Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck The Media Your Rights Online

PayPal Withdraws WikiLeaks Donation Service 794

Posted by timothy
from the no-funds-for-you dept.
ItsIllak writes "The BBC are reporting that PayPal is the latest company to abandon WikiLeaks. The list now includes their DNS providers (EveryDNS) and their hosts (Amazon). PayPal's move is unlikely to result in many more people boycotting the company, as most knowledgeable on-line users will have been refusing to use them for years for a wide variety of abusive practices." Adds reader jg21: "As open source freedom fighter Simon Phipps writes in his ComputerWorldUK blog, behavior like this by Amazon and Tableau [and now PayPal] 'informs us as customers of web services and cloud computing services that we are never safe from intentional outages when the business interests of our host are challenged.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PayPal Withdraws WikiLeaks Donation Service

Comments Filter:
  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @11:41AM (#34443492) Homepage Journal
    There were idiots believing there could be freedom with full feudalism (capitalism) being allowed in the economic side of life, and democracy and equality in the political side of life.

    See how that works ? you are free to say anything you want, from the political side, but, you dont have the MEANS to say it from the economic side.

    basically, the corporations which dominate the economic side, determine how far your freedom goes. it doesnt matter ZIT whether you are allowed full freedoms in the political side of life.

    its stupid anyway - you let everyone be free and equal, but, you give the control of the means to exercise those freedoms to the most wealthy. what did you think would happen ?

    this ....
  • It took this long? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by owlnation (858981) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @11:46AM (#34443524)
    I'm surprised, I'd have thought Paypal would have been the first to cut ties. Especially considering their connection to Meg Whitman.

    Though, this is probably a good thing. Considering Paypal's reputation and standing, Paypal is a company that Wikileaks should have been publishing documents about, rather than using as a payment partner.
  • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @11:52AM (#34443550)

    This has suddenly become an excellent business opportunity to any company that wants free publicity and wishes to get a chunk of Paypal's business. It only needs to contact wikileaks and offer their regular service, along with an assurance that they won't cancel the account. That, alone, will contrast with Paypal's notorious appalling business behaviour, which systematically lets their paying customers hang out to dry.

    So, care to put your money where your mouth is, alertpay and co ?

  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @11:56AM (#34443578) Homepage Journal
    I have demanded that they reinstate wikileaks account, and noted that i would migrate my business from paypal to other means, and also advise my ecommerce clients to do as such too. In addition, because im in the Eu zone, i have filed my complaint under 'file a complaint in the european union'.

    i have also stated that i was going to file an official complaint with the European Parliament regarding the matter, unless the account is not reinstated. As a citizen of a candidate country, i have that right. Any citizen of any member or candidate country, has that right. If you file your complaint properly with your name, address, it is processed by Eu Parl even if it is by email.

    take action.

    i said, i didnt want to do business with a corporation that caves into the pressure of a single senator from a single country. Let paypal show its international, if it wants to do business internationally.
  • by jgardia (985157) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @11:57AM (#34443586)

    Bah, they just need to leak some info about PayPal now, to thank them.

  • by Mindcontrolled (1388007) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @11:58AM (#34443590)
    So, journalism is only journalism when you approve of the content? Does that extend to all press or is this just your special "lex wikileaks"? Freedom of the press, yes or no?
  • by Moryath (553296) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:02PM (#34443632)

    Actually, the US has laws against funding terrorist organizations, and is moving to try to put Wikileaks on that list. So there may be either fear on the part of the businesses, or else behind-the-scenes pressure (a "friendly warning" from the FBI for instance) to do so.

    At the same time, I can't fault Paypal for their actions. I used to donate to UNICEF, but I stopped when it was revealed that a sizable portion of money from them was being used to fund "summer camps" like the Wafa Idris, Ayyat al-Akhras and Dalal Mughrabi summer camps; these are named after suicide bombing terrorists and places where nothing but hate and racism is taught to children.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:04PM (#34443642)
    I'm guessing that's what this is about. But realistically now that they've cut off Wikileaks they've got precisely zero leverage. Previously they could pull that stunt they like and hold everybody's money ransom for....

    One Meeeleon Dollars.
  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:07PM (#34443672) Journal

    Freedom of publication. But can you afford to pay for the press, the ink, the distribution?

    Freedom of broadcasting. But can you afford the license fee for the frequency, the cost of powering the transmitter?

