PayPal Freezes the Assets of Wikileaks.org 403
matsh sends word that PayPal has frozen the assets of wikileaks.org. From their Web site: "Paypal has as of 23rd of January 2010 frozen WikiLeaks assets. This is the second time that this happens. The last time we struggled for more than half a year to resolve this issue. By working with the respected and recognized German foundation Wau Holland Stiftung we tried to avoid this from happening again — apparently without avail." The submitter adds: "Hopefully we can pressure PayPal to resolve this quickly, since this seems like a dangerous political decision."
Oh noes! (Score:2, Funny)
What ever will wikileaks.org do without the excellent customer service, transparent and fair practices, and fantastic service charges provided by Paypal? Guess I'm not donating to them anymore.
Re:Burnt twice? (Score:2, Funny)
YEAH, fuck banks!
I only accept payment and donations in cash, gold, and cartons of cigarettes.
Re:pecunix among others? (Score:3, Funny)
I believe it's time for an alternate, non-US based payment processor to take the place of paypal
I agree, I have a very rich uncle in Nigeria that has a large sum of money and we need a bank account to get this up and running. If you don't mind posting you full name, DOB, SSN and bank account info then we will get started right away.
We'll gladly pay you $40,000,000US for the inconvenience and helping us out!!
Re:PayPal Regulation? (Score:3, Funny)
So this is all about presidential term limits [usconstitution.net]? Color me confused.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Burnt twice? (Score:4, Funny)
you forgot bags of weed, ass grass or cash is my moto
Hows that working on your website?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those three things basically responsible for the proliferation of the internet? Some more than others, I suppose.
Re:Even the death penalty (Score:4, Funny)
That would simply screw the small-time investor,
Good. The small-time investor who is not scrupulous about choosing his investments, and instead makes them based on monetary decisions, is as much to blame for the power of the corporation as anyone else. In the aggregate, they manage to do an amazing amount of damage. If you had to be choosier about your investments based on the corporation's potential to fail the ethics test, then perhaps people would be a bit more moral about what they do with their money.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone who loses their ass because they invested in evil. I feel that the fact that you do says something very bad about you.
No, what you need to do is hold the CEO personally responsible for everything a corporation does.
This will never work without limits. I have an alternate, similar proposal. Limit executive salaries to the sum of the people who work directly for them, and force them to share the responsibility if any of those people commits a crime during the course of their work. This helps solve the problem of ridiculous executive salaries and institutes a reasonable chain of responsibility. Attempting to induce someone to commit a crime is itself a crime, so it also provides a means of limiting people attempting to induce their underlings (or underlings' underlings) to commit a crime, although of course it does not eliminate it. But it will of course encourage whistleblowing!