PayPal Reinstates Fund For WikiLeaker Manning

itwbennett writes "PayPal has lifted a temporary restriction placed on the account of Courage to Resist, a group raising funds to support the legal defense of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested for allegedly downloading classified information and providing it to WikiLeaks. As you may recall, PayPal was embroiled in controversy late last year when it shuttered an account for WikiLeaks amid the controversy over the expose of US State Department documents. PayPal communications director Anuj Nayar said in a blog posting that the decision 'had nothing to do with WikiLeaks.'"

Comments

Slashdot Wins!

[Shikaku]

Crowdtality!

Re:Slashdot Wins!

[Duradin]

Yes, they totally made that decision because a site full of people who hate their service and don't use them anyways (publicly) had their sensibilities hurt. That was just as successful as /.'s campaign to topple the lame Apple.

Tempest, meet Teacup. Teacup, Tempest. I think you two will get along famously. Oh, you met over Other OS? I'll leave you two to it then.

Credibility anyone?

[Killjoy_NL]

[quote]PayPal communications director Anuj Nayar said in a blog posting that the decision 'had nothing to do with WikiLeaks.[/quote]

If anybody believes that, I have another bridge to sell them.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[olsmeister]

Do you accept Paypal?

Re:Credibility anyone?

[Kingrames]

Someone should have stood behind him with a sign that said "[Citation Needed]".

Re:Credibility anyone?

[pixelpusher220]

Indeed - from the blog meaculpa

In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder

from the statement by Jeff Paterson of Support Network.

They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default.

So Paypal, first doesn't call him a liar with that statement, and secondly claims they would never take money from Support Networks bank account without authorization in order to refute the claim that they requested specific authorization to remove money from Support Networks bank account.

Simply priceless.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[Galestar]

It is a sad nuisance we have to live with since they people (the producers) keep using it instead of the various better systems out there.

Please excuse my ignorance, could you point me in the direction of these better systems?
Main criteria (IMHO) is the ability to send payments without giving the seller your CC #

Re:Credibility anyone?

[doconnor]

I understand PayPal blocks accounts for all kinds of questionable reasons which aren't political. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Re:Credibility anyone?

[LordLimecat]

Then you apparently didnt actually read the earlier story, where the explaination boils down to,

• CTR claimed nonprofit status with paypal
• Paypal has a policy requiring a bank account to be associated with such accounts
• Paypal warned CTR that they were not in compliance with said requirements
• CTR ignored said warnings, and had their account frozen

Source for claims (here)

We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue).

In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions.

But no, CTR and slashdots sourceless claims are totally more credible than that. And its totally bogus for Paypal to ask CTR to follow the same requirements as everyone else.

I can agree the unfreezing has a tenuous link with Manning-- all the attention around this non-story has made paypal choose the path of least resistance, which is to reinstate the account and lift the restrictions.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[GooberToo]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

This is slashdot. The masses are too busy creating malice with their stupidity.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[Compaqt]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

With all the recent disclosures, does that apply anymore for anyone other that a naif?

Would you believe a plan to destroy a journalist's career simply because he supports Wikileaks? All just stupidity? The emails say otherwise.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[LordLimecat]

Paypal very clearly in the second paragraph stated

Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions.

Seems like a refutation to me.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[sarastro]

I don't think it is a refutation. Paypal did not deny they requested withdrawal permission,
they only denied that they could withdraw without permission.

Nice way of talking around the main question.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[tlhIngan]

Main criteria (IMHO) is the ability to send payments without giving the seller your CC #

There's lots of systems for that - Google Checkout, Amazon Payments, etc. None of them expose your credit card number to the seller.

There aren't many systems for accepting credit cards on an ad-hoc basis. If you're a store, it's easy - get a merchant account, use Google Checkout or Amazon Payments.

