Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Freezes Support Account For Bradley Manning
An anonymous reader writes "The online payment provider PayPal has frozen the account of Courage to Resist, which in collaboration with the Bradley Manning Support Network is currently raising funds in support of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. 'We've been in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there's no legal obligation for them to close down our account,' noted Loraine Reitman of the Bradley Manning Support Network (Support Network). 'This was an internal policy decision by PayPal. ... They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default. While there may be no legal obligation to provide services, there is an ethical obligation. By shutting out legitimate nonprofit activity, PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt.'"
Can't those idiots be sued?
There really is no excuse for this at all. We're all entitled to a fair trial and the best legal defense available to us. This signifies that Paypal doesn't support the constitution or the rule of law. Shameful.
I think you forgot the part about "innocent until proven guilty"? How about a fair trial first (which is what he needs the money for), THEN you can condemn him.
you are free to do anything in a capitalist economy. see, the catch is, everything costs money, and those with bigger money, can determine how much free can one be.
such is the lesson of this incident, apart from the paypal's staggering lack of spine. roadside pimp may be having more spine and honor than paypal in regard to principles.
Read radical news here
But not financially bankrupt!! Cha-ching!!
so why the fuck am I supposed to feel bad that this guy is getting exactly the punishment that he knew he would get?
oh i don't know, does "due process" feel like something you could feel good about?
look sig is kool
This is a Milgram Experiment, and you are the test subject. You pretty much failed.
I cannot imagine why any sane person or organization would use PayPal as a bank-like entity after their many, many, MANY abuses of their "not a bank" status.
Seriously... It surprises more to hear about people successfully getting their money out, than stories like the FP.
Really simple, folks - Just stop using them. Period. They have the right not to serve us, and we have the right not to use them. Exercise that right, and put these bastards permanently in the red ASAP.
missing the point. this isn't manning's account, it's an account set up to defend him.
paypal are basically saying that they reserve the right to screw anyone for no reason if they so choose. politics be damned.
i think the internet backlash might just hurt their business a little more than threats from a bankrupt government... it's a dumb decision on paypal's part.
So far, the only nominally credible journalistic outlet reporting on this story (and indexed so far by teh Google) is Huffington Post, which appears to be reporting solely based upon the press release.
This would be a great opportunity for some actual journalism - to find out why Paypal actually suspended access, what the reason behind the checking account access requirement is, whether or not there's government pressure at work here, and whether or not there's something that Courage to Resist knows about but isn't saying in their press release.
Or, we could just blindly accept everything Courage to Resist says as the unvarnished truth.
Manning is a hero to democracy. He risked everything to ensure that the people found out the truth about all the dirty secrets. I personally believe that in order for our world to get past all the bickering and warring, we will need open government as a constraint. We will not be able to properly explore deep space and survive our eventual destruction without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well. Until then, we will be playing shadow games with one another and we will remain stuck on this rock, doomed.
Also, PayPal is not a good organization. They are self-interested, and corrupt.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Well, if he has been convicted already, then I guess this is all moot.
manning's actions were based partly on his ethics and partly on his other issues.
just because you don't agree with his ethics does not render them void.
also, you forget that while the USA slides into ever more intractable debt, the rest of the world is reaching for the popcorn.
feels good man.
it will be a shame when the USA falls, because in many ways it really has been a good thing for a lot of the world (IMHO).
also you spelled "weasel" wrong :)
Morals do not apply to corporations.
My Business Ethics professor would've flunked you for saying that in class.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Actually, if this follows the pattern of Assange, Mastercard and Visa are next--making it all-but-impossible to accept online donations of any kind.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
so why the fuck am I supposed to feel bad that this guy is getting exactly the punishment that he knew he would get?
3/10, but I'll bite anyway - Because whether or not his case amounts to a prosecutorial slam-dunk, he still has the right to a fair trial.
More importantly, this has less to do with whether or not you should "feel bad" for him, than with whether or not a private business has the right to arbitrarily seize your assets temporarily in their possession. The specifics here (depriving someone of the funds required to afford one of our basic constitutional rights) just makes the core offense all the more insulting.
