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.
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.
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!?!
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.
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).