    108. Re:Unsurprising by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You probably read that China had "most favored nation" status at some point and were confused.

      It has nothing to do with any bullshit labels that they ever wore, and everything to do with the fact that they are some of the worst abusers of human rights on the planet, yet we send them more money for goods than to any other nation. (I covered already the fact that most of what we get from Canada is crude oil, and Exxon, Chevron, and others account for a great deal of that output, meaning that much of the money never actually leaves the country.)

      "Most favored nation" status does not mean what you think it means.

      You're psychotic, not psychic. I don't think it means (meant, really) what you think I think it means. Why don't you get an account so I can foe you for your stupid assumption? Oh, wait, that must be why. Nobody would end up seeing what you write, with foe and foe of friend modifiers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    109. Re:Unsurprising by Straycat35 · · Score: 1

      Yes, when will it be our time?

    110. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left Pay Pal when they screwed me out of $9,000 on a fraudulent charge back from a customer, in spite of them violating multiple State and Federal laws. They refused to cooperate with the investigation and stonewalled my attorneys and the State prosecutors office in any way the could. Eventually forcing me to just eat the loss.

      I moved to Google Checkout, and Google has sided with me so far on all Charge backs. Only once in the last 2 years have I received a notice from them poking in to my buisness regarding a purchase that they believed to be a travel agency sales (prohibited by their TOS), I simply explained it was for travel expenses that was poorly described and I have never received any other interference from them. The disputes have seem to be carefully investigated, and they seem to actually stand up to the credit card companies for me and take in to consideration my documentation.

      I might add, I am in the service industry. Pay pal does not provide any protection at all for services. Google says it does not, but in every instance has protected me under their seller protection program in spite of them saying they don't and I did not expect them to.

    111. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> At least the French knew when it was time for revolution.

      > There was no TV then..

      True, but they did have bread and circuses in the late 1700's.

    112. Re:Unsurprising by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Why is it then that a nation as wealthy as ours is so often at war, and so violent internally?

      Because our nation seems to think that being involved in every little thing is the only way not to be taken by surprise. For example, after Pearl Harbor the US was shaken out of isolationism, a lot of people thought that if we had been at war earlier, we could have stopped it from happening. After 9/11, many people thought we should have went and destroyed the terror cells earlier to prevent 9/11. In the cold war we had the irrational paranoia of the Domino theory thinking that the Soviet Union had enough spare cash to outfit third-world countries with arms to cause a threat to the US.

      As for violent internally, that is highly subjective. How many peaceful protests have taken place in the US? How many of those would be peaceful in other countries?

      Many of the reasons why the US is more violent than some other countries include A) Lower population densities B) Lack of religious condemnation of violence C) Clashes of cultures and D) prohibition of drugs.

      The US has some areas that are scarcely populated, in those areas its possible to commit a violent crime without being seen, without having any witnesses and its quite possible to get away with it.

      In many other countries, this is not the case, high population densities help to eliminate the ability to commit crimes without being seen.

      In the US, most religions do not openly condemn violence, saying rather that there is a place for violence in some situations. Part of this is culture based, it is generally taboo to condemn the military and anti-culture to say that the revolutionary war was unnecessary.

      In most cities, people of different cultures live side by side, this leads to heightened racial tensions and violence.

      And drugs cause violence, not that drugs are inherently violent, but by forbidding the open sale of some drugs, it leads to people going to shady dealers to buy drugs at inflated prices, this does not sit well with some people so they get violent. Also, due to the sigma around drugs, even having a small amount can lead to people being arrested, a show of violence proves that if that person would tell the authorities about the drugs, they would be hurt. The prohibition of drugs cannot work if there is a supply of drugs, a supply of drugs is inevitable with a large border with Mexico, so naturally violence occurs.

      When wealth is built by a handful by exploiting the many, when trade is unfair because of deep inequalities of power, then, no, peace will not be preserved.

      Peace will be preserved by one of two ways. Either the people with a lot of wealth will maintain control giving peace, or a faction of the poor will rise up and create peace. The more wealth involved, the more often one of the two scenarios will play out.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    113. Re:Unsurprising by mjwx · · Score: 1

      There's a rather big difference between a random Senator saying "I would like to do X", and X actually happening.

      Too right.

      which is probably why Sen. Clinton wouldn't really say anything.

      As an Australian, I'd love to see Sen. Clinton or anyone other significant US polly speak out about Conroy's proposed censorship scheme. It might embarrass Heavy Kevie into doing something about Conroy.

      Then again we have an election later this year so things could get worse for Conroy.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    114. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would just liked to link to this

      http://www.internetblackout.com.au/

    115. Re:Unsurprising by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      The FED is a private bank, owned by 12 banks, (mostly european)

      It about time they audit the fed.

      2012 is the feds 99th birthday, which i think their lease expire.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    116. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a rather big difference between a random Senator saying "I would like to do X", and X actually happening.

      Was that a troll? Score 5 Insightful?

      Two successive *governments* (not Senators) have pushed for the internet filters. The current speaking post is Senator Stephen Conroy, the incumbent minister for communications whom I shall affectionately refer to as 'That Poor Bastard'. 'That Poor Bastard' has completed and *approved* the supposed testing of the internet filters which all Australian politicians want installed to shutup the right wing religious groups who raised the current filtering idea in an unlikely partnership with owners of Australian gambling institutions*.

      So what we have here is an idea supported by some of the wealthiest people / corporations in the country, the largest ideological groups in the country and nearly all politicians in the country. 'That Poor Bastard' has his NBN carrot to wave whilst slotting into place a filtering system to shut-down off shore gambling and cut-off access to disagreeable content. Of course this will end the political career of 'That Poor Bastard' but since the filters *won't work anyway*, 'That Poor Bastard' is actually accomplishing a great deal for the country and it's netizens before he gets blamed for the filters being useless and retires with a staggeringly ridiculous pension.

      *Not speculative

    117. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I suppose they knew the cake was a lie even back then.

      Pugsley fixed my doll...

    118. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that there is an ongoing trial with several Australian ISP's at this minute? They are testing to see if there is any performance degradation.

    119. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can set your PayPal account to require a one-time-password by SMS as well (which PayPal calls a "Security Key"). You can certainly also request and use a hard-token (RSA style) card or fob if you wish.

    120. Re:Unsurprising by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Who isn't a free marketer? The problem is that free markets don't exist in real life.

    121. Re:Unsurprising by mpe · · Score: 1

      As I said, good luck with that. It might be possible for someone with deep pockets and plenty of time to obtain such a judgement,

      You don't need sepcially deep pockets to issue a summons. Especially for a "small claim". If PayPal (or whoever) don't respond to the summons within a fairly short period of time they wind up with a judgment against them. If they do reply, but don't show up at the court they are also likely to lose the case.

    122. Re:Unsurprising by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Without a merchant account? Google Checkout, Digital River, Kagi... With a merchant account? Lots.

      Here's a helpful guide to choosing a CC processor. They even have a page at the end that submits your application to multiple CC processors for consideration. I haven't used those processors personally, but I'm pretty sure they're reputable.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    123. Re:Unsurprising by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      There are several practical issues that you've simply hand-waved off. For instance, there's no "person" there to "throw in jail". The best you can do is force the company to immediately cease business.

      On the other hand, if you can prove particular violations of civil or criminal law, people who control the company can be vulnerable. For instance, the HP "pretexting" issue, Enron failures, etc.

      Consider too, what benefit one can get by causing a service company (say... AT&T or Verizon) to stop business for some period, or forever. Who actually benefits from this happening? Other companies, perhaps. The armchair lawyers, probably. But not necessarily the customer.

    124. Re:Unsurprising by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      -Plenty of people-, and by free market I DO mean something other than the generic term thrown around.

    125. Re:Unsurprising by demigod · · Score: 1

      If our government actually believed in human rights, we wouldn't favor trade with China above all other nations.

      Maybe, if the US believed in human rights, the first thing they should do is stop torturing people.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    126. Re:Unsurprising by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      For example, after Pearl Harbor the US was shaken out of isolationism, a lot of people thought that if we had been at war earlier, we could have stopped it from happening.

      I know it's a popular myth that Pearl Harbor just came out of nowhere, but it's not so. We had been struggling with the Japanese for control of the Pacific for years, and had just placed an embargo on them. Tactically, the attack was a surprise; but strategically, the coming war was obvious.

      As for violent internally, that is highly subjective.

      No, it is not. It is an objective fact that the U.S. has a high rate of violent crime compared to other industrialized nations.

      The US has some areas that are scarcely populated, in those areas its possible to commit a violent crime without being seen, without having any witnesses and its quite possible to get away with it.

      The violent crime rate is actually higher where the population density is high. I don't understand if you're just confused, or if you have some point here.

      Either the people with a lot of wealth will maintain control giving peace

      Oppression by a ruling class of a lower class that is unable to effectively resist is not peace.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    127. Re:Unsurprising by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      See "CEO", et al since they are responsible for the actions of their company and reap the benefits as such, so include the criminal charges too. Problem solved.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    128. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a new online payment system that can't be frozen. I've had my paypal accounts frozen several times over the years for "making money too quickly". Jeeze, they should have thanked me for all of the money I made them.

      Perhaps we need a P2P/crypto-based money system. Bitcoin comes to mind.

    129. Re:Unsurprising by Estragib · · Score: 1

      Yes, they applied for a European banking license in Luxembourg, a country best known for its friendliness towards big financial players and its status as a tax haven in general, themselves.

      Now why would they do that voluntarily? Hint: It's not because they think they should be regulated more strictly.

  2. Burnt twice? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA (such as it is, < 140 chars):

    The SCUMBAGS at PayPal have frozen the assets of http://www.wikileaks.org/ ! I'll withdraw all my money from PayPal as soon as I can!

    So don't deal with the scumbags at PayPal. I suppose they have it for taking donations. Maybe they should have a second bank account.

    1. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately Paypal is really the only option for a lot of smaller sites for whom a merchant account is too much hassle and expense.

    2. Re:Burnt twice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit like this sounds expensive too. Fuck paypal. And fuck banks.

    3. Re:Burnt twice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      YEAH, fuck banks!

      I only accept payment and donations in cash, gold, and cartons of cigarettes.

    4. Re:Burnt twice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot bags of weed, ass grass or cash is my moto

    5. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      When Paypal freezes your account you get your money back in 6 months. This is so that Paypal can give refunds to anyone who requests one during the six month period.

    6. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 0

      you forgot bags of weed, ass grass or cash is my moto

      Hows that working on your website?

    7. Re:Burnt twice? by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately Paypal is really the only option for a lot of smaller sites for whom a merchant account is too much hassle and expense.

      Uh... No... http://www.screw-paypal.com/alternatives/alternatives.html Also, having your account frozen and cash pulled from you bank is a bit of a hassle too. http://www.paypalsucks.com/ Never trust PayPal.

    8. Re:Burnt twice? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      But how much expense is it when customers are turned away because their credit card is refused for no reason (it's happened to me) - and the business is not even aware of the lost custom?

    9. Re:Burnt twice? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      When Paypal freezes your account you get your money back in 6 months. This is so that Paypal can give refunds to anyone who requests one during the six month period.

      When Paypal freezes your account you get your money back in 6 months.

      With interest?

      And if they're doing this so that people can get refunds, then how does that apply if the money in Wikileaks' account is donations?

      Please don't try to make excuses for those scumbags at PayPal.

      It's time to make PayPal pay.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you actually tried any of those? Do you do any sort of serious business online?

      I've tried a few of those and they all have serious limitations.

      From the very article you linked: "No one service can match PayPal alone -- but all of these services exceed PayPal in the customer relations department. With skillful use of two or more of these services, buying and selling on eBay without PayPal is NO problem."

      With skillful use of two or more? The more difficult you make it for your customers to order from you the less money your going to make.

      From the list you linked to:

      Allpay.net -- Recommended for U.K. Only
      BidPay.com -- Out Of Business 2 Years
      CertaPay -- Recommended for CANADA Only
      Checkfree -- NOT RECOMMENDED
      HyperWALLET -- NOT RECOMMENDED
      Moneybookers -- Recommended for ALL
      Nochex -- Recommended for U.K. Residents and Certain Others
      Ozpay.biz -- Out Of Business 3+ Years
      Paymate -- Recommended for Australia & New Zealand
      ProPay -- Recommended for U.S. Sellers
      Xoom -- NOT RECOMMENDED

      So out of that entire list there are only 2 that will let a US seller sell worldwide and are not listed as "Not Recommended". Moneybrokers and Propay.

      I sell software on the internet and I've looked for alternatives to Paypal after having my account frozen.

      Moneybrokers wanted some proof or license or something (I don't remember exactly this was years ago) to show that I had the right to sell my software. After a few less than helpful email exchanges I gave up on them.

      Paypro, from their website, says you have to pay $60 a year to be able to accept all credit cards and you can only receive $3000 a month. This can be increased with a review of your credit and merchant history (if you have any). You can only accept Visa and $1000 a month with their regular plan.

      I guarantee you if you get enough problem transactions any merchant is going to freeze your account and hold your funds for a few months to make sure they don't get screwed.

    11. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      But how much expense is it when customers are turned away because their credit card is refused for no reason (it's happened to me) - and the business is not even aware of the lost custom?

