Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PayPal Freezes Support Account For Bradley Manning

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the we-don't-like-you dept.

Censorship 580

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.'"

cancel ×

580 comments

Again? (3, Insightful)

Nuno Sa (1095047) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304174)

Can't those idiots be sued?

Re:Again? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304198)

For what?

They aren't a bank.

Re:Again? (5, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304316)

They are a bank, incorporated in Luxembourg.
Complaints are to go to:
http://www.cssf.lu/en/ [www.cssf.lu]

Re:Again? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304210)

cant those idiots stop getting used?
go for another service, personally i recommend google checkout mainly because it has the biggest chance of getting useful.

Can they be sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304420)

Of course. But as a general rule, they can only be sued successfully if they have bad lawyers. Also, if you have good ones. Unfortunately, it takes money to pay good lawyers (with rare exceptions), and people who get cut off don't have money.

Re:Again? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304450)

Sure you can sue them, but they'll freeze your and your lawyer's accounts if you do.

Re:Again? (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304588)

Sure you can sue them, but they'll freeze your and your lawyer's accounts if you do.

Yeah, but we can set up a Paypal donation account and ... oh ... nevermind.

Mirrored at Crpytome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304190)

http://cryptome.org/0003/paypal-evil.htm [cryptome.org]
"They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default. Our accounting does not allow for this type of direct access by a third party, nor do I trust PayPal as a business entity with this responsibility given their punitive actions against WikiLeaks-an entity not charged with any crime by any government on Earth."

The Support Network repeatedly requested and was refused formal documentation from PayPal describing their policies in this matter.

PayPal is a private company and thus under no legal obligation to provide Courage to Resist, the Bradley Manning Support Network, or anyone else with services. This was something made very clear to the Support Network by PayPal representatives.

"They opted to apply an exceptional hurdle for us to clear in order to continue as a customer, whereas we have clearly provided the legally required information and verification. I think our dealings with PayPal should be a cautionary tale for any possibly controversial not-for-profit entity with a PayPal account," Paterson said, "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."

Yeah yeah (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304542)

Paypal morally bankrupt, scummy company not to be trusted, old news, we all know.

Re:Yeah yeah (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304726)

Hilariously, Paypal was actually started by a libertarian as some sort of "resist the man and his fiat currency's dead hand on trade." kind of thing. Now it voluntarily licks the boots of those who would suppress the entirely legal efforts of an advocacy group to secure a man a fair trial(rather than the present detention-without-trial-of-indefinite-length...)

All hail the private sector, defender of liberty!

Wow (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304192)

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.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

memnock (466995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304248)

Paypal is a private entity. Unfortunately, it's not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional, as far as I can tell, by choosing not to do business with someone. What Paypal should do though is return the funds and those donors decide what to do with their own money, not choose for them.

As an aside, I've never and never will, use Paypal for anything. I can send a check to a PO BOX. That's not secure, but I don't think of Paypal as secure either. If I want to be anonymous, I can send a money order. Stop giving Paypal business is my opinion.

Re:Wow (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304630)

>>>I don't think of Paypal as secure

Paypal does provide protection if you buy something and the Seller (a) doesn't deliver it or (b) delivers it but not in the new condition advertised. They've saved me from losing a few hundred dollars on bad transactions (over the last ~5 years).

Oh and Paypal was already sued for taking people's funds and/or freezing accounts. Rather than lose the case, they chose to settle out of court, by issuing refunds.

You don't understand the Constitution (-1, Troll)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304370)

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.

Wrong. You have the right to legal defense - period. Not "the best legal defense available". Big difference. PayPal has no legal or even moral obligation to collect funds for this defendant's defense. And there are other means available. Someone could set up a bank account for the purpose. But since you are writing in support of a traitor I suppose I should not expect you to actually understand how the law really works.

Re: Since you are writing in support of a traitor. (2, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304470)

Well, if he has been convicted already, then I guess this is all moot.

Re:You don't understand the Constitution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304508)

..and since you've demonstrated your'e just as blind as those on his side, you've demonstrated that you're not above manipulating the law or bypassing it entirely to suit your position. congrats, you're no better.

Re:You don't understand the Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304550)

you are writing in support of a traitor

So, he's been convicted then? I didn't know that.

Re:You don't understand the Constitution (2)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304608)

Paypal certainly does have the right to not collect the money.