    Freedom to gather. But can you afford to take a day of work, the travel expenses? Can you get a meeting place?

    The chains of oppression are never more powerful then when those chains are of our own making. We make the super-companies and gave them the power to control society. Google dictates what you can put on a website, oh you can pay for bandwidth yourself but who can afford to pay for a DDOS attack traffic? So you get google ads and abide by their content laws or you get the money elsewhere.

    Through paypal donations? Only when PayPal approves.

    The proof? Boobies. There is no need for congress to ban boobies on TV, self regulation does it already. How nice. But it goes further. Just how do you get something published on TV if the powers that be do not want it? Oh, you might be able to get it on some tiny channel but then the fast majority will never see it.

    Mission accomplished.

    The conspiracy theory nuts never think devious enough. They fear jackbooted thugs marching down the street when it is so much simpler to simply let it be known that an action would displease you and all the little puppets spring into action to prevent the risk that this displeasement might come on their necks. I could whip you into obeying my orders, or I could make you fear you won't have a job tomorrow with which to pay your credit card debt. I can only whip one person at a time. I can ruin thousands of lives by just signing a simple piece of paper except that the fear means I never have to do it to get you and your masters to obey.

    We are seeing now in action what western democracy has become. And nothing will change. Because our masters have replaced the whip with credit card payments, mortages and Idols. The romans would have been proud. To bad they are gone, bread and circusses didn't work out to well for us. Doubt it will for us.

    Wonder what the Chinese are making of all this. They seen the romans rice and fall, are we just another empire to die as the Chinese empire continues?

  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:19PM (#34443772) Homepage Journal

    How is the contrary (ie, forcing companies to host and support any speech whether they like it or not) no less oppressive? So if the Neo-Nazis or NAMBLA want to be hosted by Amazon, Amazon has to let them? What about a rival entity, like B&N? Does PayPal have to handle transactions for their rivals? By your all-caps logic, to deny them would be OPPRESSION and AGAINST FREE SPEECH. Things aren't black and white. I won't try to dictate where the line is drawn between standing for oppression and standing for freedom, but please try to grasp that there is a discussion that needs to be had (and continuously had, not just once) about it. Your view isn't the only one or even the one that results in the fairest, most reasonable outcome.

    dont bullshit. there are set standards in regard to declaration of human rights, on this planet. EVERYthing that is considered civil and modern ideals and principles for civilization today, are based on these.

    seeking to kill people based on race does not relate to any of those principles.

    your argument is null and void.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:25PM (#34443816) Homepage Journal
    Paypal is basically discriminating against an entity/person based in European Union, based on political pressure in united states.

    United states, is not in european union.

    Petition european parliament at the below url via their online form, or, mail your petition to the address below and ask European Parliament look into the practices of Paypal in european union, and take action against their holdings in Eu, if they are found in violation. If they are to do business in European union, they have to abide by its rules and regulations.

    https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN [europa.eu]

    Committee on Petitions
    The Secretariat
    Rue Wiertz
    B-1047 Brussels
  • by mapkinase (958129) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:27PM (#34443834) Homepage Journal

    http://www.screw-paypal.com/alternatives/alternatives.html [screw-paypal.com]

    Dated 2007. Anything newer?

  • by mrclisdue (1321513) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:36PM (#34443922)

    Because, by releasing *everything*, as opposed to just those 1000 or so that you, or someone else finds "damning", it becomes difficult to portray wikileaks as being *selective*, or showing bias.

    This is not another blow for wikileaks, this is just another blow for paypal.

  • Illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Posting=!Working (197779) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @12:53PM (#34444092)

    If it was illegal, why hasn't the justice department issued an indictment for Julian Assange? Or perhaps gone after Wikileaks itself? It's all been political sabre rattling, because wikileaks itself is completely legal, they can't do anything else.

    Wikileaks should sue Paypal over this, they have unilaterally declared wikileaks illegal with no charges having been filed. They are directly violating their contract for service. Amazon's terms had some wiggle room, but Paypal is just full of shit.

    This absolutely stinks of backroom political pressure.