      Really the only solution to that is to process credit cards through your own website using multiple merchant accounts. When a card is declined by a merchant account you have your processing script automatically try another one. Even better you use a merchant account known to work best for the persons country.

    12. Re:Burnt twice? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 3, Funny

      you forgot bags of weed, ass grass or cash is my moto

      Hows that working on your website?

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those three things basically responsible for the proliferation of the internet? Some more than others, I suppose.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    13. Re:Burnt twice? by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absolutely, under no circumstance deal with Paymate. They are even more corrupt than Paypal in my experience. I had an account with Paymate because I didn't trust Paypal any longer (and the fees were obscene). I sold a used game which the buyer then claimed was damaged. After much discussion back and forth (I was clearly in the right as the small claims court has shown) he flat out lied to Paymate saying he did not receive the goods and Paymate withdrew the money from my bank account without any warning. I was only aware of it when scanning my bank account statement weeks later. Trying to sort this out I found out Paymate operated from a nondescript office with only two people. Their contact phone number was't even accessible from their website. Do not trust paymate.com.au

    14. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 0

      Your money (or a percentage of it) being held for 3-6 months for refunds is pretty much how all credit card processors work. Look it up.

      Interest? Well this depends on the your credit card processor doesn't it? These are questions to ask before you start using them. (Interest rates are so low right now whats the point anyway)

      Even when taking donations your still going to get refund requests, for whatever reason. A popular one I've encountered personally is "My kid used my credit card/Paypal account without my permission, I want my money back!"

      Also, I've read that people will use online donations to check if a stolen credit card is active.

      With Visa requiring that merchants keep their complaint rate under 1% it's not hard to see how easy it is to get your account frozen.

    15. Re:Burnt twice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you get marked insightful. There are litterally dozens of alternatives to paypal for smaller sites that are both safe and reliable and for that matter cheaper than paypal. There is this thing called a search engine, use it.

    16. Re:Burnt twice? by bloodhawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very few people, especially smaller sites actually require all the features of paypal, pick one of them that has the features you need and go with it, they are pretty much all better than paypal (with the exception of paymate, not sure why they would be listed there as if anything they are worse than paypal).

    17. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Well really the issue is who does Paypal, or Paymate, believe?

      The seller who says they sent it, or the buyer who says they never got it. Really the only thing they have to go on is does the seller have a low complaint rate, or does the buyer complain a lot? Hell, even if the buyer signed for the delivery they can still say the box had nothing but a brick in it. If you had to decide who do you believe?

      Then there is Visa/the buyers bank that can reverse the transaction at their whim. Leaving Paypal/Paymate/etc out the money plus a fee. This is completely out of their control and you better believe they aren't going to eat the cost if they can avoid it.

    18. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Really? Which one do you use?

    19. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 0

      I don't think accepting donations of "ass, grass, or cash" on your website is a viable business model, unfortunately.

    20. Re:Burnt twice? by schon · · Score: 1

      The seller who says they sent it, or the buyer who says they got it but it was damaged, then says they never got it.

      FTFY

      Seems pretty simple which one is more credible to me.

    21. Re:Burnt twice? by haruharaharu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, what about amazon's checkout service? They seem a bit more trustworthy than paypal, but they'd have to be criminal to be less so.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    22. Re:Burnt twice? by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      Really? Which one do you use?

      I use Shareit and SWReg. I've used them for years and never had a problem with either. Monthly checks/ACH direct deposit.

    23. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if they told the buyer one thing, then told Paymate/Visa something else how is Paymate/Visa supposed to know? How are they supposed to know if the seller is telling the truth about the buyers change of story unless they witnessed the same change of story in their own communication with the buyer.

      And really we are talking about a used video game here. Unless its some super rare game were talking like $20 here and $.90 in transaction fees. Reversed transaction fees range from $10 - $30 dollars.

      How much employee time is a company supposed to use investigating a transaction that makes them $.90, puts them on the line for a $10+ reversal fee, and if they go over 1% reversals by total dollars they risk $1000s in penalties or even losing their ability to processes credit cards.

      Really its the system that is setup to favor the buyer, it doesn't matter who you use to process credit cards, a buyer can easily screw you. Especially, if they know how the system works, and want to use it against you. Thankfully this is a rarity. Most I believe are people who are genuinely unhappy with the transaction and will say anything to get it reversed.

      Its much more economical for sellers to eat the occasional loss than to go to small claims court, which is often the only recourse.

      Sure no one likes getting screwed. But if you watch your buyers feedback (if using ebay [which is harder now that sellers cant leave feedback]), only ship to confirmed addresses, and accurately describe your item, your refund rate should be rather inconsequential.

    24. Re:Burnt twice? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about Google freaking Checkout???

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about amazon other than if you want to sell anything on their site they take 15% and tell you how much you can charge for shipping. Why/how anyone sells books there for $.99 I'll never know.

    26. Re:Burnt twice? by imunfair · · Score: 1

      Amazon has a system that lets you do what Paypal does, or much more with their API, depending on which part of their program you use. http://payments.amazon.com/

      I've only used it for about $500 worth of transactions, but it does work well especially since many people already have an amazon account (there used to be an option for credit card transactions without an account too, but I don't know if it still exists - I can't find it right now)

      Google checkout is the only other major player that I know of, but I never had an opportunity to use their service so I can't vouch for it.

    27. Re:Burnt twice? by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of their checkout by amazon service - it's apparently 2.9% + $0.30 for stuff over $10.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    28. Re:Burnt twice? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Sure, but if they told the buyer one thing, then told Paymate/Visa something else how is Paymate/Visa supposed to know?"

      do you not read?

      (I was clearly in the right as the small claims court has shown)

      It's even in parentheses for effect in the sentence I quoted from!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      It's (I was clearly in the right as the small claims court HAS shown) not (I was clearly in the right as the small claims court DID show)

      You don't go to small claims court until after Paymate/Visa reverse the transaction. There is nothing to sue for if you still have the money.

      Also, do you think the buyer flew from who knows where to defend himself in small claims court over a used video game? It was probably a default judgment.

    30. Re:Burnt twice? by rumith · · Score: 1

      Why does everybody keep forgetting about Google Checkout? They even have a special donations program! And I find Google one of the most trustworthy companies on the Internet nowadays, despite the paranoid anti-Google sentiment common here on Slashdot.

    31. Re:Burnt twice? by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I mentioned in another comment, Moneybookers no longer allows anyone outside the US to sell to the US.

      Also, WTF is with the comment on Xoom. First they say the fees are too high (are they still that high, I thought not.) The comes:

      On the other side a huge list of shady countries like Bangladesh, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Sri Lanka.

      Shady countries? Why? I find that very offensive.

      Essentially they think that the service is used by people working in developed countries to send money to families on poor countries, and they find this objectionable.

    32. Re:Burnt twice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about 2checkout?

    33. Re:Burnt twice? by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

      I agree. I am currently looking forward to a profitable deal with a business partner in Nigeria.

    34. Re:Burnt twice? by tcrown007 · · Score: 1

      That is not true. There is also gunpal.net

      Gunpal.net was created specifically because of paypal draconian policies relating to anything firearms related. If you sell any product that is related to firearms in ANY way, paypal will not do business with you.

      Gunpal is the solution.

    35. Re:Burnt twice? by tcrown007 · · Score: 1

      You should look into gunpal.net

    36. Re:Burnt twice? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Merchant accounts are cheap and easy to get. There's no excuse for not having one.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    37. Re:Burnt twice? by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      For $0.99? Hell, a lot of used books there sell for $0.01! I think the shipping allowance is 2.99 or something.

      Seems like that is enough to be profitable or it wouldn't happen all the time...

  3. PayPal Regulation? by Pearson · · Score: 1

    Is it too much to hope that this will bring Pay Pal to the attention of the US Government and finally get PayPal regulated as the bank it clearly is?

    --
    I...I'm attacking the darkness!
    1. Re:PayPal Regulation? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. It is too much. As of Thursday our government is owned by the huge corporations. No one there is going to care if individuals are treated correctly or even if corps follow through their contracts.

    2. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      it's been owned for a long time before that ruling. all the ruling did was make it legal.

    3. Re:PayPal Regulation? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, yay for leftist idiocy. Did you read Stevens' dissent? Y'know, the thing that would have resulted as precedent had Kennedy voted with Stevens. No? Cause if you had you would have noticed it treated speech strictly as audible noise. Which means, among other things, flag burnings could be banned by any locale that chose to do so because symbolic speech was no longer protected, and any corporation could be forced to give up the names of it's members. Like sayyy, the NAACP. The only difference between now and Wednesday is that the money will no longer need to be funneled through 527s. Which means we'll get who's actually funding various campaign ads. One would think that transparency would be a good thing. Of course, I imagine George Soros would consider it to be bad.

    4. Re:PayPal Regulation? by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Yes. It is too much. As of Thursday our government is owned by the huge corporations. No one there is going to care if individuals are treated correctly or even if corps follow through their contracts.

      They'll start caring the moment the citizens exercise their first amendment right, backed up by their second amendment right. And when the citizens are finished, they can all kick back and enjoy a nice, cold glass of their twenty-second amendment right.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    5. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government was owned by corporations before your parents were born.

    6. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right-wing idiocy is even better. What Stevens wrote is a dissent--the writing of which would not have been necessary had Kennedy voted with him to respect precedent. So whatever he wrote would have been different, probably much shorter because upholding precedent doesn't really require a lot of words. It would have been the lunatic right-wint corporate sympathizers on the Court writing the dissent. This is not a "vote for this piece of prose or the other" kind of business. Learn how things work.

    7. Re:PayPal Regulation? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      This isn't a left or a right thing. Both "sides" seem perfectly comfortable with it.

    8. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could still funnel through a 527 to hide their names in the ads.

    9. Re:PayPal Regulation? by gilroy · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when the citizens are finished, they can all kick back and enjoy a nice, cold glass of their twenty-second amendment right.

      So this is all about presidential term limits? Color me confused.

    10. Re:PayPal Regulation? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Did you read Stevens' dissent? Y'know, the thing that would have resulted as precedent had Kennedy voted with Stevens. No? Cause if you had you would have noticed it treated speech strictly as audible noise.

      Okay, so that would have been ridiculous and would take away some of our rights. That doesn't make the alternative less ridiculous or bad for us. Corporations aren't people, and giving them the same rights was a bad move, they're going to buy and sell elections. I think that's going to end up worse for every citizen who is not a corporation than if we decided speech was noise, those problems you bring up seem pretty trivial in comparison.

      flag burnings could be banned by any locale that chose to do so because symbolic speech was no longer protected

      And many places that would bother already do basically, whether they officially do or whether you'll just be arrested for any other charge they feel like.

      Anyway, I would have gone with a better example, such as "Blashphemy and swearing could be banned in any locale..." since "OMG! I won't be able to burn my flags anymore" doesn't exactly resonate with many people.

      and any corporation could be forced to give up the names of it's members. Like sayyy, the NAACP.

      Or plenty of other organizations like the KKK.

      The only difference between now and Wednesday is that the money will no longer need to be funneled through 527s. Which means we'll get who's actually funding various campaign ads.

      I don't see that. If big oil can now give money directly to canidates instead of making ads for that canidate, the canidate is making the ads and just has to say "I approve this message," right?

      It may be a trivial point in practice, but I think that one canidate with 100 million corporate dollars in his warchest is better off than a canidate with 10 million in his warchest and 90 million being spent by corporations on ads for him, which he doesn't actually control. The canidate who picks his own ads knows exactly what his strategy is and can coordinate ads to match it better than a semi-independant entity.

    11. Re:PayPal Regulation? by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read Stevens' dissent? Y'know, the thing that would have resulted as precedent had Kennedy voted with Stevens. No? Cause if you had you would have noticed it treated speech strictly as audible noise.

      The dissenting opinion being worse does not make the majority opinion a good one, or an improvement over the status quo.

    12. Re:PayPal Regulation? by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      Stevens's opinions are almost always worse, no matter what side he is on.

    13. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Cidolfas · · Score: 1

      The 527's will still, by far, be the weapon of choice. That ad about how wind turbines kill condors so don't vote for Prop 3 will still sound better coming from Americans for Responsible Energy Choices than it will from the Coal Miners Association.

      --
      I am become /dev/null, destroyer of data.
    14. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      It already is a bank - at least in Europe.

      This doesn't seem to help.

    15. Re:PayPal Regulation? by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      And when the citizens are finished, they can all kick back and enjoy a nice, cold glass of their twenty-second amendment right.

      So this is all about presidential term limits? Color me confused.

      lol--oops. That was supposed to be the 21st amendment, not 22nd.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    16. Re:PayPal Regulation? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Did you read Stevens' dissent?

      Apparently, you didn't. There's nothing in Stevens' dissent that would ban any "symbolic" speech by individuals. Can you maybe quote the part of the Stevens opinion that would ban "symbolic" speech?

      You are just repeating some bullshit you read on a right-wing blog. And then pretending to be concerned about someone's right to burn a flag of all things..

      And you think George Soros is going to be hurt by being able to use even more of his money to influence elections?

      I've got to say this, ravenshrike. Among the right-wing trolls here, you're one of the least informed.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The legal fiction of corporations as 'persons' is not based upon legal precedent(ie a ruling).