I don't owe Bradley Manning a fair trial because I'm not a government entity. He is entitled to a fair trial before government punishment is meted out, period. I'm entitled to form an opinion of him based on available knowledge and I'm also free to decide to not associate with him in any way whether or not that opinion is based on fact or conjecture. PayPal is afforded the exact same rights that I am. They don't owe him anything and they certainly aren't forced to wait for government trials to conclude before they form an opinion of someone and act upon it, so long as they aren't violating traditional discriminatory statutes and the like.
Paypal morally bankrupt, scummy company not to be trusted, old news, we all know.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Paypal certainly does have the right to not collect the money.
This is very different then freezing money they already collected.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I work for a non-profit that does nothing remotely controversial and we have had to deal with the exact same issue. PayPal forces EVERYONE to withdraw from a bank account by default. They make no distinction about who they are dealing with and they care less about non-profit status. Because they are a quazi-monopoly on ebay payment they pretty much force people to do what they want if you want to buy or sell on ebay.
If you want to be outraged, be outraged that the they use their monopoly status to force their fingers into bank accounts, not that the made some political move they actually didn't make.
Only Amex and Discover left. I've suspended use of my Mastercard since the incident and have been looking into switching to Discover or Amex. Did you know Discover has 3x higher processing fees than the Big 2, and is generally a massive PITA for businesses to deal with? That's why nobody uses them. Amex's processing fees are almost as high.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I was with you until
..without complete openness in all aspects of our lives as well.
so how do you propose to keep everyones' life completely open? a tyrannical police state? oh wait, world governments are already busy building that as we speak.
We need more traitors like that. People should not be allowed to kill indiscriminately regardless of who they are or what their position is. Have you actually read any of the documents he leaked? Soldiers were gunning down whole families because there may possibly have been some terrorists nearby. If our country is going to be doing that then "We the People" need to put an end to it and we can't do that if we don't know what is going on. Afterall, "We the People" are the source of the government in the US, right? If not then worse traitors than Bradly Manning have already done their damage and the wrong traitor is on trial. How can we "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" when the crooks and murderers in charge may hide from us everything important that is going on?
Not at all. As someone who holds a US security clearance I am absolutely against what he is accused of doing; it was dangerous, irresponsible, and against an oath he took when he agreed to accept his clearance level. At the same time, I have very little faith in a government appointed defense attorney providing the best defense available, which I feel such a high profile, political case deserves. Considering the man has been in solitary confinement for nearly 6 months now without so much as a peep out of anyone representing him, I'd say my lack of faith is well founded. Even if you assume that the man is guilty (which is always a dangerous and stupid thing to do) he deserves the right to defend himself in a court of law and other people have the right to raise money for that defense.
So now Bradley Manning's ability to mount a strong defense is directly affected by corporate behavior having nothing to do with the judicial system. Gee, who knew that "business" could affect "justice" so directly? Does anybody really still think that simple campaign finance reforms are reformation enough?
Corporate behavior can be as dangerous to democracy and ethics as any military campaign.
Free to "refuse service" and "free to suspend an account with money in it for arbitrary reasons" are not equivalent statements.
PS. Man this has to be a record for dupes on Slashdot, I've got the exact same article on my screen twice, posted to the front page about 45 minutes apart.
He has no need for funds, since the military (of which he is still a part, despite his decision to commit the crimes in question) will provide him with a team of lawyers at no cost to him whatsoever.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Only Amex and Discover left. I've suspended use of my Mastercard since the incident and have been looking into switching to Discover or Amex. Did you know Discover has 3x higher processing fees than the Big 2, and is generally a massive PITA for businesses to deal with? That's why nobody uses them. Amex's processing fees are almost as high.
Actually Discover's processing fees are on par with VISA and Mastercard. It's AMEX who charge double or triple what the others charge.
