PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
from the going-into-evil-territory dept
It's old news by this point that PayPal decided to cut off Wikileaks donations, following pressure from members of the US government (even if the State Department denies any official pressure, Joe Lieberman's public brow beating of companies shows that there was serious pressure at least from some in the government). However, Glyn Moody now points us to the news that PayPal has also decided to cut off the group "Courage to Resist," which was handling funds for Bradley Manning's defense effort. PayPal admits there's no legal basis for this. Apparently, the company just doesn't believe that some people should be allowed a fair trial: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 U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. PayPal was one way people--especially international residents--were able to contribute to the grassroots effort supporting the accused WikiLeaks whistleblower. "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."The report also notes that they've had a PayPal account in good standing since 2006, with no problems at all. It's only once they were taking funds for Bradley Manning that PayPal shut them down. This is somewhat horrifying, frankly, and raises serious questions about PayPal as a business worth trusting.
[....] The Support Network repeatedly requested and was refused formal documentation from PayPal describing their policies in this matter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, funding, wikileaks
Companies: paypal, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Furthermore, you can refer to this list for more options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_on-line_payment_service_providers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another nail in PayPal's coffin
I mean, we don't really need defense lawyers anyway if we just declare everyone guilty without due process, which we seem to be doing these days anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
We could however stop selling cars, groceries and electricity to defense attorneys. That's tots legit, brah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
I do have the feeling that Anonymous is going to get involved in this. After all one good dos deserves another ddos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
I wouldn't be surprised if PayPal has taken additional measures since then, like beefing up their pipes, to help protect them from future attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
An interesting point of the DDoS attacks was that the vast majority of participants were volunteers who had downloaded the Low-Orbit Ion Cannon client, then allowed their rigs to be directed by whoever was running the attacks up top. There were some indications that many of the volunteers did not have any prior relationship with Anonymous, but were inspired to join the DDoS efforts due to the common goal of punishing the companies that had severed ties with Wikileaks. I'm guessing that this group of people account for most of those arrested recently, as they were unable to take basic steps to mask their identities.
I would be surprised if the same people were involved. The methodology and level of skill shown in the HBGary Federal hack was completely different, as you pointed out. Personally, had I been involved in the DDoS attacks (I don't have anything to do with Anonymous) I would be laying low. The last thing in the world I would want to do is commit another high-profile hack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
If they're going to cut you because the wind blows in a different direction, how can you trust them?
Answer: you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I respect people's right to choose their own religion, but if they choose anything but atheism I think they're an illogical, superstitious moron, so I don't have to respect their actual CHOICE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A common carrier has no right to refuse lawful carriage. That's been the law for centuries.
Nor does a common innkeeper have a right to turn away benighted travellers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The banks own Capitol Hill.
The banks own the Senate and the House of Representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're perfectly free to submit to government pressure. Nothing wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because it's legal doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Banks are privately owned companies. We do *not* allow banks to revoke accounts at any time and keep the money that they hold. Functionally, Paypal is bank. I don't understand why you wouldn't hold them to the same standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Common victuallers have been regulated by the state since ancient times, and throughout the medieval period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, even privately-owned companies have to obey the law.
(And PayPal is not privately held, either. They are a subsidiary of Ebay Inc., a publicly owned and traded company).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paypal worth trusting?
Example: http://sourceforge.net/blog/warning-to-open-source-projects-know-your-rights-with-paypal/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just closed my PayPal acct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just closed my PayPal acct.
Although I hadn't (and didn't intend to) contribute to Bradley Manning's defense fund, this marks the second time that PayPal has cancelled an account (the other being WikiLeaks) for purely political reasons. I'm not a strong supporter of either of those causes, but believe strongly that WikiLeaks and the Manning defense fund both have the right to collect money.
Would you continue to use a bank that refused to honor checks made out to folks they didn't approve of? PayPal is simply not reliable -- they censor accounts. I could understand if either of those people (Assange or Manning) had been found guilty of anything, but they have not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just closed my PayPal acct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If some people want to bash them for that? Point at that law and say "Hey, we have no choice, to go to hell!"
This is just another attempt at First Amendment suppression of free speech, and I do not support that.
To the people who are going to say "THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE COMPANIES!"...... GUESS A-FUCKING-GAIN!"
Numerous court decisions in state and federal courts have said that you do NOT give up your right to free speech when you are using a private companies services.
Things like Newsvine's 'harmful to minors' policy would be thrown out if someone had the gumption to take them to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Next thing you know, they'll be telling me I can't have a whites-only lunch counter. There goes the neighborhood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I'd also picket your restaurant with the rest of the modern human race until you went out of business (which wouldn't take long, I assure you).
No guns needed. Just freedom of association and contract. It's a beautiful thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is somewhat horrifying, frankly, and raises serious questions about PayPal as a business worth trusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything about PayPal raises serious questions about their trustworthiness.
The answer to those questions? No. PayPal is not trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it's no longer any government. No, forget about churches.
