5 ms·

While PayPal deserves the negative rep for screwing their customers, it doesn't deserve it for being a US corporation, vulnerable to the US government. The bad

by iwr 16y ago

While PayPal deserves the negative rep for screwing their customers, it doesn't deserve it for being a US corporation, vulnerable to the US government. The bad guy here is not PayPal.

ghostDancer 16y ago
Paypal is helping and aiding the bad guy. So what does that make them?? Minions ?? An image : http://milhaud.tumblr.com/post/2091089035/julian-assange-es-portada-de-la-revista-time-con http://milhaud.tumblr.com/post/2091089035/julian-assange-es-...
- iwr 16y ago
  Can PayPal really afford to say no? The government has many ways it can make life miserable for the company.
  - dualogy 16y ago
    Isn't that the VERY PROBLEM Wikileaks is showcasing here?
    - sliverstorm 16y ago
      It's a problem that a company has to obey the laws of the country it resides in?
      - derefr 16y ago
        It's a problem that the laws are such that obeying them or being considered ethical by one's customers is a double-bind.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        It's even more a problem that the law isn't even on the government's side here...
        ghostDancer 16y ago
        They'll change the law, as always. That's why they wanted to include Wikileaks as a terrorist org. All the way clean for them.
      - SwellJoe 16y ago
        What laws, in particular, did you have in mind? Wikileaks has not, to the best of my knowledge, been charged with any violation of law in the United States (or anywhere else, for that matter).
        Vivtek 16y ago
        Much less did Amazon or PayPal violate any law.
        SwellJoe 16y ago
        I don't see anyone suggesting Amazon or PayPal violated any laws in this discussion, but maybe I missed it. I certainly haven't made such a suggestion.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        That was my impression of silverstorm's comment - that PayPal has to comply with US law and thus shouldn't be denigrated for this decision. Not even Wikileaks has been shown to have violated US law, but my point was that Yahoo and PayPal can't even rely on the fact that they have to comply with US law, because they haven't violated it at all. Well. They may have now - PayPal in particular could be accused of fraud for freezing an account unless they release the funds relatively quickly. This might even have the kind of visibility that would result in that kind of good outcome. Wikileaks really is shining light on a lot of roaches this week...
haploid 16y ago
Is this a serious post? The government can exact capricious petty revenge on your business, so it's not the business's fault for exercising cowardice? It would be unbelievably easy to rightfully Godwin your perspective on this issue, but I won't do it. The United States is a nation predicated on a set of inviolate rights that are supposedly protected by the charter document of the nation itself. Among these rights are the right to hold property, conduct affairs freely, and speak freely. The courts have repeatedly defined rights that are derivative of our constitutionally-protected ones, and that among these are the ability to conduct business free from the threat of arbitrary governmental coercion( e.g. absent of a "chilling effect" ), with obvious exceptions made where the business has committed a crime. PayPal, Amazon, et. al. Have not broken the law by providing services to Wikileaks, and are, therefore, not in danger of retribution by the government specified in the US Constitution. The salient point here may be that the government we have is possibly NOT the government specified by the US Constitution, and these companies ARE in danger of capricious revenge by the government. And if this is the case, we as a nation are living under the thumb of a truly illegitimate government - and we have bigger issues to worry about than the cowardice of companies. But whether or not we exist in a nation of arbitrarily exacted State power, nothing changes the fact that Amazon and PayPal are corporate cowards, in the absence of an actual, honest-to-god court order. To say they should be held harmless is, well, an "interesting" perspective.
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  >PayPal, Amazon, et. al. Have not broken the law by providing services to Wikileaks I would be surprised if it's not illegal to aid in the dissemination of classified material. Nevertheless, its certainly illegal to aid an abet terrorists. Seeing as the government owns the monopoly on defining who is a terrorist, it's not a stretch at all to see there might be actual legal consequences down the road for these companies. This may not be "right", but this isn't Amazon's or Paypal's fight to have. I don't blame them one bit. This is Wikileak's problem to deal with--It comes with the territory.
  - Pahalial 16y ago
    No, the legal ramifications only come into play when the government officially declares something a terrorist organization. In the USA, this would be done by the State Department, which has yet to issue such a proclamation. All this folding by American companies until Wikileaks is actually branded such is (depending on your POV) pure cowardice or generous cooperation with the present interests of government. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_or...