      It stems from a summary that the court reporter, Bancroft Davis (former president of Newburgh and New York Railway)
      made in the 1886 SCOTUS case Santa Clara County Vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.
      Nowhere in the actual ruling is the issue or legality of corporate personhood addressed.

      Your assertion that someone who would be against this ruling would be a 'leftist' is stereotypical and wrong, said McCain about the ruling:

      "I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

      What keeps corporations from creating others and funneling the money through them? The only transparency coming from the ruling is that it makes abundantly clear who/what runs things in this country.

      Money is not speech, symbolic or otherwise.

    18. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epic failure to correctly identify the 21st Amendment.

    19. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a left or a right thing. Both "sides" seem perfectly comfortable with it.

      "We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

      -- Obama on recent SCOTUS Ruling

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      "It may be a trivial point in practice, but I think that one canidate with 100 million corporate dollars in his warchest is better off than a canidate with 10 million in his warchest and 90 million being spent by corporations on ads for him, which he doesn't actually control. The canidate who picks his own ads knows exactly what his strategy is and can coordinate ads to match it better than a semi-independant entity."

      I don't think political favors work like that. Word would "get around" about exactly what kind of ad the poitician wanted. Considering the stakes, both sides need to know exactly what they're buying and selling - laws for millions.

      Sadly, they'll probably end up with 75% of the cash they had before, but all of the advertising expenses of the campaign paid for, which is probably way more than 50% of the costs (Wild guess on my part, but TV ain't cheap.) This is how they get the cash out, they get to keep whatever is left at the end of the campaign.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    21. Re:PayPal Regulation? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Informative

      W00T! I've attained the status of right wing troll. Even though, assuming the status of troll is correct, it would be much more proper to label me libertarian troll. This would of course require you to differentiate much more broadly on the political spectrum. After all, there's a reason I don't use liberal as a noun to describe leftist idiots.

      "In normal usage then, as now, the term “speech” referred to oral communications by individuals. See, e.g., [various citations]. Given that corporations were conceived of as artificial entities and do not have the technical capacity to “speak,” the burden of establishing that the Framers and ratifiers understood “the freedom of speech” to encompass corporate speech is, I believe, far heavier than the majority acknowledges."

      The conclusions arrived to in Stevens' opinion REQUIRE that you assume all non-oral types of speech do not apply concerning the part of the 1st amendment that refers to speech. Which means that in order to accept his conclusions, you have to assume that no other types of speech exist. This means that things like flag-burning, as abhorrent and juvenile as I personally find it, could be legislated as to be illegal.

    22. Re:PayPal Regulation? by dgatwood · · Score: 0

      Clarence Thomas's opinions are almost always worst, no matter what side he is on....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    23. Re:PayPal Regulation? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      If you can't write a dissent properly advocating your position, then there's probably a problem with your position. Especially since he could have invoked the precedent itself and then expounded properly on why it was correct without also throwing out every other precedent attached to free speech. The latter being what he actually ended up doing.

    24. Re:PayPal Regulation? by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      Ha. I bet you are also one of those fools who refer to him as an "Uncle Tom."

    25. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flag burnings could be banned by any locale that chose to do so because symbolic speech was no longer protected

      And a million conservatives all had an orgasm at once. Hell, they could even start working on those "anti-blasphemy statutes" I'm sure they pass around drafts of at the weekly Ayn Rand circlejerk.

      any corporation could be forced to give up the names of it's members. Like sayyy, the NAACP.

      I'm pretty sure that you can figure out who's a member of the NAACP pretty quickly without a court order...

    26. Re:PayPal Regulation? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      No SHIT Sherlock. Of course McCain is disappointed. They more or less told him his legislation was crap. Which it was. McCain Feingold was an obviously unconstitutional piece of legislation.

      As for your assertion on the corporate personhood issue, you're not very good at this. The thing came up during oral arguments, where the Chief Justice said "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." which would directly refute your claim that such an idea was made up out of thin air by a court reporter. Moreover, Conkling himself, one of the people that drafted the 14th amendment, argued before the court in 1885, that the word person in the 14th amendment was meant to refer to legal persons as well as natural persons. Moreover, it was a matter of settled common law centuries before that.

    27. Re:PayPal Regulation? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This post makes it extremely evident that you didn't skim or read the opinion. Or go to any in depth legal blog and read their opinion of the opinion. The limits on direct contributions are still in place.

    28. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the citizens are finished, they can all kick back and enjoy a nice, cold glass of their twenty-second amendment right.

      A cold glass of presidential term limits? Eh?

      I think you mean the 21st amendment.

    29. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      The conclusions arrived to in Stevens' opinion REQUIRE that you assume all non-oral types of speech do not apply concerning the part of the 1st amendment that refers to speech. Which means that in order to accept his conclusions, you have to assume that no other types of speech exist. This means that things like flag-burning, as abhorrent and juvenile as I personally find it, could be legislated as to be illegal.

      No, it would mean that it wouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment. Technically speaking, unless they can somehow rationalize prohibition of flag burning as serving one of these few purposes, Congress has no authority to do so. Of course, given the idiocy of legal precedent that's elapsed since that document was written, the courts would probably rule that as flags can be made in one state and sold in another, the regulation of the burning thereof is conductive to the purpose of regulating interstate commerce...

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    30. Re:PayPal Regulation? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Yes, and as soon as we're all transferred to a universe in which that's actually paid attention to, it'll be all good. Until that day however, given the reality we actually have to work with, things are kicked back under the various amendments ignoring the 9th and 10th. This may change, assuming of course that the P&I clause wins out in MacDonald v Chicago.

    31. Re:PayPal Regulation? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      I don't like the KKK, but I don't like that you seem to be implying that they don't have the same right to protection of any other organization while operating within the bounds of legality.

    32. Re:PayPal Regulation? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Please show us where in the US Constitution it says that the federal government has the right to tell corporations how many resources they can give to individuals and NGOs.

      It may be a problem that corporations can give huge sums of money to campaigns. (But only because of the problem that the voters do not research the candidates and think for themselves, but allow themselves to be sold by glitzy advertisements.) But it not within the power of the federal government to regulate it. The solution is with the people, not with the government.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    33. Re:PayPal Regulation? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Please show us where in the US Constitution it says that the federal government has the right to tell corporations how many resources they can give to individuals and NGOs.

      On the other hand, corporations only exist as the result of government legislation. Personally, I don't see any obvious constitutional or ethical problem with legislation requiring corporations to behave (or not behave) in a certain way as a prerequisite for corporate status. They would still be free to give away as much money or resources as they like to whomever they like, provided they were willing to give up the legal protections and other benefits accorded to a corporation.

    34. Re:PayPal Regulation? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      With a few exceptions (i.e. banks as the constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate banking), companies are incorporated with a state.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    35. Re:PayPal Regulation? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see; you're objecting specifically to the prospect of federal legislation, not of legislation per se? So if the sort of laws in question were passed at a state level you'd be fine with them?

      (Personally, I find it difficult to understand the importance many Americans place on the separation of federal and state government powers, but it's not something I would care to argue about one way or the other; if that's the way you like your government, far be it from me to complain!)

    36. Re:PayPal Regulation? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Primarily I am objecting to the prospect of legislation that violates the constitution. Once the government can pass whatever laws it feels like, the people are in trouble.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    37. Re:PayPal Regulation? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Uh... no.... It has nothing to do with his race. In fact, until you mentioned it, I had completely forgotten that he was of African descent, and when you said that, I had to think about it for several seconds just to figure out what you could be implying.

      I think his opinions are consistently fringe opinions that trample on the Constitution with regularity, voting to protect laws that harm the public and voting to overturn laws that protect the public. As far as I'm concerned, such blatant disregard for the public good has no place on the People's Court, much less the Supreme Court. Strict constructionist views have no legitimate place in law, IMHO. Literal interpretation of the letter of the law without concern for who is harmed is not justice. It's mechanical logic. If you can replace the judge with an expert system and get the same rulings consistently, that's a pretty clear sign of a bad judge.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    38. Re:PayPal Regulation? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      OK, but do you think the putative legislation would violate the constitution if passed by the states? Or only if it were a federal law?

    39. Re:PayPal Regulation? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      It would not violate federal law if a state passed it. However, most states have constitutions with very similar rights and restrictions as the federal constitution.

      I would be upset if my state passed such a law. But I can move to a different state quite easily, whereas moving to a different country can be difficult.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    40. Re:PayPal Regulation? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I would be upset if my state passed such a law.

      Why? It seems a reasonable prerequisite for the special privileges accorded to a corporation.

    41. Re:PayPal Regulation? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I guess. I would support putting it to the voters in a proposition at the state level.

      But even if passed, I do not think it would work. Corporations will just give money to employees with a nod and a wink and the money will end up with campaigns anyway. Or they will have to funnel it through a few intermediaries.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  4. Please don't use paypal by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Paypal is just a horrendous disaster area. Just please DO NOT use paypal, either as merchant, or as purchaser. If a service only supports payments by paypal, just tell them that your sorry but you will not buy their service.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:Please don't use paypal by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      If a service only supports payments by paypal, just tell them that your sorry but you will not buy their service.

      I do that. They are usually amazingly surprised. Then they will frequently take a personal check. Funny that... :)

  5. More info, please by Dorsai65 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is PayPal freezing the account? What happened the first time, and what agreement was reached to thaw the account?

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    1. Re:More info, please by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2

      +1. I really think the editors jumped the gun putting this through. Most worthwhile stories get submitted to the fire-hose multiple times, so why not wait for a submission that actually gives a bit of background, rather than just linking to a twitter post that was obviously written in the heat of the moment?

      In addition to your questions, I'd like to know what PayPal has told them, if anything. It's all well and good to scream, "censorship!", but if this is just a bureaucracy stuff up, then this is not really news - PayPal does this all the time.

    2. Re:More info, please by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't have the answer to your question, but this site suggests their problems may be from not jumping through proper hoops to prove it is a non-profit.

      PayPal usually suspends non-profit organisations, because PayPal have to comply with local taxation laws involving the tax exempt status of such organisations, and with the world wide anti-money laundering red tape and bureaucracy.

      You end up having to send them details of your charitable status, or, failing that, proof that you have a bank account in the name of your group etc.

      The site also describes how wikileaks is "deep linking" a graphic on their site that may cause problems with keeping anonymity, though I can't see how that is related to the suspension.

    3. Re:More info, please by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      but if this is just a bureaucracy stuff up, then this is not really news - PayPal does this all the time.

      That in and of itself should be news. I am amazed what they get away with, and no one seems to know.

    4. Re:More info, please by badasscat · · Score: 1

      I am amazed what they get away with, and no one seems to know.

      Because actual banks never get away with anything like this, despite all the regulations?

    5. Re:More info, please by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      ...but if this is just a bureaucracy stuff up, then this is not really news - PayPal does this all the time.

      That's the heart of the problem, though. When it happens to Wikileaks, it gets attention, but PayPal pulls this crap constantly. With Wikileaks, it isn't a big deal, but only because they have enough clout to get things fixed. Most people that PayPal screws like this don't have that much clout, so PayPal walks all over them. I'm all for this getting media attention, if only to cast a spotlight on PayPal's shady dealings and hopefully make people mad enough to get them investigated, fined, and declared a bank subject to the consumer protection laws that apply to the banking industry.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:More info, please by ZPWeeks · · Score: 1

      I've gotten a non-profit I volunteer for verified with PayPal. It's not "click a button on a webpage" easy, but it's "send a fax and talk with a human being at PayPal" easy. For the smalltime org I did this for, I'd be surprised if Wikileaks hadn't done this as due diligence.

  6. maybe I'm missing something but... by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your organization used Paypal and they froze your assets once, and you "struggled for more than half a year" to resolve it, why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?

    1. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by mauriceh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are precious few alternatives. How else on the net can you easily solicit contributions / donations?
      The real problem is that Paypal has no competition.

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    2. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your organization used Paypal and they froze your assets once, and you "struggled for more than half a year" to resolve it, why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?

      My sentiments exactly! "Get burned once, shame on you. Get burned twice, shame on me."

    3. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      But they promised they'd be nice this time!

    4. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by s-whs · · Score: 1

      If your organization used Paypal and they froze your assets once, and you "struggled for more than half a year" to resolve it, why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?

      Because they would probably need to setup many bank accounts in many countries. It's probably also ease-of-use. Easy to press a few buttons and fill out an amount with paypal and transfer money, than to transfer using say direct bank-transfer. This means people are more likely to donate...

      Another example: I use paypal but I'd rather not. However, I sell specific items worldwide, and there are no other good wide used systems to transfer money from say the USA to the Netherlands. Bank transfer is something hardly used in the US for example, and if used, the cost is often prohibitive. So if I want to sell to the US, there's no real choice.

      What's then annoying is that many Europeans (in euro countries) also use paypal... In Ebay you are not allowed to say "I won't use paypal for people in counties using the EURO".

      This doesn't apply to wikileaks, but just gives an idea why sometimes you don't have a choice, or the others are just too expensive (bank transfer in the US too expensive, Western union is also fairly expensive and has other problems, etc.)

    5. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Macrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.kagi.com

      Existed long before PaySuck started.

    6. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by terraformer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes it does. www.gunpal.net

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    7. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are precious few alternatives. How else on the net can you easily solicit contributions / donations?
      The real problem is that Paypal has no competition.

