PayPal Reinstates Fund For WikiLeaker Manning 92
itwbennett writes "PayPal has lifted a temporary restriction placed on the account of Courage to Resist, a group raising funds to support the legal defense of US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested for allegedly downloading classified information and providing it to WikiLeaks. As you may recall, PayPal was embroiled in controversy late last year when it shuttered an account for WikiLeaks amid the controversy over the expose of US State Department documents. PayPal communications director Anuj Nayar said in a blog posting that the decision 'had nothing to do with WikiLeaks.'"
Re:Credibility anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Then you apparently didnt actually read the earlier story, where the explaination boils down to,
Source for claims (here [thepaypalblog.com])
We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue).
In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder, nor does it ever take such unauthorized actions.
But no, CTR and slashdots sourceless claims are totally more credible than that. And its totally bogus for Paypal to ask CTR to follow the same requirements as everyone else.
I can agree the unfreezing has a tenuous link with Manning-- all the attention around this non-story has made paypal choose the path of least resistance, which is to reinstate the account and lift the restrictions.
Re:Credibility anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, where was this original claim that they're refuting? I don't see it. As I understood (as of yesterday), the issue WAS that PayPal froze their accounts for non-compliance in this respect
from PayPal's blog [thepaypalblog.com]:
"We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue)."
So PayPal is claiming that this was only because they wouldn't 'link' a bank account with their PayPal account. No explanation of why this only happened after 3 years and coincidentally closely followed CTR sponsoring Manning.
Next you have CTR's spokesman saying that after the account suspension, they did provide the bank info, but that PayPal wanted even more - the permission to withdraw funds directly from the bank account. This is the relevant part that PayPal has not addressed. Did they actually request this? If so, they haven't mentioned it in their blog post. They simply cite the 'link an account', not grant us debit authorization on said account.
No one is going to give a 3rd party processor that type of permission and it is not in PayPals User Agreement. They specifically say they will take you to collections if you owe them money but do not remotely mention they will dock your account directly.
From the PayPal User Agreement Actions They May Take [paypal.com]
"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."
So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.