This is very different then freezing money they already collected.

Re:You don't understand the Constitution (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304652)

Wrong. You have the right to legal defense - period. Not "the best legal defense available". Big difference.

Correct. Big difference. Your position that you're only entitled to a Lionel Hutz-esque defence irregardless of what's wheeled out to prosecute you results in something that I like to call 'not a fair trial'.

But since you are writing in support of a traitor

But then, I suppose, you were never really interested in a fair trial, were you?

And there are other means available. Someone could set up a bank account for the purpose.

And the difference between an actual bank just cutting off services to a legal defence fund, and a pseudobank doing that same thing is..? Please, enlighten us as to how this is a better solution.

Re:You don't understand the Constitution (5, Insightful)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304714)

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?

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304424)

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.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that you have the right to have an online money-transfer system facilitate a non-profit in taking donations for a legal defense fund. They are a business, they have the right to refuse service to someone. If Amazon suddenly said "sorry, we aren't going to carry any of your books anymore", are you going to sue them for violation of your 1st Amendment rights against free speech?

Besides, as he would be tried under court martial since he is a uniformed service member, the military has to provide him with counsel(a military officer). He can of course hire additional civilian lawyers if he so desires. But, if this infringes on his constitutional rights, then that would mean that anyone who did not have a non-profit taking donations for them would have been deprived of their rights as well. And(to get really pessimistic), the Constitution says nothing about the quality of your counsel, only that you have the right TO counsel.

Re:Wow (0)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304650)

>If Amazon suddenly said "sorry, we aren't going to carry any of your books anymore", are you going to sue them for violation of your 1st Amendment rights against
>free speech?

If Amazon (assuming you mean Amazon.com and not one of the other Amazons) suddenly said 'we are going to stop selling books by negro and jew authors because they are written by negros and jews', there very well could be an issue.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304704)

Nice straw man, because neither of those equate to freezing your account because it's not set up properly according to their terms of service and standard procedures.

Re:Wow (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304752)

What if they decided not to sell pornography? Would there be an issue then?

Re:Wow (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304702)

"are you going to sue them for violation of your 1st Amendment rights against free speech?"
depends on why they did it.

That said, they did agree to do business, and then froze everyones money.
So give them money being held, and then tell them you don't want their business.

Re:Wow (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304502)

A company isn't obligated to provide service. No rule of law says that a company must provide service to something they disagree with.

who uses PayPal? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304212)

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem using PayPal as a buyer if that's how a merchant has their account set up (though I'll only use credit cards through them and won't ever, ever, link a bank account with them). But who in their right mind would ever use this fucktards as their clearing house for financial transactions? Just get a merchant account and use your bank's credit card processing services, or go with someone like Google Checkout or Authorize.net. Using PayPal seems like you're just begging to have your accounts seized and funds raided because someone there doesn't like you.

Re:who uses PayPal? (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304494)

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.

Re:who uses PayPal? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304642)

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.

Re:who uses PayPal? (1)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304750)

And why is google checkout any better; and the same goes for authorize.net? Seems like they have the exact same power do they not?

Who? (-1, Troll)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304226)

You mean the guy who joined the US military just to intentionally leak secret material? They explain very clearly what is going to happen to you if you intentionally leak Secret material when you get your clearance, 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 that's right, America is terrible.

Re:Who? (5, Insightful)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304264)

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.

Re:Who? (1)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304360)

^This. The entire situation is completely and utter absurd, and a slap in the face of everything our country is supposed to represent. He's been in custody for how many months now without any word of a trial?

Re:Who? (2, Insightful)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304514)

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.

Re:Who? (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304748)

How about a fair trial first (which is what he needs the money for), THEN you can condemn him.

He joined the military. Despite the fact that he decided to betray his own oaths by lying, stealing sensitive material, etc., he still gets complete legal representation as part wearing the uniform. He doesn't need to raise money to pay for lawyers. The legal team at his disposal is exactly as good as the legal team that's prosecuting him for his acts. If they are seen dragging their feet or being useless, his JAG defense team are themselves in big trouble.

Re:Who? (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304268)

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Re:Who? (2, Insightful)

bstender (1279452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304292)

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?

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304308)

The point is that account is raising funds to help defend someone in a court of law. Feel free to not send him any money if you think he's an asshole. But he is innocent until proven guilty (except in PayPal's eyes, it seems... oh, and yours).