      That's right - especially if you're catering to the online geek crowd.

      Another alternative is for them to take credit cards over the web: software, (maybe) gateway, and merchant bank account. And I don't know how the credit cards are on small payments these days. It use to be that anything under $5 wasn't worth it because of the transaction fees up the chain and you'd end paying them. Like I said - used to be - I don't know.

    8. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by dissy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your organization used Paypal and they froze your assets once, and you "struggled for more than half a year" to resolve it, why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?

      Probably because a little bit of money most or even some of the time, is a whole lot better than no money none of the time.

    9. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      What do they do instead of freezing your account?

    10. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Nowadays I have found it's anything less than 1.50 isn't worth it, depending on your volume. Most places wont let you debit card something less than $1 so it's somewhere around there.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    11. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?

      In addition to the convinience issue others brought up, probably because they thought they had cleared up whatever problem there was the first time and because they were taking the extra step of directing it to Wau Holland Stiftung.

    12. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by terraformer · · Score: 1

      They don't freeze your account. They don't care what one happens to be spending their money on unless there is a valid LE warrant or judicial action. They act like a bank. They are a bank. They were created so gun owners could have an alternative to pay pal because our accounts were getting frozen every time we bought even the most innocuous gun related part like a new grip. Pay pal is pushing their morals on their users. Even after flea bay bought them and more ironically one can buy things off of flea bay that fall afoul of Pay Pal's TOS. Figure that one out.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    13. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.kagi.com

      Existed long before PaySuck started.

      Good luck getting all anonymous cowards to donate their precious $5, $10, $20 via an online system they have never heard before (and may not trust).
      I know it would be a show-stopper for me and my donations; and I am somewhat tech savvy and could discern between phished vs non-phished sites.

    14. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by stms · · Score: 0

      For the same reason why people use windows (even though it crashes constantly) because it's a widely accepted standard.

    15. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, it's unfortunate that there is little competition if two people want to send money to each other internationally (I was caught out by this recently - Paypal have decided they're going to refuse my credit card, with no reason given, and there's no way to contact them - their contact page times out, and they haven't heard of this thing called "email"; I used a bank transfer, but the fixed fee means it's more expensive for smaller amounts).

      But for organisations, surely there are better ways? I mean, here in the UK even B&Bs have started taking credit/debit cards.

      On top of that, national transfers can be done for free simply by giving their bank account details.

      About 12 years ago when I released some shareware software, as well as accepting cash, I used a 3rd party company that offered a system for shareware authors, that meant people could pay me via credit/debit card. If I as an individual managed that, 12 years ago, what's the problem for an organisation? Or has the competition really be cleaned out by Paypal since then?

    16. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      "Get burned once, shame on you. Get burned twice, shame on me."

      ...and we won't get burned again.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      There are precious few alternatives. How else on the net can you easily solicit contributions / donations?
      The real problem is that Paypal has no competition.

      The real confusion here for me is why PayPal was not just a single avenue that they received contributions via. They should have been transferring funds out to a real deposit bank immediately upon receipt.

    18. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      You're not missing anything...

      Why the fuck would ANYONE use PayPal? They want a shit load of personal info on you, including bank account numbers, etc, and if you follow all their rules to the letter and someone else breaks them when doing a transaction with you they can, and usually do, freeze your account, and it can take up to 180 days to get your money. I got burned a couple of years ago and I haven't been back since - it's just not worth the hassle.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    19. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that PayPal walks like a bank, talks like a bank and acts like a bank, but has so far been able to avoid being classified (and therefore regulated) as a bank. I'm not big on regulation, and my solution was to simply not use them anymore, but the FTC should crawl up PayPal's ass with a microscope. I'm pretty sure that's their Porsche in the parking lot...

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    20. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by rduke15 · · Score: 1

      ... windows (even though it crashes constantly) ...

      This is completely off topic, but you may be interested to know that Win9x/Me is not used anymore. It is now safe for you to come out of your cave again. (Of course, now there is this virus/worm/trojan thing some people are complaining about; the times keep changing)

    21. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Google isn't evil anymore apparently, so google checkout might be a reasonable option.

    22. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > There are precious few alternatives. How else on the
      > net can you easily solicit contributions / donations?

      Okay, I know this is going to sound a bit wacky and hopelessly out of the dernier cri web-2.0 fashion loop, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest... perhaps you could just, umm, you know, ask people to send you money?

      I know, it's crazy talk. Obviously, nobody would ever donate money to anything if they couldn't use PayPal to do it. Clearly, the whole economy would collapse without PayPal, because there's no other way to send money anywhere.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    23. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Google checkout supports donations for non-profit orgs and political contributions.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    24. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just had a BSOD in Windows XP the other day, bro.

    25. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Google checkout is the first thing that comes to my mind, but there are lots of other ways to take money on the web, authorize.net and a simple web form?

      Its not hard really. You do realize that not everyplace accepts paypal right? Using paypal pretty much always puts you at a disadvantage as every method to get money in the account results in loosing the security that the previous form had, be it checking account or credit/debit card, both of which are actually regulated, unlike paypal.

      Its not like using paypal makes you anonymous or anything that would be an advantage over just using your credit card directly.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    26. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Interesting. However, it would be nice if they opened that up for individuals (sole proprietorships) which having only one stakeholder may be run however he or she deems fit, including functioning like a non-profit. Getting official non-profit status may be prohibitively difficult for many one-man non-profits.

      Also I'm not a fan of the rather large list of prohibited items. I would rather see them just replace the list with a prohibition on illegal, and grey area items, and on items where special regulations exists where Google checkout may have difficulties.

      Pretty much everything on the list is already either illegal, grey-area, or regulated in a way that could cause problem when isong google checkout, with the exception of the "Adult goods and services" category[1], and "Academic paper-writing and test-taking services"[2].

      [1] These items are often regulated such that those under the age of 18 may not purchase them, however having a valid credit card implies that the person in question is at least 18. In fact that is the only method of age verification still in common use on the internet.

      [2] While these pretty much have no legitimate use, they are generally not illegal, although use of the services in the most common manner may qualify as fraud.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    27. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Nobody makes it quite as easy - but are there not many online payment processors who provide web-based APIs for you to integrate your site with? It requires slightly more sophistication - and all the anti-fraud and whatnot measures that paypal does would have to be handled by you (well, or you would accept transactions at your own risk, deal with chargebacks directly, etc...)

    28. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I said above, how about Google freaking Checkout?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    29. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people. That's funny.

      Point to one Windows install that wasn't maintained by a techy type that ISN'T infected. I seriously doubt one exists. Every mom & pop computer in the country is infected. They all think the one AV that came with the computer protects them completely from everything. Hence the reason we have 95% spam.

    30. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?

      Because donors find it easy to contribute with just few clicks using Paypal.

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    31. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Cywiro · · Score: 1

      Probably because a little bit of money most or even some of the time, is a whole lot better than no money none of the time.

      How is this "insightful"? No money none of the time sounds good to me.

    32. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      No money *none* of the time probably wouldnt be so bad.

      I think you meant no money *any* of the time :-p

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    33. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      In the EU a bank account number works pretty good-Direct transfer with no fees. I would donate to account. But i don't use paypal. So they loose my donation, as does any OS software I use that has only paypal.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    34. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``If your organization used Paypal and they froze your assets once, and you "struggled for more than half a year" to resolve it, why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?''

      Network effects. They use PayPal because many other people use PayPal. This makes it easy for people to donate. Had Wikileaks not used PayPal, many people who would otherwise donate through PayPal would be forced to find another way, and decide not to bother.

      I also use PayPal, but (1) I live in Europe, where PayPal is more strictly regulated, and (2) I make sure to keep my PayPal balance low, so I don't lose a lot if it becomes inaccessible.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    35. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Ten to one it was due to either a hardware fault or a faulty third party device driver. :-)

    36. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      "No money none of the time" doesn't sound bad to me.

    37. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You can get student credit cards before you are 18. A lot of people in high school have them.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    38. Re:maybe I'm missing something but... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Yes, and as I understand it, it is possible to deliberately exclude such cards when doing transaction processing. In fact I believe by law those cards are debit only, and unlike most debit cards they cannot be processed as though they were a credit card, but must be processed as debit. If that is in fact the case, by requiring processing as a credit card for such transactions would work just fine.

      But I may be mistaken. I an certainly not an expert in the credit card industry.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  7. Unacceptable by s-whs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Paypal's behavious is unacceptable in many ways and it happens to many people.

    The most annoying thing is when you couple it to ebay, and anoying buyers file a not-received or not-as-described claim when it's clear they couldn't have received it yet, or you told them it was delayed because you were, say ill. As has happened with me.

    The bad thing is that this partly or wholly freezes your business section that depends on that. Unacceptable.

    Paypal and Ebay were once pretty good, the former because payments via bank transfer for small amounts internatioanlly were so expensive, but all that is gone now and the fees for large sums are also far too high...

    I suggest everyone use bank tranfers in EURO countries. IBAN/BIC payments are free if done with shared-cost.

    1. Re:Unacceptable by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Now you are owned by the dark lord.

    2. Re:Unacceptable by vranash · · Score: 1

      The payments may be free, but I imagine the VAT is not? And I imagine they expect it on all bank to bank transfer for goods and services? Disclosure: I'm just a dumb American, so I don't know much, beyond large government organizations like taxing commerce, intra or inter state.

    3. Re:Unacceptable by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the rest of Europe but in Germany VAT is usually already contained in the price. That's how brick-and-mortar stores do it and that's what people expect.

      If the bag of chips says it's 99 cents then it really means it's about 83 cents with 19% VAT factored in. Still, I need to pay 99 cents so that's what the sign says.
      If you sell something on eBay (commercially) I expect VAT to be your problem. If your item sells for 10 EUR then I give you 10 EUR + s/h. It's your business to make sure the state gets its money, not mine.

      As for VAT on bank transfers, that's something I've never heard of. The VAT on bank transfers may as well be 1900000% as bank transfers within Germany (at least those that I know of) are free. I'm not sure about the rest of the Eurozone but the few international transfers I've made have not resulted in additional cost to me at least.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:Unacceptable by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I suggest everyone use bank tranfers in EURO countries. IBAN/BIC payments are free if done with shared-cost.

      +1 on using the Eurotransfer (I think that's the official name for this type of money wire). You need the IBAN of the recipient and the BIC of his/her bank. It's inexpensive and safe.

      That said, there is a latency of 3 banking days, and the recipient is not automatically notified by e-mail, which sometimes introduces more delays. Still, it's an amazing service, and USians are really missing out on a good thing, for not having this.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  8. Probably some low level drone who didn't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I doubt this is political. Paypal is notorious for freezing accounts based on some internal drone's mistake or a some programmed tripwire. There are countless horror stories about this: http://www.paypalwarning.com/ http://www.paypalsucks.com/frozen-accounts.shtml When you outsource all your employees and pay them 5 cents an hour or whatever slave wage they pay foreign workers, you get what you pay for.

    If it is political, then Paypal, as an organization is of unfathomable stupidity.

    1. Re:Probably some low level drone who didn't know by rhizome · · Score: 1

      I doubt this is political. Paypal is notorious for freezing accounts based on some internal drone's mistake or a some programmed tripwire.

      No, Paypal is notorious for giving drones and programmed tripwires the ability to freeze accounts without having an established process for redress. This is a political decision on their part.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    2. Re:Probably some low level drone who didn't know by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If it is political, then Paypal, as an organization is of unfathomable stupidity.

      What would be stupid about it? Who would ever catch them at it? They can just claim that it was for one of the usual reasons, and who can prove otherwise?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Probably some low level drone who didn't know by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      I agree... the quote that goes something like 'never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence' sounds like it kinda fits here. Friends of mine have had their PayPal accounts locked for similar, kneejerk reasons

  9. bunch of whiners by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    it's not like there is no alternative to pay pal. Just use something else.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:bunch of whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      such as?????

    2. Re:bunch of whiners by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      it's not like there is no alternative to pay pal. Just use something else.

      For example?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:bunch of whiners by Dana+Larsen · · Score: 1
      Sure we can "just use something else" than Paypal when they block people for political reasons, and we can stop using Facebook when they ban accounts for the same lame reasons, and we could find a different search engine if Google starts blocking political sites, and we could build our own Internet if the USA started trying to block political websites like China does...

      Paypal also often does this kind of thing to members of the cannabis community.

    4. Re:bunch of whiners by v1 · · Score: 1

      it's not like there is no alternative to pay pal. Just use something else.

      Please list some of these wonderful alternatives.

      As much as I hate to say it, paypal is becoming the de-facto method of paying for things on the internet and the de-facto method of accepting free donations. Think of all the times you see a "help support us" link on someone's page, with a paypal logo/link? I can't even recall off the top of my head the last time I saw a donation link that wasn't paypal.

      I'm not saying paypal is good, they're not. But right now they're practically the only game in town. So what alternatives do you recommend? Whatever they are, they need to at least be able to draw from a credit card or bank account, and need to be quick and hassle-free for the payer to set up and start using.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:bunch of whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Google have some sort of Paypal-like checkout system?

    6. Re:bunch of whiners by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Sure we can "just use something else" than Paypal when they block people for political reasons

      Yep--sounds like a good idea...

      and we can stop using Facebook when they ban accounts for the same lame reasons

      Yeah...

      and we could find a different search engine if Google starts blocking political sites, and we could build our own Internet if the USA started trying to block political websites like China does...