If you're Joe Average, it's pretty much impossible to accept credit cards - the requirements for a merchant account can be excruiatingly high (minimum transactions a month, minimum amount charged a month, possible data security, etc).

eBay would be dead in the water without Paypal, which is why they bought it. Online auctions would be a PITA if the buyer had to go the post office, get a money order, send it off, wait a week for seller to receive it, wait another couple of weeks for it to clear, then wait another week for the item to arrive. What would take a week at most with a normal retailer takes a month though eBay. (An alternative would be to have eBay process the transactions for you but that would involve a ton of complications - something best left to entities like Paypal).

And for those saying CC are protected, yes, but how many CC processors get breached? Sure you're not responsible for the fraudulent purchase, but damn is it inconvenient to have to replace your card - reset all your payment methods with Amazon and other companies, any direct billing to credit cards have to be reset (nevermind if the billing date comes up just after the card gets cancelled), etc. Horrendous pain. And no, direct withdrawal from a bank account is not an option (and an even stupider idea).

Temporary credit card numbers are an option, if your bank provides it (a lot don't). And some idiotic merchants require a payment method before showing you a bloody subtotal.

Paypal is one of those necessary evils. They're not great, but damned if there's another way to take money by credit card. The ability to accept a random amount from a random person at a random time - it's the one big niche that neither Google nor Amazon seem to be trying to enter, for whatever reason.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[pixelpusher220]

PayPal refuted that they intended to withdraw funds without authorization. But CTR made no such claim. They claimed it was requested PayPal be able to withdraw funds by default. They are different statements.

CTR also claimed that the request for permission to withdraw funds was made as a condition of reinstating their account. PayPal still has not said whether this requirement is part of the standard agreement; my guess is if it were they would have said so. The wordsmithing being done doesn't look good for PayPal.

If PayPal can just willynilly debit *your* bank account, I don't see them being in business very long...

Re:Credibility anyone?

[pixelpusher220]

It is, and they did say so

please cite where they said this.

From the PayPal User Agreement Actions they may take

"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."

So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[Belial6]

https://squareup.com/ Another way for individuals to take credit cards.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[blair1q]

eBay would be dead in the water without Paypal, which is why they bought it.

Almost excruciatingly false.

eBay could have set up its own payments system where you deposit money ahead of time and debit your account as you buy things there.

eBay could also have set up a fungible payments system that could be used with any website, mimicking Paypal in every way (except the crusty ways).

They realized that Paypal was popular, well-understood, easy to use, expensive to replicate, and cheap to own.

So they pwned it. L33terally.

Re:Credibility anyone?

[pixelpusher220]

Also, where was this original claim that they're refuting? I don't see it. As I understood (as of yesterday), the issue WAS that PayPal froze their accounts for non-compliance in this respect

from PayPal's blog:

"We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue)."

So PayPal is claiming that this was only because they wouldn't 'link' a bank account with their PayPal account. No explanation of why this only happened after 3 years and coincidentally closely followed CTR sponsoring Manning.

Next you have CTR's spokesman saying that after the account suspension, they did provide the bank info, but that PayPal wanted even more - the permission to withdraw funds directly from the bank account. This is the relevant part that PayPal has not addressed. Did they actually request this? If so, they haven't mentioned it in their blog post. They simply cite the 'link an account', not grant us debit authorization on said account.

No one is going to give a 3rd party processor that type of permission and it is not in PayPals User Agreement. They specifically say they will take you to collections if you owe them money but do not remotely mention they will dock your account directly.

From the PayPal User Agreement Actions They May Take

"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."

So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.

S.O.P.

[meerling]

Sorry, but Paypal has done a lot of questionable things, and only retracts them if they get enough bad press.
Is his story true? I don't know, it could be, but then again...

Paypal should really do a little more investigation when these issues crop up, and contact the account holders to try and fix or at least clarify any issues before locking an account. It wouldn't take much more work in the short run, but it would save a lot of work in the long run, not to mention legal and public relations bills.

From the Article

[indy_Muad'Dib]

"To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions."

What a line of bullshit, they have stolen from me twice to the tune of $5300.

4 years and I'm still fighting these fuckers over this.

i even won in small claims court due to them not showing up and haven't received a penny, and i likely never will.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Their explanation makes sense. Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Think of how much ad revenue Slashdot would lose if this philosophy were widely adopted.