Paypal freezes Cryptome

arbitrary and unregulated

From the many comments you can read on the 'tubes. PayPal seems quite fond of acting this way.

Since they're unregulated, there's not much you can do about it.

Those not so convinced of the "Pal" part of their name, might note that their 180 day fund freeze garners them a not inconsiderable interest income from the funds being frozen.

I give them a very wide berth.

There I was believing it was the role of the courts in society to decide punishment.

These days with collaboration between just businesses (and governments in the background) this news shows serious punishments can be given to individuals and groups who stand against the establishment, without ever having to use (or prove) a legal case against the groups. Just quietly cut off their money here and their domain name there etc.. etc.. etc.. all done via corporate rules and controls and before you know it, the group is silenced. Plus all done without ever having to create laws they know a lot of people will argue against.

With the underhanded ways the businesses and governments are working against the majority of society, we need more groups like Cryptome willing to stand up and speak out against what is going on so often behind our backs.

Dead Man Walking

PayPal and Bill Me Later are not a bank, are not regulated as banks are and yet offer banking-type services, services that would be more appropriately, efficiently, and competently carried out under the auspices of the banking community (via their credit card company partners).

The simple fact is that without the bankers’ knowledge of the entities involved in the transactions, PayPal, or any other non-bank provider, will always be handicapped. Non-bank providers can never guarantee anything for the buyer or seller because they simply don’t have the bankers’ knowledge of the entities involved.

PayPal is an unregulated, unprincipled, systemically dysfunctional, amateur organization (just like its ugly parent, eBay).

The head turkey at eBay, ‘Noise’ Donahoe, has talked of the possibility of offloading PayPal because he is just barely smart enough to know that when the major credit card companies do get off their butts and introduce a like card/terminal-less payments system to complement their credit card system, they will do it properly, and the dysfunctional PayPal will then sink like a stone—other than, possibly, on what is by then left of the Donahoe-ever-shrinking eBay marketplace. The banks may also let PayPal keep those ‘no hoper’ customers that the banks, who will always better ‘know’ their customers, might not likely allow a merchant-type facility.

If Donahoe has any brain at all he will be actively trying to sell PayPal to the banks to complement their credit card system; but I doubt the banks would want to lower their image any further by associating themselves with the likes of PayPal; not even for a peppercorn consideration would the banks touch such an incompetent amateur operation as PayPal, I suspect.

Does anyone then think that ‘all the banks’ are not watching this market segment with interest, and is it possible that PayPal (along with the upstart ‘Bill Me Later’) could be having a negative effect on their credit card business? Why then would ‘the banks’ not be considering a like system to complement their existing card systems? After all, every internet banking user is already set up to receive such a service directly, efficiently and securely, from their bank. The simple fact is that anything that PayPal can do ‘the banks’ can do so much better.

Do we then need to offer the banks and the major credit card companies another such monopoly-type situation? Ideally not. But, having said that, within the credit card system the individual banks do compete with each other on interest rates, etc.

Regardless, it would be nice to have a card/terminal-less system that worked efficiently and effectively—as does the banks’ credit card system. Regrettably (or thankfully, some say), PayPal does not have such a partnership with ‘all the banks’ and so PayPal can never offer that same effectiveness.

My only surprise is that ‘all the banks’, via their credit card partners, have not yet announced their own system. When they do, it will be bye, bye, PayPal—you most ugly of daughters. And, more importantly, we will then have a system that works effectively, just like our credit cards do!

In support of the above comment I offer an introduction to the full sad/ugly story of eBay/PayPal at

http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502877

eBay’s facilitation of shill bidding fraud

To any intelligent, independent person I can prove, beyond any doubt, that sophisticated shill-bidding fraud by unscrupulous professional sellers is rampant on eBay nominal-start auctions.

I have no doubt that I can also convince that same reasonable person that eBay’s managing executives cannot but be aware of this rampant criminal activity, and yet—contrary to their claims—eBay does nothing proactive nor truly effective to stop it.

And, I can prove, at least on the balance of probability, that eBay has quite deliberately chosen to further aid and abet such criminal activity by their masking of bidding IDs with non-unique, non-trackable, anonymous aliases which serve no material purpose other than to further obscure such criminal activity from which eBay gets an improved Final Value Fee.

Put simply, eBay is knowingly facilitating rampant ‘wire fraud’ on buyers the world over.

An introduction to the full ugly story of shill bidding fraud on eBay auctions, and the proof of eBay’s deliberate criminal facilitation thereof, can be found at

http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=6502877

Please excuse my detailed rant on the matter but a rather big picture is required to demonstrate the facts and seriousness of the matter.

And, surely it is about time that some competent authority shone a bright light under this slimy rock.

Google Checkout is Trrustworthy!

I have never used or trusted PayPal - besides their commission is way too high for what they offer.

Google at least handles transfers honestly, the only thing is you don't know what tracking they are using!

Paypal has no money

If you look at the Paypal agreements, if you can call them that, they have the money and account holders have only that--accounts. Paypal can freeze anything for any reason. They are not subject to banking or credit card regulations.

Perhaps someday this will change, but for now they are only a debit system with their own rules.

I successfully got funds back after a judgement against them, but I won't use them or any other similar service again.

Both Paypal and the banks stink

As various people here have noted, Paypal's age-old habit of arbitrarily preventing or greatly delaying users from accessing money which is rightfully theirs, and their sleazy dealings in general, are well-documented.

Then again, banks these days are not exactly endearing themselves to the public. Here in the USA, the credit-card industry have been engaging in mafioso-like shenanigans for decades. Then when the US Congress finally gets around to passing legislation to put an end to the worst abuses, in the 6-9 months before the act takes effect, they go all out with the bogus fees and penalties, pull the credit rug out from under people that have been reliable customers for years, ganging up on their "customers" hoping to get one last good shot in before the shackles finally go on.

They all need to go take a long walk on a short plank.

@ Someone up above...

@ Someone up above...

There has never been any suggestion that individual banks should offer a PayPal type card/terminal-less service; any such individual service would simply be as dysfunctional as PayPal actually is.

Indeed the PayPal service is supported by only an individual bank, Citi, and that is why PayPal is such a dysfunctional system, because only one bank is involved, the bankers of the entities involved in the transaction are not directly involved (remember, PayPal is not a bank and therefore they still need to work through a bank, in this case, Citi—ugh!).

For the same reason “the banks” (and the many other card providers) don't offer individual credit cards as such; although they “badge” their cards, they will still be of the type Mastercard or Visa, through which organizations all “bank-type” card transactions (even Citi’s) are processed.

The banks may well be gougers themselves, but at least their “universal” card system works (and they do have an effective mediation system), and there is competition between the banks in the marketing of their “badged” cards.

Seriously, can you imagine how long the Mastercard and Visa card systems would have lasted if their systems had been as dysfunctional as PayPal? If the banks’ card system had been as “clunky” as PayPal, charge cards and ultimately EFTPOS would have never got off the ground; charge card use would still be the exclusive domain of Diners Club (who?) and “wealthy” Amex card users, I suspect.

Whether you like the cost, or not, of the banks’ credit card system, you get what you pay for; someone has to pay for the warranty involved in such an effective system. It seems to me that PayPal wants to take a similar fee for the their “clunky” service without any warranty and certainly no effective mediation process.

Again, anything PayPal can do, “the banks”, via their card processing partners Mastercard and Visa, can do much better, and they can do that because all the participating banks better “know” the entities involved in the transaction, as PayPal never can.

eBay/PayPal: Dead Men Walking

The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

PayPal hadn't offered an with an explanation at press time........

How about "it's my nature", like the old Aesop fable