      Oh--wait, I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to make rational reactions sound insane so someone else steps in and fixes your pet problem.

      I don't use paypal anymore because they are retarded. But I don't want anyone (like the government) to step in and 'fight' on my behalf.

      I still use Google, but I don't allow cookies or scripts to be run, and I have stopped using the Google account I created years ago. I also block the stupid Google Analytics scripts that *everyone* seems to be running these days. But I don't need the FTC coming in and slapping them down because they know 'everything' about retards who don't browse safely.

      The point is, if enough people find Paypal to be a pain in the ass, or an inconvenience, they will leave and paypal will go out of business. Alternatively, someone else might start a company that does the same damn thing and do it better. They will win over all the people who hate paypal. (When I saw the gunpal.net link someone posted, I read it as 'GNU'pal.net and thought 'Damn--that's a good idea'.)

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    7. Re:bunch of whiners by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Whatever they are, they need to at least be able to draw from a credit card or bank account, and need to be quick and hassle-free for the payer to set up and start using."

      You answered your own question. Credit cards and bank accounts (debit cards). Businesses and charities don't seem to have a problem with them. Yes, they cost money to use and set up. They are also regulated.

      Anyone who uses paypal to manage money that they aren't willing to lose is a moron.

    8. Re:bunch of whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.h2epayment.com/, though they appear to charge more for the service.

    9. Re:bunch of whiners by mauriceh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, " stolen" from another post, but this way YOU get the answer to your question:

      http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fsb/0802/gallery.paypal_alternatives.fsb/

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    10. Re:bunch of whiners by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's not like there is no alternative to pay pal. Just use something else.

      For example?

      Here is a list...
      http://www.screw-paypal.com/alternatives/alternatives.html

      Here is a list...
      http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fsb/0802/gallery.paypal_alternatives.fsb/index.html

      And some more sites...
      http://www.paypalsucks.com/
      http://www.paypalwarning.com/

      I mean, did you even look at all?

    11. Re:bunch of whiners by Ninth+Marion · · Score: 1

      The problem is people are looking at it from two different perspectives. As someone accepting money there are plenty of alternatives, as shown in that link. Yet as someone paying money, there's no real choice as everyone accepting seems to use Paypal! I'd love to boycott Paypal as a customer/donator but it's the standard. So I have to boycott the majority of things on the internet; whether it's buying the new album from an indie artist or donating to a charity. To anyone transacting business or asking for donations, please God don't use Paypal - then we won't have to consider boycotting you over their actions.

    12. Re:bunch of whiners by deimtee · · Score: 1

      There's a fundamental difference between using a service like paypal and having sites directly charge your credit card or bank account. One is a "push" system, where you decide how much goes, the other is where you give them the ability to "take" and trust them to take what they are supposed to.
      I may not like paypal much, but if I paypal $10 to some unknown on-line store for some gadget, that's all I risk. No big deal if it never turns up.
      No way will I, or most people, give unknown on-line sites access to my credit card details, or even worse, direct debit authority.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    13. Re:bunch of whiners by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

      I did. All of them suck.

  10. pecunix among others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Paypal has a long history of doing this sort of thing to people.

    In addition to that, they have a history of requiring personal information from people (due in large part to US law)

    I believe it's time for an alternate, non-US based payment processor to take the place of paypal, the problem is there are so many to choose from. I like pecunix for their security (and the fact they aren't US based.. and use a market-maker approach, which helps to create competition in the exchange rates)

    But what about others? how come we're held hostage to paypal when other systems exist?

    1. Re:pecunix among others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to that, they have a history of requiring personal information from people (due in large part to US law)

      I believe it's time for an alternate, non-US based payment processor to take the place of paypal, the problem is there are so many to choose from. I like pecunix for their security (and the fact they aren't US based.. and use a market-maker approach, which helps to create competition in the exchange rates)

      With the PATRIOT Act, do you really think our illustrious Government would allow that?

      Terrorists, drug dealers, kiddie porn purveyors, and BAD PEOPLE could use it to take our Freedom away!

    2. Re:pecunix among others? by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I believe it's time for an alternate, non-US based payment processor to take the place of paypal

      How about http://cash-4-you.567-364-224.wig47w.cz?

      If you don't think their URL looks legit, wait 'till you see their account signup page that was designed in FrontPage 97.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    3. Re:pecunix among others? by thestudio_bob · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe it's time for an alternate, non-US based payment processor to take the place of paypal

      I agree, I have a very rich uncle in Nigeria that has a large sum of money and we need a bank account to get this up and running. If you don't mind posting you full name, DOB, SSN and bank account info then we will get started right away.

      We'll gladly pay you $40,000,000US for the inconvenience and helping us out!!

      --
      The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    4. Re:pecunix among others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists, drug dealers, kiddie porn purveyors, and BAD PEOPLE could use it to take our Freedom away!

      Yeah when really only the government should be allowed to sell/outsource/give away our freedom.

    5. Re:pecunix among others? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      The requiring personal information will not go away, as it is essential to stopping money-laundering. Any financial service that lets you move large amounts of money swiftly is subject to these rules, just about anywhere in the world.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    6. Re:pecunix among others? by tcrown007 · · Score: 1

      No non-US source can operate successfully in the US. why? becasue the banks are regulated. All US banks are prohibited from doing business with anyone the US government or some unelected policy wonk says not to. If you cant' transfer money to this non-US entity via any american bank, how are you going to use them?

      Everyone here is cyring for paypal to be regulated like a bank. That would change the problem, but would still be a problem nonetheless.

  11. Wikileaks is webbugged! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It seems that there is a image from "alainfishing" on wikileaks main page. Read this interesting article about this:

    https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikileak/2010/01/paypal-suspends-donations-to-wikileaksorg-who-then-web-bug-their-own-website.html

    1. Re:Wikileaks is webbugged! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks to me like someone ripped some code for the paypal form and forgot to change the deep linked image. There are much easier ways of tracking visitors than this, if it is what you purport.

    2. Re:Wikileaks is webbugged! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does your URL contain an @ sign? You know that means that your article is hosted on spyblog.org.uk (not hostingprod.com), right?

      Looks fishy...

  12. Why? by pitterpatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to see some indication of what prompted Paypal to do this. Not that it would make a lot of difference, but "because we could" would lead to a different attitude on my part than "because they were a source of malware that kept making unauthorized deposits into their account."

    Not that I think either of those is likely to be their public explanation.

    1. Re:Why? by malkavian · · Score: 1

      Possibly as it may have been used to fund criminal activity? Quite a few of the things Wikileaks publish aren't legal in many countries that they are active in (i.e. membership lists of the BNP with the menbers' home addresses). If they're up to something and paying for the info, and it's falling foul of legal departments, then it could well be under investigation..
      Either that or it's a normal screwup.. But in the WikiLeaks world of doing quite clandestine things, I'd be surprised if they weren't under investigation now and then.

  13. Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What ever will wikileaks.org do without the excellent customer service, transparent and fair practices, and fantastic service charges provided by Paypal? Guess I'm not donating to them anymore.

  14. Try not to use Paypal or any eBay company. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try not to use Paypal, or any of the abusive companies owned by eBay. Never vote for anyone associated with eBay.

  15. Western Union by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Things called money orders. Keep the cash in a safe deposit box. You really won't miss that 1.25% interest from a bank account either.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Western Union by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause people who want to donate a few dollars are going to go through the hassle of sending a money order. Anyone accepting donations exclusively through the mail can expect their donations to decrease by WELL OVER half.

  16. One word: by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Monopoly. Where else can you go?

    Aside from any EULA, how can this be legal? I can understand if there is fraud going on and courts get involved but this is purely political extortion/theft.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:One word: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Aside from any EULA, how can this be legal?

      Campaign contributions, son...campaign contributions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:One word: by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Paypal isn't even close to a monopoly. Hell, both Google and Amazon offer equivalent services! People who think Paypal is a monopoly are just too goddamned lazy to do a Google search.

      And you know what? The less Paypal you use, the less of a monopoly they become. AMAZING HOW THAT WORKS.

  17. Fsck Paypal use revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try revolution. May paypal rot in hell.

  18. The only sane way to use Paypal... by knarf · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...is to empty the account every day. There is no sense in keeping any amount of money within their graps as they have shown time and time again they will freeze access without real cause or warning.

    I was part of the collective to buy i-Opener machines from the failed Netpliance company. We used Paypal to collect fund from participants as that seemed to be the best way at the moment... How wrong we were... Paypal froze access to the account once it had accumulated enough money for them to be profitable to draw interest from. Of course they did NOT block payment into the account, just access to the funds. They had no real reason to freeze the account and ignored their own rules in both freezing and unblocking the account. They just sat on the money for a month or two, drawing interest from it. When they finally unblocked the account - again without giving any reason whatsoever - the deal with Netpliance had almost bounced.

    Paypal is not a bank. Don't treat it as a bank. Don't entrust them with your money. Don't give them access to a debit account, only to a credit card.

    Paypal, in short, can not be trusted. Use it at your own peril, only use credit cards so you can reverse the transaction. Never ever accumulate any real amount of money on a Paypal account.

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
    1. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...is to empty the account every day. There is no sense in keeping any amount of money within their graps as they have shown time and time again they will freeze access without real cause or warning.

      Also, clean out your bank account. They have the right to go in and take money back out of your bank account. In some cases they can even overdraft you, so make sure you do not have overdraft "protection."

      Or just don't use the cheating bastards.

    2. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by WarlockD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Banks CANNOT Freeze your assets for no reason!

      Stop trolling. I have been hit when they released debit cards for the first time. Getting a -$200 balance for just a few under $5 purchase made me scream, but it was clearly listed in the fine print and the "fees and schedule's" document. I keep track now and haven't had an overdraft since.

      As long as you have a balance in the bank you have the right to go to that bank and take out all the money and close the account. Unless a COURT ORDER was obtained to freeze your account, the bank cannot just "take your money" Even then there is a list of exceptions and a process to get your money.

      Paypal could hold your money for no reason other to protect other users agents "fraud" With the exception of putting a civil case to them, they can do anything they want. Take a look at the User agreement. Once nice clause in there "We may hold your funds for up to 180 Days if reasonably needed to protect against the risk of liability..." So if they "think" something is wrong, they lock you out for a quarter and there is nothing you can do and kill your business. A bank can't do this arbitrarily.

      Paypal is nice for sending small funds from one person to another, but you NEVER keep your business balance in that.

    3. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 1

      ...is to empty the account every day. There is no sense in keeping any amount of money within their graps as they have shown time and time again they will freeze access without real cause or warning.

      Also, clean out your bank account. They have the right to go in and take money back out of your bank account. In some cases they can even overdraft you, so make sure you do not have overdraft "protection." Or just don't use the cheating bastards.

      I only use Paypal for small ebay stuff, but cringe ever time I use them for exactly this reason.

    4. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Probably a good idea not to give them access to your credit card, either. They're a pretend bank, and much like a child's pretend grocery store, you don't want to do actual business with it.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not saying banks can freeze your account for no reason. He's saying that any account you give PayPal access to can be drained by PayPal, so don't give them access to accounts.

    6. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by WarlockD · · Score: 1

      If that so, then I made a mistake. I met to many morons who don't trust banks with their money and keep it in their damn closets.

    7. Re:The only sane way to use Paypal... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      If that so, then I made a mistake. I met to many morons who don't trust banks with their money and keep it in their damn closets.

      That would have been funny a few years ago. These days it is making sense, almost. :)

  19. working mirror by toxygen01 · · Score: 2, Informative
  20. Alternatives listed by Fortune/CNN by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problems with PayPal are so infamous that no less than Fortune/CNN listed five alternatives

    1. Re:Alternatives listed by Fortune/CNN by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That's a useful article, granted, but the issue I see is: I've never heard of any of those, and I am guessing none is any good outside the US.

      Plus, I assume the kind of problems a poster at sibling level mentioned with regards to Digital River, exist with others - it's healthy to be cautious.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  21. Don't use PayPal by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is really the fault of the person who decided to keep their assets in a PayPal account. And this isn't the first time? Well, they just don't learn do they.

    PayPal can freeze accounts for any number of reasons, of which very few have to do with the owner of the account. If someone pays you with a stolen card or from an account that is suspected to have been compromised, that can trigger a freeze. Their support is notoriously bad, and their instructions for re-enabling your account are always overcomplicated.

    Let this be a lesson to anyone who receives money with PayPal.

    Money received => withdraw immediately

    NEVER HOLD A PAYPAL BALANCE.

    Always be ready to redirect payments to a backup account.

    1. Re:Don't use PayPal by clintp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad it's +5, this should be +6 Insightful.

      Treat PayPal like the liquor store down the street that sells money orders and does Western Union wires. Sometimes they're a necessary evil to get money from point A to B. But you sure as hell don't keep your retirement money and the cash assets of your business in the store's cash register.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    2. Re:Don't use PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should also move the money that is withdrawn to a seperate account, not the one that is connected to paypal. The account that connects to Paypal should be kept sparsely funded.