It's no problem, we'll just set up a legal fund and accept donations via Paypal
+1 Disagree
one's traitor is another's patriot
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
We need to stop pointing our fingers at PayPal and start pointing them at the US Government. I am sure political powers put a tremendous amount of force on PayPal to shut down the account.
I'm also free to decide to not associate with him in any way whether or not that opinion is based on fact or conjecture. PayPal is afforded the exact same rights that I am.
In my opinion, this is yet another example of why corporations deserve LESS rights than real citizens, not the same or more.
Furthermore, you didn't say you would associate with him. Paypal on the other hand has agreed to transfer funds for all legal transactions. Singling out this one because they think/hope he's guilty or disagree with him, or wish to curry favor with those government powers that have already decided his fate, no, that's not legitimate. Legal of course.
"They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default"
Set up an account that only has PayPal deposits in it. Transfer that money daily to another account they do not have access to. At the wost, paypal can only take back the money they have deposited for that day. Problem solved and everyone's happy.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
"They opted to apply an exceptional hurdle for us to clear in order to continue as a customer,
Apparently, there's nothing exceptional about it; they require every account holder to link their account to a real bank account and permit paypal to access it:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-courage-to-resist-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-wikileaks/
Thank you for demonstrating the root problem here - the conflation of Morals = Ethics. They don't, and this situation is a perfect example. Paypal may not be acting Ethically. They are incapable (as is any corporation) of acting Morally.
Also, they are entirely justified in refusing access to this account - if, as it says in the summary, the account holder has not authorized withdrawals from the associated checking account. Paypal has always required the ability to withdraw from an account automatically, to correct in case of fraud or improper crediting of an account. This has always been the case, for every Paypal user. Why should this group be different?
Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
Or to put it another way: digital cash would be a good thing for common people, so you can bet that the government and leaders of larger corporations have a problem with it.
Palm trees and 8
Do what everyone else does... create a dummy checking account and link it up with Paypal.
Anytime you pull money out of Paypal and it posts, transfer that money to a different back account.
Paypal can't withdraw money from a bank account that has no money in it.
So they can recoup deposits they determine were made in error or due to fraud.
This is standard procedure for Paypal, in the UK if not the US:
"Direct debit" is the authority to withdraw money from your bank account. Lots of people do this with their utility bills.
Why? Because your Business Ethics professor wishes it to be true that morality applies to corporations, a non-thinking, non-acting entity? There can be a moral code associated with a group (such as a tribe, or a corporation), but morality can only be applied to the actions of a thinking individual. As such, corporations cannot be held to a moral code; only the individuals affiliated with the corporation can. Sure, the corp could support moral actions while discouraging immoral actions, but it's not the same thing.
The distinction is important because of selection for amoral individuals in business. Corporations tend to reward behavior that increases profit, regardless of morality. So there tends to be a higher proportion of immoral individuals at the top of corporations than among the general population or even among just the employees of that corporation.
In the extreme, a corporation can be so riddled with amoral (or immoral) decision-makers that if you could apply morality to the corporation, you would have to consider the corporation amoral. Unfortunately, it seems that many corporations fall into this category.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
You know... I didn't remember ever hearing anything like this happening with them. But, since you asked:
A quick google search and a few minutes turned up the following situation involving Google Checkout. I do remember a string of other things (not related to checkout) that google has recently gotten into that doesn't exactly show that they are perfect including privacy issues, bowing to polital pressures in faraway lands, etc.
As for authorize.net, I'd never even heard of them. I'm not interested in hunting down their complaints as I'm confident they're out there too... everyone has screwed up or been put into an unwinnable situation before.
And I'm not by any means saying Paypal is right for what they did. I'm just saying that immediately jumping ship to one of these other companies that have the exact same capabilities is probably very close to jumping out of the hot frying pan and into the fireplace (whether the logs are on fire or not).
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
You have any links to the war journal to prove that?
