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."
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.
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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.
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.