    3. Re:Don't use PayPal by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Very very true. Our business sweeps the cash out of Paypal into our online merchant bank account *nightly*, and we sweep *that* account into another count nightly as well. Paypal is a necessary evil, but there are ways to protect yourself (we actually discount our service if people switch from paying with Paypal to credit card upon paying our invoices).

    4. Re:Don't use PayPal by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      This is really the fault of the person who decided to keep their assets in a PayPal account. And this isn't the first time? Well, they just don't learn do they.

      I'd assumed there was the usual fail in the /. summary, but the wikileaks page does indeed say "frozen WikiLeaks assets". I still suspect this is a mistake with the wording however - taken literally it could only mean Paypal has appointed an administrator and taken over all the assets (presumably Wikileaks has at least a computer as a physical asset), which seems unlikely. All that's been frozen is the Paypal account.

      This leaves a question unanswered as to whether there was a lot of money in there at the time. Perhaps Wikileaks were very stupid, or had some specific reason (e.g. they make a lot of Paypal payments and this minimises fees, or they fear regular banks even more).

      Or perhaps they had little money in the account but they had to shut down expensive operations in order that they could maximise the duration that their available banked funds will keep them on life-support, since little more will be coming in. An sensible course of action given the only obvious alternative. This theory appears to be supported by the first line on their website:

      To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have reluctantly suspended all other operations

      A lot of posters have questioned Wikileaks' use of Paypal. That's the wrong question - you should be asking why lots of people use Paypal. Wikileaks needs donations from people. They need to be as convenient as possible for as many people as possible to make donations. LOTS of people won't make a donation if they have to make an account with some other provider for that sole purpose. They detail numerous other (still available) methods of making a donation, but I bet at least 90% comes through Paypal.

    5. Re:Don't use PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't even use it if I wanted to. I live in Europe and don't have a credit card. I have tried to buy something online using PayPal once and it simply couldn't be done, which is kind of annoying since all internet shops seem to be using it. On the bright side, at least this way I won't empty my wallet on useless stuff from the internet.

  22. Jumping the gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing really wrong with PayPal on the whole, the average person really has not a clue the amount of fraud that is attempted and prevented via PayPal.

    What people bitch about is the fees, and that is their only axe to grind.

    If money has been frozen it is BECAUSE someone has attempted to defraud someone. What likely has happened is that someone donated to wikileaks with a stolen credit card one too many times and it automatically triggered a freeze.

    I don't know why people complain about not being defrauded. Paypal is at the very least one step ahead of the banks in preventing fraud.

    Do you know how the ACH system in the US works?
    If you know, anyone's checking account number, you can basically defraud the hell out of them and the banks will allow it till the person catches on.

  23. What are human rights ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fail, fail. The government is standing up to China on behalf of a corporation. If our government actually believed in human rights, we wouldn't favor trade with China above all other nations.

    Why treat China differently than our own country? The Supreme Court just ruled that only corporations have rights.

    Oh, sorry, I jumped ahead. That's the next week's chapter of America's March Back to Plutocracy.

    1. Re:What are human rights ? by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

      Where's my +1 Ultra-cynical?

      --
      Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
    2. Re:What are human rights ? by youngone · · Score: 1

      The headline of the article above this one reads"Russian Whistleblower Cop Arrested". Makes one think. I would characterise the US government as plutarchy, according to Wikipedia's definintion: "Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy". "An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony".

  24. They're probably even slimier than we think by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Every time I buy something with PayPal, I wind up getting inundated with fake "update your account" requests and various other kinds of PP-related spam. This is on a system scrubbed by various effective anti-spyware and anti-virus programs and, sometimes, even an on-line scan. The only logical conclusion is that PayPal is at the bottom of the problem.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:They're probably even slimier than we think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, yeah, spam has little to do with malware and spyware on your own computer. Email accounts get phishing scams even if their users have never even encountered a virus from places like Bank of America, UPS, Western Union, and yes, PayPal.

      What you describe is just a popular means of phishing...whether you have a PayPal account or not, and certainly regardless of how "scrubbed" your computer is.

      PayPal's business practices are plainly questionable to begin with, and the Internet is littered with actual horror stories of dealing with them. There's no need to fabricate accusations--especially ones as weak as this.

    2. Re:They're probably even slimier than we think by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. Weeks or months will pass without any of these phishing attempts landing in my in box/spam box. Then I make a PayPal purchase. Starting within about an hour and continuing for the next week or two weeks, the e-mails start. This has happened seven or eight times now over a two year period.

      Clear enough?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:They're probably even slimier than we think by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Maybe you did need to update your account.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  25. Bet Kennedy still supports "Free Speech Zones"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whereas political speech by corporations falls under the protections that:

    There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers

    I betcha Kennedy still supports using "free speech zones" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings to impose restrictions uniquely on disfavored political speakers.

    So how soon until the ACLU "finds" (creates) an opportunity to appeal an individual's conviction for failure to confine his/her political speech to a restricted (cordoned-off) area so they can cite this case's majority opinion?

  26. mnb Re:PayPal Regulation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see that. If big oil can now give money directly to canidates instead of making ads for that canidate, the canidate is making the ads and just has to say "I approve this message," right?

    Your lack of understanding of campaign finance law is so vast no one link will suffice. Read at least enough to prevent so blatantly displaying your ignorance before further posts, please.

  27. No SEC or FTC Oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it that Paypal escapes the oversight of the SEC and the FTC? One or the other should come to bear on them.

  28. Cash contributions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From http://wikileaks.org/ :

      Cash or cheques
    You can support us by posting cash, cheques or international money grams to one of the following addresses:

    All countries

            WikiLeaks ICT
            BOX 4080, University of Melbourne
            Victoria 3052, Australia

    USD, EUR, AUD preferred. International cheques are best over $800 to avoid fees. If sending cash, please place it in a non-transparent envelope or a CD case for maximum security.

    Kenya

            WikiLeaks ICT
            PO Box 8098-00200
            Nairobi
            Kenya

    Other addresses are available on request from wl-supporters@sunshinepress.org

  29. Mod parent up by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the link to the paypal alternatives.

    I've already commented here so I can't mod, but you deserve a big +1.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  30. My personal PayPal horror story by Eric+Freyhart · · Score: 5, Informative

    My horror story with Paypal starts many years ago. I had a personal account with them since something like the late 90s, and never once had an issue with them. That was before I went into business for myself, and converted the account over to a business account around the year 2000. What a mistake.

    Now, let me just state the following:

    - We sold books, novels, and prints.
    - We sold works that were NOT adult.
    - We sold works that we clearly had the copyright on.
    - We were an independant publisher.

    I learned oneday that the account had been closed due to a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. Well, we were in the business of self publishing, things like science fiction novels and fantasy books. We sold online through our own website and through Amazon.com. I contacted Paypal and got a nice lady on the phone who went over our online web site with me on the phone and could not find what would have been a violation. So the account was re-activated...

    Oh, then a few months later same thing. Account closed. This time with this message...

    In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.

    I tried for over a month to get the account back in good standing, but was constantly told that the decision was final and there was nothing I could do. We sold everything on our main website through Amazon.com also (who never had any issue with the books we printed), and they also accepted Paypal as a payment method. Still to this day I have not been told a reason, nor given any information on why this action was taken. We simply gave up on Paypal and converted the site over to a real merchant account.

    3 years ago I sold the company and the assets to another publishing firm. I started a new enterprise under a new LLC and opened a Paypal account again. No problems, no issues. Oh, I must have been an idiot to think Paypal was not going to do it to me again...

    Well, my new account is now closed. It seems that Paypal has not blocked the company from using the account, but they did blacklist me. As soon as we went in to convert the account over to a business account I entered my SSN and wham! Account closed due to the original violation from over 3 years ago.

    Now, I was under the assumption in the United Stated that you could not blacklist a person from your business unless there was a dam good legal reason. And why won't they tell me what in the world I did to violate their user agreement? Its like being tried, convicted, and sentenced without as much as a ray of hope to prove your not guilty.

    I had a service rep fom Paypal (a manager) go over our new website (we sell clothing) and could not find a single thing that could possible violate any policies from Paypal, nor could he find any reason for this decision. But it is final, and over with.

    To make a long story short, I am now blacklisted from ever using Paypal again. No reason, no explanation, no way of proving that I am not guilty, and no way to do anything about it. It has been, to this day, the most horrible experience I have ever gone through. I kept getting the impression from Paypal that I was some sort of pornographer. I feel ashamed and tarnished by this decision, and will have to deal with it for the rest of my life.

    I personally recommend to anyone who asks me to stay away from Paypal. NEVER use this company, as you have NO protection under law from any harm they cause you or your company.

    Get a real merchant account. With a merchant account you deal directly with the credit card companies and

    1. Re:My personal PayPal horror story by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Now, I was under the assumption in the United Stated that you could not blacklist a person from your business unless there was a dam good legal reason. And why won't they tell me what in the world I did to violate their user agreement? Its like being tried, convicted, and sentenced without as much as a ray of hope to prove your not guilty.

      Excuse me, but where in the world did you get an idea like that? There is no "criminal" penalties associated with this so the formal concept of "guilt" doesn't apply.

      A business can simply choose not to do business with you at any time for any reason, even a secret one. Under some circumstances, and in some businesses it may not be legal to not do business with an individual because of race. In even rarer circumstances it may not be legal to not do business with someone because of gender or other miscellaneous reasons that have been ruled as discrimination against a protected class. Note that you are always safe denying business to a white male under the age of 40.

      PayPal is a business and they can choose who they want as a customer. Evidently they don't like you. There is no legal recourse in the US and there probably isn't in Europe either. When the government can dictate who a business has to serve, it is time to find another business to be in quickly.

    2. Re:My personal PayPal horror story by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      PayPal is a business and they can choose who they want as a customer. Evidently they don't like you. There is no legal recourse in the US and there probably isn't in Europe either. When the government can dictate who a business has to serve, it is time to find another business to be in quickly.

      But you *can* sue them for the theft of your account balance.

    3. Re:My personal PayPal horror story by David+Jao · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A business can simply choose not to do business with you at any time for any reason, even a secret one.

      Conversely, a potential customer can choose not to do business with Paypal at any time for any reason, or even for no reason whatsoever. The fact that Paypal terminates accounts arbitrarily and confiscates balances arbitrarily with no right of appeal is a damn good reason not to do business with them, regardless of whether or not they are acting legally. So I see nothing wrong with avoiding Paypal, or recommending that others avoid Paypal, or explaining why doing business with Paypal is a bad idea -- which is exactly what the GP did.

    4. Re:My personal PayPal horror story by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Moving to a merchant account won't necessarily stop this sort of problem. My wife had a similar experience with American Express.

  31. Why do they keep significant assets there anyhow? by vanyel · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...especially if they've had the problem before! Although I've been using Paypal for over 15 years with no problems at all, I still don't let the balance there get too high for exactly this reason.

  32. Just why is there funds being held? by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

    Just why is there funds being held? And why cant wikileaks sue the crap out of paypal the for holding there money for no good reason? And isnt this the biggest reason to read the fine print/hire a Lawyer, for companys like paypal/any company holding our money? Thats no small sum of money being held.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  33. Dept. or debt? by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    I thought China was interested in the US is so they can one day recover the obscene US dept they financed.

    Only the one with a "b" is a matter of public record AFAICT ;-)

  34. Contact PayPal and Ebay by omb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Europe, at least, Ebay is a Swiss AG, headquartered in Bern, Switzerland

    Helvetiastrasse 15, CH-3005 Bern, Switzerland, Telephone 00 41 31 359 06 59

    and they are, of course, the Beneficial owners of PayPal.

    both of which, used to be a Luxembourg SARL, Luxembourg allows bearer shares.

    Under the Swiss-EU accords, judgements obtained under EU law, in member countries,
    are enforcible in Switzerland and thus in Kanton Bern. You can assume they speak
    EN DE FR IT, but if you want to give legal notice do it in one of the Swiss official
    languages ie DE FR IT

    Thus I suggest you write to the Geshaftsleiter (Ebay|PayPal) at the above address.

  35. Square, if it materializes, could have an impact by linuxtelephony · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Depending on whether or not square allows its service to be used by websites in addition to the physical swipe of the card, then Square could be going right for PayPal's jugular. Of course there are other variables too - sign up process, fees, etc.

    --
    . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  36. I contacted Wikileaks by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's their response to my question:

    Hi,

    we are sure that we will get to the money at some point in time. Direct banking transfers generally are much better for us, as that prevents this issue from happening. If you can reverse it, and want to transfer directly, its fine by us. But cant say how much of a hassel that is.

    Thanks for the support and the solidarity!

    WikiLeaks

    On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:46:47PM +0000, Arancaytar wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I donated to you via Wau-Holland (using Paypal) on Jan 19. Should I
    > > attempt to reverse this payment in order to make a bank transfer
    > > directly (and is there any chance of that working)?
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > --
    > > Arancaytar

  37. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP!!!

  38. Email your Congressman or MP! by pearl298 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is an issue which every politician should help to resolve. The few honest ones who actually support open government might actually do so!

    I sent this email to my US Congress Representative - Harry Mitchell D-Arizona 5th District http://www.mitchell.house.gov/

    "President Obama was elected on a promise of more openness in government. One of the organizations which support this goal is a website known as WikiLeaks. http://www.wikileaks.org/

    Wikileaks does not accept government money in any form, but rely on independent donations. It appears that today PayPal has suspended their account as WikiLeaks struggles to raise funds for their 2010 expenses.