That doesn't follow at all. If my business pays, say, a 25% income tax rate, all that writing them off on my taxes means is that I get 25% of the processing fees back. If I'm looking at $100 in fees a month for an Authorize.net account versus $50 for PayPal fees, tax implications take that to $75 versus $37.50, which is less of a difference but still not a "non-issue".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I thought this was a news site? The fact that Paypal is a bunch of unethical business is not news.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
The American adversarial criminal-law system could use some serious adjustments, but the way it stands now, the government will do everything it can to put Manning in prison for a suitably long period of time so the gov can claim a political win. Federal judges are not likely to stand up for justice, either.
The only chance Manning has of even a small amount of justice is to be represented by a good legal team. That requires lots of money, in the U.S. Justice is not only about whether the jury reaches the correct verdict. It is also about whether there is an effective advocate for both sides, and a fair arbitrator. In the U.S., the fairness of a particular judge can vary quite a lot, so the only way to ensure a little bit of justice is to have the most effective legal defense team you can put together.
This has nothing to do with whether Manning is guilty or innocent. It's about the U.S.'s failboat legal system, and Paypal deciding unilaterally (or more likely with some pressure from .gov stooges) to make it harder for any voice other than the government's voice to be heard adequately at trial.
There is also much more than just whether Manning is guilty or innocent. Even if we all stipulate to illegal actions Manning allegedly took to release classified information, there's the matter of appropriate punishment, which cannot be decided without a fair and equitable legal process.
The government will spend millions if not tens of millions prosecuting Manning. To deny Manning the ability to raise funds for his defense is a miscarriage of justice. If Paypal had an ounce of civic awareness, they would realize this, but sadly they appear to care only about publicity and government pressure.
>Paypal can't withdraw money from a bank account that has no money in it.
What is your source for this claim?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
That's because all you hear is the squeaky wheel. By some weird thought process that has lead you to believe that there are no wheels that aren't squeaking.
Depends on the bank. Banks favorite source of new found cash is automatic overdraft protection. Should the attempt to withdraw money which is not funded in your account, your bank may decide to transfer funds from another account (typically checking and then savings in that order) into the other to cover the transfer. Furthermore for doing this favor for you, they'll then charge you $25-$75 (varies from bank to bank) for each occurrence they protected your overdraft. Should you then start bouncing checks elsewhere because their the protection they gave you, they'll then be happy to collecting bounced check charges from you too.
In short, unless your alternate account is with a different institution or you know for a fact your accounts has auto overdraft protection disabled, expect to get shafted.
I apparently am not everybody. What I did was stop using Paypal.
At one point I was able to buy something only with payment through Paypal and I rather did not buy it then use them. I even have used a much more expensive way (international back transfer) then using them.
Not using them is the only way. I also tell friends never to use them. One once tried to tell me I was wrong. I stated that he as a doctor did not know his profession if I did not know mine. After some more explanation, he also stopped using it most of the time.
So stop using it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So how are you supposed to accept credit cards then?
No one else lets you accept credit cards from random strangers without having to follow some really weird and arcane rules to satisfy the merchant account rules. Google Checkout doesn't (it requires you be a store), not sure about Amazon Payments, but I think it's similar as well.
Face it - the only real reason people use Paypal is because it's pretty much the only way Joe Average can transfer some money to John Smith via credit card. Sure you can go to the post office and get a money order, mail it off, hope it arrives a week later, ... rigamarole, but that seems idiotic in this day and age of fast and easy e-commerce.
And the other options aren't much better - western union? egold?
Until someone manages to find a way to allow two random people on the internet send random amounts of money via credit card, Paypal's it. You want to put them out of business? Set it up in Paypal's niche.
It's also why eBay bought Paypal - because they're very synergistic.
And here's another question - why did they use Paypal? Why couldn't they set up their own merchant account? Or use Google Checkout? Or Amazon Payments? Most likely, either the fees are higher (Paypal may charge a lot, but credit card processors aren't cheap, either), or they didn't qualify. If they didn't qualify, Paypal ends up being the only way to accept credit cards.
So why are people falling into the same trap again and again? Google Checkout and Amazon Payments should also work, as does a merchant account...
