3 ms·
No, the problem is with these companies, too. If there's an issue with a client that is not clearly illegal, then the responsible thing to do is to put the bur
by michaelchisari 16y ago
No, the problem is with these companies, too. If there's an issue with a client that is not clearly illegal, then the responsible thing to do is to put the burden of proof on the government. So far, from what I've heard, only a French bank has had the spine to require the government to make specific charges or provide a court order before they would close the account.
This isn't just about government, there is a process, and while corporations are within their legal rights to deny service for whatever reason, that doesn't mean they're acting responsibly.
Especially with a situation as profound as this.
- citricsquid 16y agoSo if the government put pressure on Paypal -- I don't know big business so I don't know what they would do, but I assume it's something Paypal don't want -- to the extent that it would affect customers other than Wikileaks what should they do then? Paypal support millions of people and businesses, is it not their responsibility (as a business out for profit) to look out for the majority and not a single one? If standing up for Wikileaks would cause problems for everyone else is that "fair"? I guess I'm spineless then, if I was Paypal I'd do what they've done here, heh.
- michaelchisari 16y agoWhat kind of pressure are we talking about? Anything beyond a phone call that says "We'd like you to do this" would be illegal (blackmail, extortion, etc), and I'd bring the full weight of my law department if any member of government put tangible, material pressure on my company because of something like this. But if you just get that phone call? You ask for proof, and you wait until they bring it. And you keep going on as business as usual until you get a court order or similar.