    Quote from the website:
    "Paypal has as of 23rd of January 2010 frozen WikiLeaks assets. This is the second time that this happens. The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue. By working with the respected and recognized German foundation Wau Holland Stiftung we tried to avoid this from happening again -- apparently without avail.

    We are working on resolving this issue as fast as possible. Please use our bank accounts for direct transfer in the meantime, or contact wl-donations@sunshinepress.org for any further questions.

    WikiLeaks is not the only non-profit organization with this problem. This is a regular occurrence, that from our perspective should not be tolerated by the global community using this payment system."

    This appears to be politically motivated and something which should be investigated!

    I am sure you will agree that this is not merely an issue between private parties, but one of immense importance to supporters of open and accountable government everywhere.

    As your constituent, I urge you to use whatever influence that you can bring to bear to investigate this situation and to expose whatever wrongdoing is involved - wrongdoing by EITHER party in this dispute.

  39. Google Checkout. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Checkout.

  40. Dude.. What's wrong with pornographers? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Even if you had been a pornographer, it'd still have been wrong of them to just freeze your account. Pornography is a legitimate business in the United States.

    On a more serious note, not to diminish the gravity of your classism, why the F are they taking your SSN? They're not employing you, or paying into the social security system on your behalf so they shouldn't need that number. Too many people get away with taking that number and correlating it to things which only serves to make it too precious to ever mention.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Dude.. What's wrong with pornographers? by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      They require SSN for unlocking your account, claiming "for security reasons".

    2. Re:Dude.. What's wrong with pornographers? by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      hmmm I could be wrong but he was converting to a business account. I'm pretty sure SSN is required for tax documents etc associated with business accounts. Don't get me wrong, I agree in general with your sentiments about mis/over-use of the SSN but in this case it seems like SSN use isn't that out of the norm [shrug]

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    3. Re:Dude.. What's wrong with pornographers? by techhead79 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Companies use their own taxID, not an individual SSN.

    4. Re:Dude.. What's wrong with pornographers? by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      Only if it is an actual company. Applying for a business account doesn't mean he is anything more than a person doing enough sales to qualify for, or desiring the benefits that, require a business acount. And for a sole proprietorship your SSN is also your taxID.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
  41. PayPal should be put on oversight by jonfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    PayPal should and needs to be put on oversight from a bank regulator. What it does cannot be left un-regulated as it is today. Abuse of this of part of PayPal is all too common. Use google to find more examples.

    GoogleCash also needs to follow under the same rules as PayPal. However I am yet to hear of this type of case from GoogleCash as I do with Paypal.

  42. personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My old paypal account hasn't been frozen, instead Paypal decided to steal 340euros, on a self-reported, by both parties, phishing case. Victim had fallen for a phishing site, and her account details were used to order some services from my company worth about 170euros.

    She contacted me quickly about what had happened, asking me to send the money back. At the time (not sure do they still) there was no "refund" option for businesses (this was many many years back), therefore i informed, with all details i know, this to paypal. She did the same. Nothing happened, despite multiple contact attempts to paypal for months. After quite a few months, they took 340euros from my account (twice the amount in question), and never refunded the money to the phishing victim.

    Any contact attempts were futile, money was never returned.

    After which i stopped accepting Paypal, and used moneybookers. 80% of all payments to my business was made via Moneybookers a bit later, and it was quite a competitive advantage.
    I didn't use paypal again after 4-5years, and now conduct low volume business transactions through it, on a new account.

    Posting AC as i don't want any kind of chances of freezing on my new account.

    Oh paypalsucks.com has full of these stories AND there's a urban legend going on that even janitors used to have access to your account details... Paypal is the most evil (and overpriced), and unfriendly to their customers, business i know off.

  43. This is just dumb dumb dumb. by barfy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Paypal and any other donation service needs to be used as a conduit only. Only enough money needs to be kept in the conduit to keep it active.

    All other moneys are swept daily. And placed in normal operations, excess moneys need to be dealt with in order to help defeat single bank actions. Preferably under whatever shells you need..

    If you are at all political, multiple conduits need to have already been investigated, and ready to be set-up in a single days notice.

    Merchant accounts are NOT that expensive.

    They are in talks to change the laws in Iceland. Surely they have somebody bright enough to come up with a way not to get fucked over by paypal again. They should simply not have access to enough cash to take you down.

    SHAME!

    1. Re:This is just dumb dumb dumb. by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      And one more thing: the account used to send/receive funds to PayPal should be used for no other purpose, and should be emptied at COB daily (if not more often). Only if/when transfers need to be made to someone else should money be placed in the account.

    2. Re:This is just dumb dumb dumb. by new2_60605 · · Score: 0

      Merchant accounts are IMPOSSIBLE to get these days even for NEW legitimate businesses. Emerging companies have to goto paypal and google checkout (more secure for same price) to be able to conduct business. If these companies can unilaterally decide to freeze assets it hurts their legitimacy and is counter to their fiduciary duty to their share holders. It was because of stunts like this that the company I worked for decided long ago to switch to Chase Quick Pay and Google Checkout because PayPal can not be trusted and the only money they keep safe is their own. When PayPal first opened they were a legitimate escrow service now they are a sham organization trying to shave points on all electronic transactions going through their house.

  44. Crooks get assets frozen, news at 11 by jensend · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'm not the biggest fan of PayPal, and I know they've made a lot of bad moves in the past. But this seems to me to be just the system at work as it ought to be. Wikileaks has broken all sorts of laws, caused tons of harm to people, and undermined the rule of law. If anyone expects to have any privacy in the modern world then Wikileaks has to be held accountable for its irresponsible actions. Everybody's pager messages from 9/11, copyrighted works, non-newsworthy military secrets only of use to the enemies of the US whose release endangers those serving in the military, etc. I feel safer knowing their assets are frozen, and so should you.

    1. Re:Crooks get assets frozen, news at 11 by tobiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That could be viewed as flamebait, but you raise a valid point, so I'd like to offer a valid response. Wikileak's account was not suspended because they were convicted by any government of violating any particular law. They were convicted by PayPal itself, in the court of PayPal, in a manner that does not resemble any system.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    2. Re:Crooks get assets frozen, news at 11 by cbreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is not the duty and right of random corporations to commits act of vigilante justice. Until Wikileaks is sentenced by a court, they should not be punished. And once they are, the govermnent should punish them.

      The world would be quite a chaotic place if everyone could do anything under the guise of enforcing his own law.

    3. Re:Crooks get assets frozen, news at 11 by hkick · · Score: 1

      I agree - somehow even i had this information, but look at them, they are trying to prove paypal is a crook. Leaks is good but certainly not something that endangers people. If its not that site people can use other sites to leak information. Either clean up your act or have your account frozen, obviously wikileaks is being funded by terrorists.

  45. Typical Slashdot slander. by MrPerfekt · · Score: 0, Troll

    No wrong could possibly ever be done by the end user. It's always PayPal's fault. Ridiculous!

    Half of the things that wikileaks does is borderline illegal. I'm not saying that the things they expose don't, but there might be better means of doing it. I have no idea if Wikileaks has broken the ToS but it's perfectly within PayPal's rights to freeze an account for fraud.

    9 times out of 10, it's an automatic restriction put in place by various fraud rules. It happens and is also why PayPal doesn't lose their ass to fraud.

    PayPal for the record of course wants to become a bank. But it's a long slow process to do so. Stop acting like PayPal is trying to skirt the law by not being a US bank. It's more of a hassle sometimes to not be and certainly costs more in the end.

    --
    I just wasted your mod points! HA!
  46. I won't contribute one thin dime to Wikileaks by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I considered supported Wikileaks - until they pulled their "we have money to operate, but we're shutting down until we get more" stunt. They don't get another dime from me, as they've proved they can't be trusted.

  47. I contacted paypal by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1
    I wrote them an E-Mail:

    I just want to express my disdain for your freezing of wikileaks' assets. In our times wikileaks is an important tool of democracy.

    If wikileaks (thanks to you) ceases to exist, politicians can finally cash in bribes again to their heart's content, without fear of being exposed. Congratulations! I hope you are proud to be henchmen of censorship!

    It may not be much, but I couldn't bear to keep my contempt to myself.

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  48. GoogleCash not affiliated with Google. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Informative

    GoogleCash also needs to follow under the same rules as PayPal. However I am yet to hear of this type of case from GoogleCash as I do with Paypal.

    All valid points, but I just wanted to quickly add that Googlecash is not affiliated with Google. Seems scammy to me.

    -FL

  49. A friend of the devil is a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://windows7.digitalriver.com/store/mswpus/en_US/DisplayHomePage?resid=Sz0R7QoBAiMAAFSTQGQAAAAx&rests=1264300968472

    Even microsoft doesn't trust paypal with their money, and they wipe their ass with millions in dead-end projects.

  50. PayPal isn't quite that bad. by hk117 · · Score: 1

    I've used PayPal in a business capacity for several years now. It helps support me through my company (a sole-proprietorship IT consulting bit) by allowing me to process credit cards. Those things are quickly becoming a fact of life in business...

    Anyway what I really mean to get at is that PayPal has treated me better than any of my banks have. When somebody pays me, the transaction takes no more than 5 minutes and then I have money on hand. I can either wire it over if I have a few days, or use their plug-in or my debit card to purchase things directly from my account. While they do not have anything really resembling customer service, they usually don't seem to need it, IMO.

    I once had an eBay transaction that went sour. I got all huffy and upset that they reversed the charges. I quickly became an enemy of PayPal, screaming their injustices. What happened was that I had been selling some spare parts and one of them went outside the United States. The Canadian yokel that got them just decided to screw me and I hadn't really created a trail of accountability because I was unprepared for out of country transactions (no tracking, etc). PayPal was in the clear to reverse it because there was really no proof that I ever shipped it to him. That was my fault, but I've learned since then and that company has allowed me to eke a living for myself without having to bow down to the merchant services that involve monthly fees and other stupid crap.

    Just felt like sharing that not every story with them is a bad one.

    1. Re:PayPal isn't quite that bad. by cheros · · Score: 1

      Look, umm, sorry, but that just won't do. You can't just go and report positive things, that's not the way things are done here. You are in danger of being labelled a shrill by the mutinous crowds baying for blood (that's enough sarcasm. ed).

      Sarcasm aside, I think it would be interesting to find some *facts*. The problem with any kind of reporting is that you only ever see where it went wrong, not where it went right, so your story is interesting (and also more honest that most would dare). I lost my site at GoDaddy a week ago. Did I complian? No, because I forget to change the CC details (mainly because I was changing to Squarespace anyway), but they still allow you FTP access to a site that's down so it wasn't a problem to get my data out. I could have gone screeching at GoDaddy, but why? *I* screwed up, and I still use them for other things..

      But I sure missed an opportunity for headlines :-)

      Thanks for the comment.

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  51. Fuck Paybay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I donated $50 to wikileaks via PayPal - so this really infuriates me;
    I have sent Paypal and email demanded thay refund my transaction or I will chargeback - So I can re-donate the money to WL without interferance.

  52. Digital River is a joke by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Informative
    Back in '99, Digital River was doing electronic software delivery. I love this bit:

    "Digital River understands that small business owners need that cash immediately," explains David Heath, CEO of Matrix Games, a computer game company that has worked with Digital River for three years.

    Funny, Digital River never paid the company I worked at...at all. They sold hundreds of copies of the software, and didn't send our company a fucking dime. Ever.

    Got so bad, word had to be spread via online forums, usergroups, and dealers that DR wasn't paying the company, and nobody should do business with them.

  53. Too much, too soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow a lot of wild speculation as to why this happened. But if you go to the wikileaks.org site, they are doing a fund-raising drive right now. It's possible that they collected a lot of money in a short amount of time ... they said they needed just under $200k and they raised $130k of it already? That is a lot from PayPal's perspective ... probably a dramatic increase in what they are used to seeing for this organization.

    Every single merchant account will cut you off if you go over a pre-approved amount in a short amount of time. My company had it happen to us before (2Checkout). They are essentially floating you a loan until they get paid from credit card companies. Based on the stakeholder's PERSONAL income, etc. they determine a credit line. If you cross it, they freeze. Our rep at PayPal has told us that -- if we're running a promotion or something we think will trigger a dramatic increase in sales -- to contact him so he can run interference before the fraud department freezes our account.

    Since this happened on a Saturday, it's possible that they met some sort of threshold for their account. There seems to be a lot of angst about PayPal, but if you play by their rules, all is smooth. We've used them as our primary merchant account (using their PayPal Website Payments Pro API as well as their Express Payments products) since 2002, and they are very responsive to our phone calls and emails. They've never once shut us down. (Knocks on wood.)

  54. In Australia, PayPal is regulated by dingram17 · · Score: 1

    PayPal Australia has an Australian Financial Service Licence (AFSL 304962), which means that they are subject to regulation in Australia. Their licence can be viewed here at ASIC. Interestingly, they are a member of the Financial Ombudsman Service, so there is external dispute resolution. Is this the case for other countries? If not, then perhaps WikiLeaks should have its Paypal fundraising based in Australia (WikiLeaks ICT). I use PaySmell only when I have to, which usually involves an ePay purchase. They have my CC details and that is it. For person to person transfers EFT with internet banking is the way to go. Now that PayPal is required for eBay sales I've stopped selling through eBay. The weekend classifieds work quite well, and for small items there is no charge from the major local paper.