The true motivations of this guy are very clear, "we can circumvent the constitution by making everything private". Privatise everything and EVERY thing can be regulated without it coming down on the state. Right to have shelter? Sure you do, not out problem the renting industry doesn't want to rent to you. Right to counsel? Sure you do, not our problem you can't afford to pay for a private lawyer. Right to speech? Sure you do, not our fault you can't afford a spot on private television.
It is very effective and the Mafia knows this. Control the basics and you control the town. You don't have to pay protection money, your garbage just won't be collected by the private company they just happen to have a say in.
But they say, it says nowhere that your freedoms have to be available. Yes indeed, that is because they made bloody sure of that. It is how the system work. You are free from the state you elect and own yourself to the company store instead, that you don't elect.
Private enterprise is the chain that binds free men. Next time you see a repubilican claim that something should be run by private industry or go un-regulated, look further.
Remember, that republicans love freedom, their freedom to chain YOU. Because it is abundantly clear that Paypal indeed is not required to provide service to all, no US bank is. Doesn't that say it all? It means an essential service can be denied NOT after due process but simply because a board of directors decided to. In many ways I prefer outright dictatorship, at least the controls are clear then. Who made Paypal do this? Paypal has no morals on way or another, so which hidden master pulled its strings?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
PayPal can not be morally bankrupt as it is a corporation, not a person. Morals do not apply to corporations.
Under the law, a corporation IS a person. If 'morals do not apply', then that's because we fail to apply them. Shame on us - we should be hounding these bastards out of existence.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I didn't really have a "hero" when I was a kid, nor did I as I was growing up, primarily because all of the "heroes" I was told I should look up to were either fictitious (and thus inherently biased) or simply bullshit. Even as a kid that was pretty obvious. I did have people I looked up to, people I emulated as being role models, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., but they focused on the symptoms of what was really a cancer that needed to be excised--they never addressed the root of the problems they made so much noise about.
I do have a "hero" now, and have since the day I heard about him. Bradley Manning. He found himself in possession of something that could actually be used to address the root of those problems and did what he though would best serve that goal, as well as do what he took an oath to do--protect his country, not the government, but his country...at all costs, up to and including his life.
Say what you will, but any way I look at it Bradley Manning knowingly risked his life to provide the citizens of this country, as well as the rest of the world, with KNOWLEDGE, knowledge that I think is crucial to our understanding of those we employ to run our country, and by extension, a large portion of the rest of the world (another issue entirely). It is one thing to speak out, it is another thing entirely to risk one's life in order to speak out. He knew the risks and weighed them carefully, I am sure.
Many do not understand his actions simply because they wouldn't do such a thing themselves--put themselves in harms way for the betterment of others. That in itself, in my mind, is a symptom of exactly what he is trying to fix--the selfish ambivalence pervasive in our society that allows our elected leaders, as well as corporations, to do pretty much anything they want. That selfish ambivalence is a product of the misinformation and lies we've all been handed, as well as the omission of data from the public domain. The release of those cables is a huge step in dealing with such issues.
That being said, fuck you Paypal. I've never been a customer and I never will because of shit like this (that also rules out doing business with anyone that requires PayPal transactions).
Anyone have any idea if Courage to Resist has set up a SECURE (and by that I mean "unfreezable") means of donating? I'd like to donate.
Sheesh guys, just use bitcoin already!
Anyone else have second thoughts when finding a seemingly "great deal" on eBay or other online store where paypal is the only method of payment available?!?
Something about paypal has never seemed quite right to me. In part due to eBay disallowing any other method of online payment allowed, not infrequent stories of frozen accounts with no reason or recourse, no phone number (or other customer service options) available until forced to do so, not to mention questionably high fees for accepting money via their 'service'...
I think the word I'm looking for is insidious. Or perhaps monopolistic?!?
If anyone complains about an account then PayPal freezes it, without explanation to the account holder. They've always done this, and not just for high profile accounts. The only solution is to not use PayPal if it would inconvenience you to lose all the funds on your account.