by iwr 16y ago

While PayPal deserves the negative rep for screwing their customers, it doesn't deserve it for being a US corporation, vulnerable to the US government. The bad guy here is not PayPal.

ghostDancer 16y ago

Paypal is helping and aiding the bad guy. So what does that make them?? Minions ?? An image : http://milhaud.tumblr.com/post/2091089035/julian-assange-es-portada-de-la-revista-time-con http://milhaud.tumblr.com/post/2091089035/julian-assange-es-...

iwr 16y ago
Can PayPal really afford to say no? The government has many ways it can make life miserable for the company.
- dualogy 16y ago
  Isn't that the VERY PROBLEM Wikileaks is showcasing here?
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    It's a problem that a company has to obey the laws of the country it resides in?
    - derefr 16y ago
      It's a problem that the laws are such that obeying them or being considered ethical by one's customers is a double-bind.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        It's even more a problem that the law isn't even on the government's side here...
        ghostDancer 16y ago
        They'll change the law, as always. That's why they wanted to include Wikileaks as a terrorist org. All the way clean for them.
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      What laws, in particular, did you have in mind? Wikileaks has not, to the best of my knowledge, been charged with any violation of law in the United States (or anywhere else, for that matter).
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        Much less did Amazon or PayPal violate any law.
        SwellJoe 16y ago
        I don't see anyone suggesting Amazon or PayPal violated any laws in this discussion, but maybe I missed it. I certainly haven't made such a suggestion.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        That was my impression of silverstorm's comment - that PayPal has to comply with US law and thus shouldn't be denigrated for this decision. Not even Wikileaks has been shown to have violated US law, but my point was that Yahoo and PayPal can't even rely on the fact that they have to comply with US law, because they haven't violated it at all. Well. They may have now - PayPal in particular could be accused of fraud for freezing an account unless they release the funds relatively quickly. This might even have the kind of visibility that would result in that kind of good outcome. Wikileaks really is shining light on a lot of roaches this week...

haploid 16y ago

Is this a serious post? The government can exact capricious petty revenge on your business, so it's not the business's fault for exercising cowardice? It would be unbelievably easy to rightfully Godwin your perspective on this issue, but I won't do it. The United States is a nation predicated on a set of inviolate rights that are supposedly protected by the charter document of the nation itself. Among these rights are the right to hold property, conduct affairs freely, and speak freely. The courts have repeatedly defined rights that are derivative of our constitutionally-protected ones, and that among these are the ability to conduct business free from the threat of arbitrary governmental coercion( e.g. absent of a "chilling effect" ), with obvious exceptions made where the business has committed a crime. PayPal, Amazon, et. al. Have not broken the law by providing services to Wikileaks, and are, therefore, not in danger of retribution by the government specified in the US Constitution. The salient point here may be that the government we have is possibly NOT the government specified by the US Constitution, and these companies ARE in danger of capricious revenge by the government. And if this is the case, we as a nation are living under the thumb of a truly illegitimate government - and we have bigger issues to worry about than the cowardice of companies. But whether or not we exist in a nation of arbitrarily exacted State power, nothing changes the fact that Amazon and PayPal are corporate cowards, in the absence of an actual, honest-to-god court order. To say they should be held harmless is, well, an "interesting" perspective.

hackinthebochs 16y ago
>PayPal, Amazon, et. al. Have not broken the law by providing services to Wikileaks I would be surprised if it's not illegal to aid in the dissemination of classified material. Nevertheless, its certainly illegal to aid an abet terrorists. Seeing as the government owns the monopoly on defining who is a terrorist, it's not a stretch at all to see there might be actual legal consequences down the road for these companies. This may not be "right", but this isn't Amazon's or Paypal's fight to have. I don't blame them one bit. This is Wikileak's problem to deal with--It comes with the territory.
- Pahalial 16y ago
  No, the legal ramifications only come into play when the government officially declares something a terrorist organization. In the USA, this would be done by the State Department, which has yet to issue such a proclamation. All this folding by American companies until Wikileaks is actually branded such is (depending on your POV) pure cowardice or generous cooperation with the present interests of government. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_or...