  55. consider Google Checkout by alizard · · Score: 1

    I dumped PayPal years ago. AFAIK, the kind of horror stories that are common with PayPal don't appear to be happening yet with Google Checkouts.

  56. Can't find PayPal? WHOIS.NET reports: by LandGator · · Score: 1

    Registrant: Host Master PayPal Inc. 2211 North First Street San Jose CA 95131 US hostmaster@ebay.com +1.4083767400 Fax: - Administrative Contact: Domain Administrator eBay Inc. 2145 Hamilton Avenue San Jose CA 95125 US hostmaster@ebay.com +1.4083767400 Fax: +1.4083767514 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Host Master PayPal Inc. 2211 North First Street San Jose CA 95131 US hostmaster@ebay.com +1.4083767400 Fax: -

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  57. Even the death penalty by mykos · · Score: 1

    I would LOVE if a corporation could commit crimes so egregious that they could be chopped to pieces and auctioned off.

    Then corporations would stop treating fines and settlements as just another "cost of doing business".

    Some companies break serious laws on purpose because they will profit more than the fine.

    1. Re:Even the death penalty by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would LOVE if a corporation could commit crimes so egregious that they could be chopped to pieces and auctioned off.

      That would simply screw the small-time investor, and still let the executives cash their stock options and move on. No, what you need to do is hold the CEO personally responsible for everything a corporation does. He's moved on between the deed and it's surfacing, fine: drag him to a court kicking and screaming, confiscate all the proceeds of the crime, and then send him to jail, just like any other criminal.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Even the death penalty by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would simply screw the small-time investor,

      Good. The small-time investor who is not scrupulous about choosing his investments, and instead makes them based on monetary decisions, is as much to blame for the power of the corporation as anyone else. In the aggregate, they manage to do an amazing amount of damage. If you had to be choosier about your investments based on the corporation's potential to fail the ethics test, then perhaps people would be a bit more moral about what they do with their money.

      I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone who loses their ass because they invested in evil. I feel that the fact that you do says something very bad about you.

      No, what you need to do is hold the CEO personally responsible for everything a corporation does.

      This will never work without limits. I have an alternate, similar proposal. Limit executive salaries to the sum of the people who work directly for them, and force them to share the responsibility if any of those people commits a crime during the course of their work. This helps solve the problem of ridiculous executive salaries and institutes a reasonable chain of responsibility. Attempting to induce someone to commit a crime is itself a crime, so it also provides a means of limiting people attempting to induce their underlings (or underlings' underlings) to commit a crime, although of course it does not eliminate it. But it will of course encourage whistleblowing!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Even the death penalty by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Good. The small-time investor who is not scrupulous about choosing his investments, and instead makes them based on monetary decisions, is as much to blame for the power of the corporation as anyone else.

      No, the small-time investor doesn't choose his investments based on monetary decisions. That's a small-time speculator. A small-time investor simply invests a certain percentage of his wage each month, spread between a few corporations, with the hope that they grow in average in step with economy. This is a good thing for the whole economy, since it means that you're essentially deferring eating your share of the pie, so it can be used to build more infrastructure, in exchange of getting a bigger one later on.

      The grandparent's suggestion of punishing the corporation is nonsensical, since a corporation is incapable of committing any wrongdoing, on the account of being a figment of legal imagination. It's the people acting on behalf of the corporation that commit the "ethically questionable actions", and since they know that they committed them, they can simply cash in the temporary advantage got that way and jump ship, leaving the whole mess to explode on someone else's face. Dissolving the corporation in such a case punishes the innocent and does nothing to discourage the crime.

      If you had to be choosier about your investments based on the corporation's potential to fail the ethics test, then perhaps people would be a bit more moral about what they do with their money.

      Unfortunately, being choosy requires having knowledge, and getting knowledge about the dealings of corporations is a full-time job. I already have one, I can't afford the time. So I guess I'll say screw it, spend my money on beer, and demand that the government bail me out if I run into trouble, using money taxed from those who spent all their free time picking investment targets.

      This will never work without limits. I have an alternate, similar proposal. Limit executive salaries to the sum of the people who work directly for them, and force them to share the responsibility if any of those people commits a crime during the course of their work. This helps solve the problem of ridiculous executive salaries and institutes a reasonable chain of responsibility.

      It will do neither. It will simply move salaries under other titles in bookkeeping, and result in absurdly complicated chains of command and records as everyone and their dog try to cover their own ass.

      It is impossible to legislate corruption away. However, it's quite possible to always blame the CEO, giving him the incentive to stomp it out.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  58. PayPal has been at it for years! by xx01 · · Score: 1

    There is a reason why sites like http://www.screw-paypal.com/ exists. The fact is, it is part of PayPal's business model to freeze and limit accounts for seemingly no reason in order to make money off the float and off the interest. Just read PayPal's updated Terms of Service Agreement! Right at the top they tell you they have a right to freeze and limit your account anytime they want -- before, they never wrote that. Screw-PayPal.com also has large sections with PayPal alternatives. I found them here: http://screw-paypal.com/alternatives/alternatives.html http://screw-paypal.com/alternatives/alternatives_general_recommended.html Guess these alternatives are divided into what you can use with eBay and what you can use for everything else you may want to do. Fact is PayPal has been freezing funds arbitrarily for years. People have businesses going and then wake up one day only to find PayPal has taken their money. People loose business and their income because they beleived PayPal's promise that they were "safe".

    1. Re:PayPal has been at it for years! by jonfr · · Score: 1

      screw-paypal.com is a sham in it self. You can tell, they disable the right click so you cannot get the menu to link or copy material from that web page.

      I recommend any of those web pages instead.

      http://www.aboutpaypal.org/
      http://www.paypalwarning.com/
      http://www.paypalsucks.com/

  59. China is our biggest creditor by Kilm_O · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think what's more important is China owns $1 out of every $10 of US public debt so they've got us comming and going.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803558.html

    --
    I am the lone locust of the Apocalypse, think of me when you look to the night sky. -Zorak
  60. Rely on Corporations instead? by elucido · · Score: 1

    If we launch hostile takeovers and own the biggest corporations, can we promote human rights through them?

  61. Tough luck, mates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am posting anonymously for a reason.

    Let's just say that Paypal is perfectly happy to freeze a NFPs assets and never ever release them. We learned the hard way that unless you have the time and resources to go after them in court, the money is more than likely lost. Lowlife slimeballs.

  62. Moneybookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll find out whether people care or not when there's an alternative.

    I've asked that question a lot. The answer is that there are several other options.
    Most of the rest of the world uses Moneybookers as one option of several. It is allowed to use more than one, though most people appear not to know that.

    It's inexplicable that sites that otherwise spend effort on usability and accessibility then say 'fsck you' to their potential customers when choosing ways to transfer money. It's very rare to walk into a store and see 'paper money only, no coins' or 'Visa credit cared only, no cash' or 'Mastercard debit, no credit cards and no cash' and so on. Why should the same be tolerated online? I've contacted some of these same sites that have paypal as the only payment option and found that they wonder why they get little to no business yet won't add other options for payment.

    If you provide only one avenue for payment, and many people don't use it or even like it, don't be fscking surprised that many people won't give you money.

  63. People make those decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People make those decisions. And the Buck Stops at the CEO. Kill the CEO. After all, they get paid the big bucks to take the big risks. So take the risks.

    If the corporation person would go to jail, jail the CEO. He can't pass on the cost of being in jail to the customers.

    1. Re:People make those decisions by rpresser · · Score: 1

      And when a corporation contemplates evil, they simply demote the current CEO to a member of the board, hire Norville Barnes as the temporary CEO, then do evil.

  64. Re:How About Companies Hiring Assassins? by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    See this article on the lawsuit that Coca Cola Corp is currently facing in Colombia. they are accused of hiring hit men to kill the union leaders at their local bottling plant there.

    http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Lawlawsuits/Lawsuitsregulatoryaction/LawsuitsSelectedcases/Coca-ColalawsuitreColombia?&batch_start=51

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  65. Re:Bailouts and Enormous Payouts by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    I always thought that the enormous government payouts to help prop up the banks after they fucked up so badly with the bogus mortgages etc, ought to have been conditional on the Head of the Banking corporations being fired on the spot. Any bank that paid its corporate heads bonuses after receiving public funds, should lose all of those funds. Its a heinous crime IMHO.

    What I want to know is why the people who profited off the mortgage scams are not all rotting in jail with all of their personal assets seized and sold at auction? All I ever heard was a few people getting nailed, and the banks getting bailed out. Where are the several thousand new white collar criminals doing their time?

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  66. Now that the corporations run the country by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

    ...as enabled the recent SCOTUS decision, "free speech" is now whatever doesn't offend this or that corporation which has a stranglehold on you some piece of your life, or your business. It could be your bank, your internet service provider, your employer, whatever. If they don't like what you have to day, no Constitutional protection will save you.
    Ironic, ain't it? That the drooling ditto-heads think that giving an alarming amount of power to corporate interests, which are quite often at odds with the interests of the citizenry, is somehow a victory for free speech. What you have seen PayPal do here is just the bow-wave of what's coming, my friends.

  67. Sailing international waters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's survival of the fittest. Be ready to repel the enemy. And sail on to a safer harbor.

  68. Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How effective would a dashed-off letter from an attorney be in cases like this? Something like that might be good to know in case this ever happens to me.

  69. Stop this ! by hkick · · Score: 1

    Remember wikileaks has not indicated why its account was frozen. I am sure if they were trying to resolve for the past 6 months, they would have lot of case information, why not make it availble for people. Just if you have .org infront of you , that doesnt qualify for being god. Also for all those against paypal - Do you know why wikileaks account was frozen ? If not i would say nobody is asking your stories, we are trying to resolve a problem, not add historical information on how bad paypal is - thats not helping in resolving the issue, unless you are being paid by google or amazon to do this.

  70. alternatives for buyers by astrocreap · · Score: 1

    what are alternatives for buyers using paypal? or is the solution give your CC information out to every website that you want to buy something from?

  71. Why? by argent · · Score: 1

    Why is Paypal freezing their account? Paypal isn't saying and Wikileaks doesn't know? If Paypal is selectively freezing accounts of NGOs and charities, as the article suggests, why is that so?

  72. Wikileaks switch to tipit.to by MrBuds · · Score: 1

    From http://twitter.com/wikileaks WikiLeaks now accept credit card donations without paypal. thanks! http://bit.ly/wldonate https://tipit.to/wikileaks.org Unfortunately tipit is down at the moment i write this.

  73. It's clear you aren't an Australian. by mjwx · · Score: 1
    It's clear you aren't an Australian.

    It's the Government's Minister of Communications and he's pushing the fact that they've already done trials and found the filters "100% effective".

    You expect him to say otherwise?

    The report is being kept secret for a reason, also the scheme has been throttled back from a dynamic content control system to a simple blacklist of 2000 domains selected by ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).

    I don't think there's that much "widespread unpopularity" either

    Head in sand much, the entire opposition is against this (49% of parliament) plus the greens (another 5 senators) which has prevented the system from being implemented (I.E. the majority of parliament voted against it). Every major ISP in the industry has slammed the idea (when is the last time Telstra agreed with iinet). Numerous sources have pointed out how it wont work, even child protection advocacy groups say it will give us nothing but a false sense of security.

    Not a lot of this will reach other shores because it isn't reported on /. or Fox News. The headline, "Australian group makes rational argument against censorship" isn't inflammatory enough to sell papers but "OMFG Australian gubbermint is teh censor" is.

    it's all couched in "if you're against this, then you're on the side of child pornographers",

    That works so well, Conroy gave up on using it a year ago. Calling his detractors paedophiles got the government so much bad press. Like when Howard tried Bush's "teh terrists were out to get you, be afraid" line, the MSN, Non-MSN, average person and other parliamentarians laughed at him. Such Ad Hominem attacks tend not to work over here as we've already assumed that politicians are full of crap and aren't easily fooled.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  74. Parent lacks clue about GST by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Remember the GST? Which was supposed to make things cheaper and fairer for everybody

    You mean the same GST that dropped prices on electronics by 20% overnight.

    GST is an argument against you as it actually has made things cheaper and fairer for everyone.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  75. fuck paypal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading all this all I have to say is fuck paypal. Those bastards screwed me over and reversed months worth of legitamite transactions, seemingly at random for no good reason.

  76. Mod Mr. Cuntroy DOWN, I say by shazzle · · Score: 1
  77. lets DOS paypal by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    If someone got the top 1000 paypal users, and use fake CCs to pay into them or trigger something else, they would freeze 1000 of their best customers, it would be funny.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  78. Re:How About Companies Hiring Assassins? by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Sweet, i played that game. Syndicate. it so rocked!

    --
    Be seeing you...
  79. how to avoid the paypal freeze n getting rippedoff by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Make a new bank account.
    Step 2: Use the new bank account for paypal.
    Step 3: When money gets deposited into the paypal bank account, move to another bank account.
    Step 4: When the freeze hits, it hits nothing to very little.
    Step 5: Profit!!!!!!

    --
    Be seeing you...