PayPal Freezes the Assets of Wikileaks.org

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PayPal Freezes the Assets of Wikileaks.org

Posted by kdawson on Saturday January 23, 2010 @09:40AM from the thought-money-was-speech dept.

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."

27 of 403 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Unsurprising by LightPhoenix7 · 2010-01-23 09:44 · 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 · 2010-01-23 10:01 · 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 drinkypoo · 2010-01-23 10:05 · 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.'"
3. Re:Unsurprising by ArsenneLupin · 2010-01-23 10:12 · 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!
4. Re:Unsurprising by Minwee · 2010-01-23 10:28 · 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.
5. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 10:30 · 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.
6. Re:Unsurprising by Gerzel · 2010-01-23 10:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Our government does believe in human rights. It is just that Corporations are more human than any individual citizen.
7. Re:Unsurprising by PopeRatzo · 2010-01-23 10:46 · 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.
8. Re:Unsurprising by GaryOlson · 2010-01-23 11:12 · 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.
9. Re:Unsurprising by publiclurker · 2010-01-23 11:19 · 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"?
10. Re:Unsurprising by AlamedaStone · 2010-01-23 11:35 · 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."
11. Re:Unsurprising by erroneus · 2010-01-23 12:06 · 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.
12. Re:Unsurprising by Dan541 · 2010-01-23 12:12 · 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?"
13. Re:Unsurprising by Cimexus · 2010-01-23 17:53 · 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.
Burnt twice? by MichaelSmith · 2010-01-23 09:44 · 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.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
1. Re:Burnt twice? by Entropy98 · 2010-01-23 09:55 · 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.
maybe I'm missing something but... by ravenspear · 2010-01-23 09:48 · 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 · 2010-01-23 09:54 · 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 dissy · 2010-01-23 10:12 · 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.
Re:PayPal Regulation? by MickyTheIdiot · 2010-01-23 09:50 · 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.
Don't use PayPal by v(*_*)vvvv · 2010-01-23 10:20 · 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 · 2010-01-23 10:49 · 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.
What are human rights ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-23 10:21 · 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.
Re:PayPal Regulation? by evanbd · 2010-01-23 10:37 · 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.
PayPal should be put on oversight by jonfr · 2010-01-23 12:57 · 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.
Re:Crooks get assets frozen, news at 11 by tobiah · 2010-01-23 13:49 · 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 -
Re:My personal PayPal horror story by David+Jao · 2010-01-23 14:15 · 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.