5 ms·

And in the US that should be unconstitutional if we had a court system that actually upheld the constitution If the Government is creating a list of no-no word

And in the US that should be unconstitutional if we had a court system that actually upheld the constitution If the Government is creating a list of no-no words (which in itself is violative of the constitution) it should be required to publish them as "Secret Laws" are defacto unconstitutional, Further the government having a list of words I am not allowed to use, AND not allowed to know I am not allowed to use should be abhorrent to anyone the values freedom

mpalmer 4y ago
This is about PayPal, not a government.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  [dead]
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  The parent talked about KYC which is a Law / Regulation of the banking system. PayPal is required by law to KYC and comply with these types of regulations around governments lists of barred organizations, people, and nations
- nullc 4y ago
  It's about paypal acting on behalf of and as an agent of the US government. If it were just paypal they absolutely wouldn't care about the subject so much as to match random characters in descriptions, wouldn't give people zero recourse, etc.
  - clowd 4y ago
    Complying with US federal law does not equate to acting as an agent of the US government, no matter how many times this trope may be repeated.
    - nullc 4y ago
      The US government may not pass laws to achieve an unconstitutional end, even if it's achieved through third parties. If that is the effect of the law, then the law is invalid no mater how many times the "I was just following orders" trope is repeated.
      - clowd 4y ago
        Is your assertion that it's unconstitutional for the US government to regulate interstate commerce?
feoren 4y ago
[flagged]
quantumsequoia 4y ago
PayPal ≠ government
- user3939382 4y ago
  It is, given they’re not classified as a bank due to their lobbying. The power of these corporations blurs the practical line between government and corporation.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  True, but we have regulations so that corporate actors can't just jerk people around and engage in fraudulent behavior of their own.
clowd 4y ago
The government hasn't created a list of no-no words, they've created a list of entities with whom US Persons cannot conduct financial transactions. I don't know what "ALEP" is but you can be sure it refers to some organization designated by the Office of Foreign Asset Control. PayPal's crappy system is PayPal's crappy system; their implementation wasn't directed by USG.
- mcovey 4y ago
  I figured Aleppo, Syria
supernova87a 4y ago
Wait a moment. While I agree that the government should be transparent generally about its law enforcement, you can't suggest that there are absolutely no secrets that should be kept confidential to enable reasonable law enforcement to occur? If the government or some agency published all the indicators of fraud that it used to check that people were filing their taxes legitimately (and catch crooks), how would you ever conduct anti-fraud operations? Every criminal would have the manual on how to circumvent the detection mechanisms and move to techniques that the IRS doesn't know how to detect. Should the government equally publish its root passwords because that's within your right to be able to know how the government operates also? That would be ridiculous.

mpalmer 4y ago

This is about PayPal, not a government.

encryptluks2 4y ago
[dead]
phpisthebest 4y ago
The parent talked about KYC which is a Law / Regulation of the banking system. PayPal is required by law to KYC and comply with these types of regulations around governments lists of barred organizations, people, and nations
nullc 4y ago
It's about paypal acting on behalf of and as an agent of the US government. If it were just paypal they absolutely wouldn't care about the subject so much as to match random characters in descriptions, wouldn't give people zero recourse, etc.
- clowd 4y ago
  Complying with US federal law does not equate to acting as an agent of the US government, no matter how many times this trope may be repeated.
  - nullc 4y ago
    The US government may not pass laws to achieve an unconstitutional end, even if it's achieved through third parties. If that is the effect of the law, then the law is invalid no mater how many times the "I was just following orders" trope is repeated.
    - clowd 4y ago
      Is your assertion that it's unconstitutional for the US government to regulate interstate commerce?

feoren 4y ago

[flagged]

quantumsequoia 4y ago

PayPal ≠ government

user3939382 4y ago
It is, given they’re not classified as a bank due to their lobbying. The power of these corporations blurs the practical line between government and corporation.
anigbrowl 4y ago
True, but we have regulations so that corporate actors can't just jerk people around and engage in fraudulent behavior of their own.

clowd 4y ago

The government hasn't created a list of no-no words, they've created a list of entities with whom US Persons cannot conduct financial transactions. I don't know what "ALEP" is but you can be sure it refers to some organization designated by the Office of Foreign Asset Control. PayPal's crappy system is PayPal's crappy system; their implementation wasn't directed by USG.

mcovey 4y ago
I figured Aleppo, Syria

supernova87a 4y ago

Wait a moment. While I agree that the government should be transparent generally about its law enforcement, you can't suggest that there are absolutely no secrets that should be kept confidential to enable reasonable law enforcement to occur? If the government or some agency published all the indicators of fraud that it used to check that people were filing their taxes legitimately (and catch crooks), how would you ever conduct anti-fraud operations? Every criminal would have the manual on how to circumvent the detection mechanisms and move to techniques that the IRS doesn't know how to detect. Should the government equally publish its root passwords because that's within your right to be able to know how the government operates also? That would be ridiculous.