  • by mswhippingboy (754599) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @01:06PM (#34444178)
    I find the timing of the massive attempts to shutdown wikileaks at all costs curious (maybe it's just the conspiracy theorist in me). I have no doubt those in power were aware of the pending release of the Afganistan diaries in July. This dump contained information and videos embarrassing (to say the least) to the US, but no real attempt was made to block it's release. The next major dump (gablegate) was no doubt anticipated beforehand as well and we began seeing some moves afoot to try and block it's dissemination, but no "bring the hammer down and stop it at all costs before it gets out" effort. That seems to have changed last week. The government is now warning all military, civilian and contractors to not download and/or read the documents, or they might jeopardize their jobs (or worse). However, the documents are already out there and being reported on. It would seem a little late to try to put the genie back in the bottle, so what's going on here?

    Could it be that the next announced major document dump , the so-called "banking information megadump" is the real dump that cannot be allowed to be made public? It's no secret that it's really the banks that control all governments, including the US (or so the conspiracy goes). I'm not sure how much stock to put in this conspiracy theory, but it does make a good deal of common sense that those with the money pull the levers.

    I does make one wonder - I'm just sayin'
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday December 04, 2010 @03:28PM (#34445086) Homepage Journal

    There's a world of difference between "secrets and wrongdoing" and "privacy and discretion." Accused rapist Assange* asked for and then published what amounts to the private correspondence of American ambassadors... something that on a long enough timetable is made public as a route matter ANYWAY.

    Wow, you are human slime, doing the establishment's job for it. I believe we call such a person a "useful idiot". Assange is accused of continuing to have sex with someone after a condom broke, someone who went out the next morning, bought him breakfast, and brought it back. You're a fucking evil piece of shite to actually even bring that into the conversation.

    (*: If he's innocent, he can go back and defend himself. If he's innocent, he has little reason not to and a big scary reason to do so... namely, to clear his and wikileaks' names.)

    You know what makes it scary? That the mere accusation is enough to convince many people that you've committed the crime. I sincerely fucking hope it happens to you, and soon.

  • by sgt_doom (655561) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @03:33PM (#34445118)
    I noticed this at another site and thought the poster made colossal sense:

    "Geez, I still don't see why prosecutor Marianne Ny (email address: marianne.ny@aklagare.se ) didn't follow any of the standard judicial and prosecutorial procedures; maybe we should ALL contact her to see what's going on?"

    "And what's up with Justice Skarhed? (email: anna.skarhed@justitiekanslern.se ) I mean, wasn't she investigating why prosecutor Maria Kjellstrand illegally released aspects of the Assange file to the Swedish tabloids?"

    "And that Tableaux Software (headquartered in Seattle, along with Amazon, isn't that were Micro$oft's located???)?

    If you support Tableaux's pulling their software license from WikiLeaks, then give them a shoutout for support the Corporate Fascist State."

    (first email is management) cstolte@tableausoftware.com efink@tableausoftware.com jmackinlay@tableausoftware.com

  • by turbidostato (878842) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @04:06PM (#34445314)

    "the vast majority of the material that's been released shows no evidence of any government abuses"

    There's more on the "abuse" word than "plain illegal", specially with respect to politics. If there's really no government abuses, why all the airing? Can it be because at least some people found the data supportive of at least questionable practices? And if it's indeed questionable practices at least for somebody, how can't it be considered whistleblowering?

  • Re:Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stellian (673475) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @05:08PM (#34445638)

    For example, it's been settled unequivocally that you can't run a lunch counter and refuse to serve blacks.

    So, no, Amazon doesn't have the "freedom to not do business with you".

    I certainly can't bar black people from my diner - it's illegal. What about a specific black person, who spews leftist propaganda at my customers ? Am I not allowed to kick him out because he's black, or because he has political views ?

    The key issue here is that 'discrimination' is not always bad. Employers routinely discriminate against stupid people. The penal system discriminates against criminals by it's very nature. "To discriminate" means to distinguish, to select. You have no blanket right protecting you from all discrimination, you have specific and limited rights: in most societies you can't be picked on based on race, age, sex, orientation etc. I.a a blacklist of characteristics you can't be discriminated against.

    However, you should expect being discriminated against when you are wearing an Osama t-shirt. You can wear it on the street, and post it on you website - that's freedom of speech. I will refuse to renew your lease - that's freedom of association.

    By the way, I consider mr Assange a hero (albeit, an egomaniac one), and I'm seeding the wikileaks torrent. I just feel it's easy to go over-board when you feel the cold breath of the fascist state down your spine. The state needs fixing, not everyone else forced to share your opinion. US is still a great democracy. Here in Romania, none of the wikileaks domains resolve.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...