Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Freezes Cryptome's Account
grimwell sends in the news that after Cryptome's little run-in with Microsoft and NetSol, the activist site has now had its funds frozen by PayPal. Cryptome founder John Young notes, "Google lists thousands of instances of this asymmetrical high-handedness." "We have reviewed your PayPal Account, and due to the excessive risk involved, we would like to begin parting ways in a manner that is least disruptive to your business."
I'd give anything to get a letter from PayPal like that. For us mere mortals, it takes about 30 click-throughs to close an account. PayPal is the Worst Thing In The World.
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
If this were a federally-regulated bank they would not be able to do this.
Why you need to support, or even express your support?
True any private business can screw over its consumer, but why support this decission? Unless you are affilied with paypal there is no purpose. If you are, you should have declare it.
I have no affiliation with PayPal.
I should have been clearer. I support their right to make this decision, and, if they were a federally regulated bank, they could have done the exact same thing. Read the info on Cryptome's site.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
And if you moderate based on what's in a sig, you don't need to have mod points to start with.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Be careful what you wish for; "regulation" isn't the answer here, it's a big part of the problem.
Because nothing ever bad came from letting banks do whatever they want.
PayPal, being a business, also has the right to refuse any business they want.
That is true. But this is money they have already accepted from Cryptome's donors that PayPal is stealing.*
*Even if they eventually give the money back, they are stealing the use of the funds for half a year. I'd accept a different word if they pay Cryptome interest at the prime rate.
Hey, let's play a game called "make up hypothetical situations to support our arguments." In this corner they're bulldozering our house. In the opposite corner they're buying us a mansion. WHO WILL WIN!?!
Frankly, most small web sales companies (talking about one person selling items via a web page) simply can not afford the fees involved in normal credit card transactions.
PayPal is inexpensive and most people never have an issue with the service.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Paypal may be able to refuse to do business with whomever they like but so do we. Every time Paypal pulls a stunt like this, we as private individuals have a right to call them on it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
A similar question can be asked about those people posting critical comments of paypal.
A similar question can be asked about the 98% of slashdot comments that consist of people's opinions who don't have a direct involvement with the subject. Sometimes people simply like to converse about a subject.
That is ridiculous. Destroying private property is illegal, while Refusing to service someone is not. I don't know how you got modded Insightful.
For the sake of this argument, let's take the statement that Paypal froze their funds as being true (I know, this is Slashdot, where the summary is usually wrong). Refusing to give someone money that is rightfully theirs could be considered the equivalent of destroying their property. Giving them the money currently in their account and then refusing to accept any more payments is different from keeping money that was intended as a payment to them, not a payment to Paypal.
Paypal may be able to refuse to do business with whomever they like but so do we. Every time Paypal pulls a stunt like this, we as private individuals have a right to call them on it.
Oh yeah, this pisses me off too. Every time something like this happens, someone will say that they're a private business that has the right to do what it likes- but usually in the context of someone having criticised that company and expressed in a way that seemingly implies that any criticism of their actions runs counter to that principle.
They're entitled to conduct their business how they wish (within reason), and they're entitled to ignore the negative opinions. But they're *not* entitled to expect protection from legitimate criticism, opinion and discussion expressed by others, nor from the effects of such criticism on them if they choose to ignore it.
Same with "you think XXXX product sucks? No-one was putting a gun to your head and making you buy it!" type posts. No- the company is free to sell a products, and people are free to buy it- and others are equally free to express their opinion and advice as they see fit. They don't like that? Tough.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Rush? Wow. This is the first time I've actually defended "the powerful". Personally I don't like PayPal. After this stunt, I will not be using them.
I do defend their right to do business with whomever they wish (and not to do business with whomever they wish). That's all my support is for. The law they used is retarded and ineffective and was just an excuse to make life harder for John. If you go to Cryptome's site, you can see he isn't crying over this and neither should we. OTOH, we should take our e-payment business elsewhere.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)