Banks and Financial companies are the true and only power.
Anyone need money to defend itself, there you go. Cut you from the money, easy win.
World crisis? Not for banks, they got funds to stay afloat, and while the rest of the world is still trying to recover, they are already showing "AMAZING" profits and as usual, not paying taxes.
So, nothing new here, just the same old, same old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just cancel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just cancel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just cancel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just cancel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just cancel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just cancel
The last time I used PayPal was around 2000 or so when I bought my kid some stupid wing things for his Furcadia character on his birthday - lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"internal policy decision"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soooo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Soooo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anybody ask Paypal about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
Has *anyone*? Are you serious? Do you really expect someone here to know what everyone in the world has or has not done? If you don't believe the article, why don't you go ask them yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
;)
I really don't expect anyone to do anything. My question was a reasonable one. It has nothing to do with whether I believe the article or not.
The vast majority of the folks who have posted comments to this article give the impression of not liking Paypal. I was just wondering if anyone knew if Paypal had been asked about this by anyone other than the folks who wrote the original blog article.
Lighten up Francis...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
.
Sounds pretty much like PayPal told them to just go away, without documenting *why*.
.
"They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization’s checking account by default."
.
Seriously? We won't do business with you unless you let us arbitrarily access your bank account. Sounds vaguely close to extortion to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
I'd just like to hear Paypal's version. If they give Mike the same treatment that they gave the Brad Manning support organization, then they've proved the point that they are evil, despicable, corrupt, vicious, back-stabbing, and unethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
Have you asked them? If not, then why not? If you *really* want to hear their version, that's what you could have done. Of course, if what you *really* want to just cast aspersions on the article then you wouldn't want to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
As for me, having become familiar with PayPal's ways, both from reports on the Internet, along with friends who have (much to their dismay) been forced to deal with their treachery, I'd long ago been convinced that they are dirty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
There's laws that regulate large transfers like that, and the Patriot Act sure doesn't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
Perhaps that's what you should have asked, then. No need insult other people because your writing skills are not up to par.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/paypal-on-cutting-off-courage-to-resist-this-has-no thing-to-do-with-wikileaks/
So it seems it it had nothing to do with Wikileaks; Courage To Resist just didn't follow the correct procedures for a non-profit.
What surprises me is that PayPal can't see how bad this looks to most people. Not that CTR deserve special treatment, but it seems to me that it would be in PayPals's interest to help them sort the problem quickly and privately instead of attracting bad press, deserved or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
I'm not sure how they could foresee the bad press here, if the organisation really did lie. Regardless, PayPal's policies tend to be so complicated that sorting problems is unlikely to be quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
Are they incapable of issuing a press release? I mean, if they have a genuine good reason and a competent PR department then that would seem like the sensible thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When was paypal ever "a business worth trusting"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another nail in PayPal's coffin
Should be a nice battle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RAISES? Those questions were there pretty much since day one.
Rule #1: You can't trust anybody. I mean ANYBODY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They also have a long history of closing accounts for no reason whatsoever or at the very best, on a whim.
This is why most large ecommerce stores do not offer Paypal as a payment method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palantir has tried to distance themselves from the Wikileaks/HBGary affair and act as if they didn't have anything to do with the direction of the plan, but a reading of their email has revealed otherwise.
While there is only a circumstantial connection to the issue in this post, nonetheless Palantir continues to be a supplier of very expensive software that allows government intelligence agencies to analyze contacts between individuals.
The stated objectives of HBGary and Palantir were to isolate the individuals associated with Wikileaks and cut off their support.
This move by Paypal would seem to be addressing a closely related and parallel objective of further isolating Manning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I choose not to do any business with paypal. And I choose to urge everyone out there to make the same choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of acceptable PayPal uses
Firearms?
Pornography?
Escort services?
Scientology?
Astroturfing?
Bongs?
One obvious difference is that Manning's opponents are among the most powerful and influential people in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...pure speculation of course, but not unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paypal "worth Trusting" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Problem is Systemic
This larger problem requires a bigger solution:
http://www.bitcoin.org
http://www.bitcoinme.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have thought that the dozens of horror stories about PayPal freezing accounts at the drop of a hat, would have already answered any such questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe they used PayPal
Jot this down. You may need it later:
PayPal = Evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't believe they used PayPal
They use PayPal because it, unfortunately, dominates that market. The US gov't has helped PayPal reach that position, so PayPal is sure to return the favor whenever it can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Symptom vs source
Patriot Act Title III
The Anti money laundering Act is what would really be cited in preventing funds to go to Manning in any way shape or form. If someone commits an act of terrorism (read: if they're accused of a crime without being convicted) then the penalties can be pretty severe
I wouldn't be too surprised if this was the specific statute since it seems Paypal allows people to transfer money internationally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paypal is a bank
I use Paypal to pay for Ebay goods. But I'll go light for awhile and I'll stop making those dollar contributions to charity everytime I pay for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]