I’m curious about the proximity of any calls from Sen. Joe Lieberman to PayPal’s decision.

The internet is full of horror stories from people getting paypal accounts frozen due to clerical errors, strange rules or unknown reasons. This is just another %&#$up people can add to the list and just continue using them anyway

Google Pay (better option anyway because their fees are lower).

> raises serious questions about PayPal as a business worth trusting.

RAISES? Those questions were there pretty much since day one.

Rule #1: You can’t trust anybody. I mean ANYBODY.

I’m surprised people still use Paypal. When they started freezing accounts for Hurricane Katrina relief funds and stuff like that, I figured the internet would realize they have shady business practices.

If I remember correctly, PayPal was one of the sites that was relatively unaffected by Anonymous’s DDoS attacks in support of Wikileaks. Unless I have them confused with someone else, the attacks took down their homepage for a few hours, but didn’t effect their payment processing systems.

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.

Not for Paypal it isn’t. They are not a bank. Read their ToS. They never have to give you any money you have there. They can take your money on a whim.

“Nobody said you have to do anything. Personally, I respect the rights of other people to make choices, even choices I don’t agree with. I expect the same in return.”

And I choose not to do any business with paypal. And I choose to urge everyone out there to make the same choice.

I would be curious to see a short list of objectionable or controversial goods and services that PayPal does allow you to purchase or finance through their system.

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.

A private company has every right to make their own decisions…

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.

In all seriousness, I’ve wondered for a long time why financial institutions have fewer regulations in dealing with customers than telephone companies.

… what about a private company that decides not do do business with black people?

Common victuallers have been regulated by the state since ancient times, and throughout the medieval period.

When you have controlled financial companies built on top of controlled financial systems, there will always be straightforward and relatively simple ways to control those who participate in said systems.

This larger problem requires a bigger solution:
http://www.bitcoin.org
http://www.bitcoinme.com

… why financial institutions have fewer regulations in dealing with customers than telephone companies. [?]

The banks own Capitol Hill.

?The banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.? ???Senator Dick Durbin

The banks own the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I’ve also canceled my account and included a Bradley Manning related comment that will never be read, I’m sure.

Remember that the only form of organization Anonymous exhibits is that many of them frequent the same locations, like their IRC chat rooms. Other than that, there is very little connecting the people participating in the LOIC DDoS attacks, and the small group of highly-skilled individuals involved in the HBGary Federal debacle. From reading the chat logs previously linked to by Techdirt, I got the impression that only four or five individuals were involved in HBGary Federal (they may have even stated this implicitly).

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.

That’s the nice thing about being a privately-owned company–Paypal can do as it pleases.

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).

It also makes it far easier for them to cave into pressure from the US government as well then. Let’s not kid ourselves who the real puppet master is here!

If money is speech private enterprise conducting business in the public sphere should not be able to impose restrictions outside of those directly imposed by law.

I’d just like to hear Paypal’s version.

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.

Or not.

“We have to pass a law forcing companies to do business with people they don’t want to do business with, for FREEEEDOOOMMM.”

Next thing you know, they’ll be telling me I can’t have a whites-only lunch counter. There goes the neighborhood!