Re:Who? (4, Funny)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304336)

This is a Milgram Experiment, and you are the test subject. You pretty much failed.

Re:Who? (3, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304366)

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.

Re:Who? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304388)

Now the question is, was it secret, or top secret?

And if you have to ask what the difference is, they can shoot you for top secret.

Personally I hope he gets the cell right next to Terry Nichols. That should remind him of what kind of scumbag he really is.

Re:Who? (3, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304418)

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.

Re:Who? (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304700)

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.

Re:Who? (2)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304496)

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.

Re:Who? (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304544)

Last I checked, there was this little thing about right to a speedy trial and right to counsel. The speedy trial is clearly being denied in Manning's case, and this is a clear attempt to interfere with his right to counsel by cutting off the funds to pay for said counsel.

Alternately, I guess we could just go with the rule that whatever the executive branch is totally cool - after all, that was perfectly ok in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain, right?

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304644)

Amen, the Espionage Act is pretty specific. Plus, he's subject to the UCMJ - I imagine the penalties available there are worse than a civilian might 'enjoy'.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm

Scumbag Paypal (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304230)

Just saw this scumbag mashup [reddit.com] a few minutes ago on Reddit and I had to chuckle.

PayPal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304240)

They tried to screw Burning Man via the same tactic.

morally bankrupt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304242)

Pretty much sums up the treasonous Bradley Manning and those trying to support him. Good for PayPal! I hope they shut down accounts for all those who try to ruin this country like this weasle.

and (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304304)

why are you anonymous ? before accusing someone of treason, someone should develop the balls needed for expressing their views with at least a dubious registered website account. notice - i didnt even say 'with your own identity'. such is the level you are at, currently.

Re:and (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304540)

I'm not the AC, but I'll openly say it. If he is found to have given these documents to Wikileaks(and all evidence points to this being the case) then he knowingly and willfully committed treason. He's lucky that, should he be convicted, he will only go to federal prison. The government will most likely not execute him, due to all the media exposure around him. I do not, and never will condone treason. The ends never justify the means.

Re:morally bankrupt (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304310)

treasonous Bradley Manning

[citation needed]
Criteria for citation requires:
1. Law(s), with sections and code.
2. Previous convictions with said law(s) and with similar case(s).

Re:morally bankrupt (1)

UnCivil Liberty (786163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304364)

even traitors deserve a fair trial, see also John Adams legal defense of Captain Preston after the Boston Massacre.

Re:morally bankrupt (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304478)

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 :)

Re:morally bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304682)

"Reaching for the popcorn"?

I think you misspelled "Reaching for the lifeboats because if the US falls so will the entire fucking world."

Commentary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304250)

. . . there is an ethical obligation.
 
Wrong. There is no ethical obligation to do business with people supporting treason. I'm not saying there's an ethical obligation not to support them, but these people are worse than terrorists.

Re:Commentary (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304350)

Supporting a fair and open trial is hardly supporting treason. By your logic, anyone who thinks accused serial killers deserve a fair trial must support murder.

Re:Commentary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304512)

You realize that he's going to have defense whether or not he can pay for it, right? Most of the people supporting him are *not* thinking "fair trial," they are in favor of what he has been accused of doing.

Re:Commentary (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304716)

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.

"Land of the free" (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304282)

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.

Re:"Land of the free" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304638)

You know, I can always spot a 'unity100' post, because all problems are a result of capitalism and money, and the subject is usually some kind of sarcastic citing of a traditional American saying.

The post usually always stops just short of trying to encourage everybody to start living in communes.
 
Also, my CAPTCHA is 'inequity'. Amazing.

Re:"Land of the free" (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304708)

well,

in order to attract attention to a problem, you have to, unfortunately, endlessly repeat it at our time and age, for it to make through the thick coat of denial and conformism layer. not to mention american idol, britney spears, fanboism etc etc - insert endless attention-sinks here - etc .

it is rather interesting that, i was quite a capitalist myself 5 years ago, until got into study of history and society.

Re:"Land of the free" (4, Insightful)

Gorimek (61128) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304718)

That has been rephrased slightly to keep up with the times. It is now Land of the fee.

We apologize for no inconvenience!

Paypal policy (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304284)

So, what's Paypal's standard policy on this? Have they done this with any other orgs? They often do stupid things like this for no reason other than they have stupid policies. For example, it took years-- YEARS I tell you-- to get them to verify and change the address on my wife's account.

Re:Paypal policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304690)

Paypal regularly does this sort of thing. They'll freeze an account for whatever reason, refuse to give the money back to the people that paid in and refuse to give the money to the intended recipient. They use the guise of owning the money between when it's sent and received as justification for it. IIRC they did it to Minecraft as well as Wikileaks and they are hardly the only ones to fall victim to the scam. Paypal warning [paypalwarning.com]

I am shocked (5, Funny)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304286)

PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt

But not financially bankrupt!! Cha-ching!!

Morally bankrupt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304314)

Loraine, I rename thee hereby to Captain Obvious.

Correction (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304318)

It should read "US Army PFC Bradley Manning", not "Pfc."

OK, while I understand the angst (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304324)

I understand where PayPal is coming from too. They open themselves up to more trouble than a bunch of people complaining on message boards; usually at sites where the people loudly claim that PayPal is evil anyway and cite numerous stories of cousins brothers best friends little dogs being ripped off; compared to some country's politicians deciding to play up the populace with some timely investigations or worse getting other departments to look at areas of business not related.

Corporations can't win, they aren't protected by the law in areas like this. An individual would garner more sympathy than they would should previously mentioned government entities try to make a run at them. So yeah, it sucks for people who like what this group is doing. The truly sad part is that more people will express angst here and on other boards than would have made a contribution.

Re:OK, while I understand the angst (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304472)

Corporations can't win, they aren't protected by the law in areas like this.

They are when they follow it. I'm unclear on how freezing a customer's account without proving a violation of the Terms of Service is an example of "following the law".

Re:OK, while I understand the angst (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304568)

The law that Pay Pal follows is usually the one that says "I've got the pistols, so I'll keep the pesos." Yeah, that seems fair.

Wow, the sky? Just checked - STILL Blue!!! (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304338)

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.

Re:Wow, the sky? Just checked - STILL Blue!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304742)

Any alternatives? Preferably with the rates as low as paypal for non-profits?

Slashdotted (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304352)

Anyone have a backup link? I want to read the article before I jump on or over any guns.

Re:Slashdotted (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304672)

More often than not, Google *will* cache a webpage, even if it doesn't show a link in the search results

No cache link in the search results: http://www.google.com/search?q=couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/891/1 [google.com]

Working cache link: http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/891/1 [googleusercontent.com]

Huh? (0)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304358)

>>> PayPal shows itself to be morally bankrupt.

PayPal can not be morally bankrupt as it is a corporation, not a person. Morals do not apply to corporations. The fact is a corporation's only objective is to make as much money as possible and it does this through the decisions made by the persons running the corporation. Whether or not they are morally bankrupt is another matter, however since their job is only to make lots of money, not use the corporation as some sort of moral flagpole, if it is not in the corporation's best interest to do something, it will not be done.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304490)

Morals do not apply to corporations.

My Business Ethics professor would've flunked you for saying that in class.

Re:Huh? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304572)

Actually, the wonderful Canadian film The Corporation [thecorporation.com] argues fairly convincingly that if you were to treat a corporation as a person, you would be forced to diagnose them as a complete sociopath.

Paypal and stupid users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304378)

Paypal may be morally bankrupt, they might be acting like an merciless merchant, bank without the obligations to follow rules concerning this kind of businesses. But every idiot that use paypal after all these years of news about how paypal is morally bankrupt, outside the banking rules and does whatever they please i.e. you are and your money are at their mercy, then what do you want us to do?

Stop using paypal, or suit yourselves!

Two sides to the story? (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304386)

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.

Who uses paypal? (1)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304408)

Does anyone still use this service? There must be some alternative.

Re:Who uses paypal? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304722)

In terms of Ebay they pretty much are the only game due to the way EBay has forced them onto us. Google Checkout could easily be used to pay for ebay auctions but Ebay has never allowed it saying that there were unspecified security issues.

Pretty much Paypal are scuzballs that force things onto their users in the name of security. Paypal's security basically does nothing but cause problems for people who haven't done anything wrong. This particular issue has nothing to do with the non-controversial nature of this non-profit (see below) but has to do with the fact that PayPal wants your bank number and if you want to play on Ebay/Paypal's territory they can force you to do what they want you to do. It's a much worse monopoly/collusion situation than we've ever seen with even the likes of Microsoft.

Other options (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304414)

I think another company should use this as a promoting tool..."The only way to support freedom of speech online" would be a nice slogan, add a "donate" button and you got a good startup...

Funds? What funds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304422)

From the summary:

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

I can't get TFA to launch, so I don't know further details on this, but... A) Why does PayPal need to withdraw funds from their checking account? B) If that's PayPal's legitimate policy, where's the problem? Set up a checking account and hand them the account number, put only what you owe them for whatever in it. What's the big deal?

They should use http://flattr.com instead (1)

weeble (50918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304426)

The founders of Pirate Bay have shown themselves to have courage in the past and to stand up for themselves when they believe they are right.

Wikileaks nor Bradley Manning have been convicted of any crimes and yet Paypal et al. withdraw their service under inexplicable circumstances.

Looks like a great time to stop using paypal, Amazon and the others that fail basic morality tests.

Can someone remind me? (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304448)

Does LamePal already have a financial/military sector corporate pimp?

Or is this just another displaying of the wares to attract one?

Its gotta stop! (1)

ldconfig (1339877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304506)

This war on geeks has gotta stop. Don't they have any idea how stupid it is to PISS OFF ALL THE SMART FOLKS! ld

Re:Its gotta stop! (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304668)

But it's the stupid people where they make all of their money.

P2P currency to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304516)

Haven't we collectively learned our lesson yet? Paypal sucks! You know it, I know it.

They really need to adopt the bitcoin standard. No censorship is possible. No chargebacks. No bullcrap. Just a free, open way for people to anonymously transfer fiat notes to one another. They can be exchanged for dollars, euros, or increasingly traded down the chain for goods and services.

PayPal is within their rights and legal in this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304532)

Have you ever seen the qualifier on a business sign, "reserves the right to refuse service to anyone"? Unless the refusal is based on Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Age (40 and over), Sex, Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing), Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others), Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others), Disability status, Veteran status, or Genetic information PayPal is free to refuse service to anyone they want for any other reason. No one said life was fair and no one promised anyone they could be a total twit without repercussions.

Re:PayPal is within their rights and legal in this (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304712)

If they froze the account with a positive balance, I care (because that's seizure of assets, a Big Deal.) If they froze the account with a zero balance, I don't care, because I understand and support their right to do that.

Feature Request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304534)

I need to disable my account. Slashdot has officially ventured into Fox News territory for me. I see that I can't disable my account so how can I at least have all my email info and personally identifiable info removed?

alternative (1)

freddyfred89 (591786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304554)

I can't understand the privatization of payments online. Governments used to be the primary supplier of moneys which everybody had the right to use and everyone had to accept. But online only the private sector (credit cards, paypal, etc) is providing the means of payment. Anyway, all these folks should use Bitcoin: http://www.bitcoin.org/ [bitcoin.org] It is peer-to-peer and anonymous. The tricky part involves converting it to traditional currencies but it currently has parity with the dollar, as reported earlier on Slashdot.

Simple enough (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304560)

1) Open a secondary account.
2) Wash the checking account down to the minimum balance daily, and the rest to the secondary account. Depending on the daily balance, the bank will do this automatically either for free or a small fee, or you can take 2 minutes a day and do it yourself.
3) Grant them the stupid permission on the checking account.

Doh (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304580)

Paypal is part of the banking system. And you expect them to tolerate a librul cause? ROFL.

Nothing to do with Bradley Manning (5, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304616)

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.

Horribads (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304658)

I closed my PayPal account after they stopped taking WikiLeaks donations.

They're free to choose whatever business practices they wish. Just not with me supporting them.

What is this areally about? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35304666)

Does this have anything to do with Manning?

Or is this just because Courage to Resist doesn't want to give PayPal the ability to withdraw funds from a checking account?

After reading the article at http://cryptome.org/0003/paypal-evil.htm it seems that Courage to Resist is equating PayPal saying "Follow the rules about checking account access" to "We're freezing your account because you help someone the Gov't doesn't like"

Yesterday + Trunip Truck (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304706)

PayPal has always been morally bankrupt; what took you so long to figure out that?

So-called blind justice (3, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35304740)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...