Paypal VP on blocking Wikileaks: "state dept. told us it was illegal"
59 replies, posted
[url]http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/paypal-vp-on-blocking-wikileaks-state-department-told-us-it-was-illegal/[/url]
[release]Milo Yannopoulos’ first question on stage to PayPal’s VP of Platform Osama Bedier was why PayPal blocked WikiLeaks payments and froze its account. The question was met with boos from the mostly European audience.
Bedier made it seem like PayPal complied with governmental request,”We have an acceptable use policy and their job is making sure that our customers are protected, that we comply with regulations around the world, and that we protect our brand.”
Bedier also said that the State Department deemed WikiLeaks illegal on November 27th, a statement that was not followed up on by Yiannopoulos. It is still unclear what exact US laws WikiLeaks is breaking.
When asked about Mastercard.com going down earlier today and whether or not Paypal had fears of retaliation, “One of the signs that you’re a successful payments company is that hackers start to target you, this case isn’t anything different.”
Update: After talking to Bedier backstage, he clarified that the State Department did not directly talk to PayPal and that the letter in question here was actually sent by the State Department to WikiLeaks. Full text of the letter he was referencing, below:[/release]
[release]Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:11am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Text of a letter from the State Department to Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, and his lawyer Jennifer Robinson concerning its intended publication of classified State Department documents. The letter, dated November 27, was released by the department.
Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:
I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.
As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.
It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.
Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:
* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals — from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;
* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,
* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries – partners, allies and common stakeholders — to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.
In your letter, you say you want — consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” — information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.
Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, [B]you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials[/B]; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
Sincerely,
(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)[/release]
Silly PayPal, you fell for the lies.
Soooo, does that mean that they activate the account again?
[QUOTE=rosthouse;26563350]Soooo, does that mean that they activate the account again?[/QUOTE]
Nope
Doesn't this support Paypal's decision?
[QUOTE=wuzzimu;26563706]Doesn't this support Paypal's decision?[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks doesn't break any laws.
[QUOTE=doggyalt;26563763]Wikileaks doesn't break any laws.[/QUOTE]
Lol...
[QUOTE=doggyalt;26563763]Wikileaks doesn't break any laws.[/QUOTE]
You forgot the part where they published stolen government documents.
Wikileaks is gonna take PayPal to the Resolution Center.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26563792]You forgot the part where they published stolen government documents.[/QUOTE]
Read this article and read up on Supreme Court cases and you know, the first amendment.
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-and-the-first-amendment/[/url]
It is not illegal for an organization or person to publish classified documents as long as they're not the one who leaked it originally.
[QUOTE=doggyalt;26564353]It is not illegal for an organization or person to publish classified documents as long as they're not the one who leaked it originally.[/QUOTE]
As long as they didn't ask for it. If they did, they're as criminal liable as the leaker.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26563792]You forgot the part where they published stolen government documents.[/QUOTE]
Freedom of the Press. If their "top secret" documents get released, they aren't "top secret" enough, that's the governments fault, not wikileaks.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;26564407]Freedom of the Press. If their "top secret" documents get released, they aren't "top secret" enough, that's the governments fault, not wikileaks.[/QUOTE]
What? Look at a leak! Almost all the documents have a classification date in the future... After that date, unless renewed for a reason, they are released to the public, and the right to Freedom of the Press allows them to cover it legally.
Until those classification dates have been met, then they may be considered stolen or whatever else.
Apparently they might add a SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) act to the Espionage act so that publishing classified material is illegal. Obviously this wouldn't apply to any past leaks, but on all future ones.
I don't think people realize that Wikileaks acts as an 'information conduit'. As stated before, they are not technically liable because all of the leaks are user submitted and they're simply a medium for this information.
That's why you see people like Manning getting into trouble because they originally 'leaked' the information and not Wikileaks.
I am going to die laughing knowing that people who support these idiots are hurting themselves and the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;26564407]Freedom of the Press. If their "top secret" documents get released, they aren't "top secret" enough, that's the governments fault, not wikileaks.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't the government's fault, it is whoever gave the documents to wikileaks, and wikileaks for publishing the information. Freedom of the press doesn't apply when the documents were procured and published illegally.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26564603]No, it isn't the government's fault, it is whoever gave the documents to wikileaks, and wikileaks for publishing the information. Freedom of the press doesn't apply when the documents were procured and published illegally.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does as proven by at least 3 Supreme Court cases. Unless Wikileaks specifically asked for documents they're in the clear, and they haven't done that.
[editline]8th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=wuzzimu;26564542]Apparently they might add a SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) act to the Espionage act so that publishing classified material is illegal. Obviously this wouldn't apply to any past leaks, but on all future ones.[/QUOTE]
Which is completely unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26564603]No, it isn't the government's fault, it is whoever gave the documents to wikileaks, and wikileaks for publishing the information. Freedom of the press doesn't apply when the documents were procured and published illegally.[/QUOTE]
Stealing classified documents is illegal, however, publishing them is not. As far as I know, Wikileaks is supplied the documents by third parties.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;26564775]Stealing classified documents is illegal, however, publishing them is not. As far as I know, Wikileaks is supplied the documents by third parties.[/QUOTE]
What don't you understand?
If Wikileaks procured them by asking the source, then they're legally in the shitter...
If Wikileaks did not ask them, but published them, there may be some legislation previously enacted that protects the publication of classified documents. This is likely.
And what is most likely, Congress passing retroactive legislation outlawing what Wikileaks is currently doing, allowing them to charge the directors of the organisation for publishing the documents.
[QUOTE=lead_farmer;26564548]I don't think people realize that Wikileaks acts as an 'information conduit'. As stated before, they are not technically liable because all of the leaks are user submitted and they're simply a medium for this information.
That's why you see people like Manning getting into trouble because they originally 'leaked' the information and not Wikileaks.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying Goebbels isn't liable for his actions because he was just a conduit of anti-semitism.
:godwin:
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26564957]That's like saying Goebbels isn't liable for his actions because he was just a conduit of anti-semitism.
:godwin:[/QUOTE]
Except wikileaks isn't burning corpses and brainwashing people, terrible analogy.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26564595]I am going to die laughing knowing that people who support these idiots are hurting themselves and the rest of the world.[/QUOTE]
I will join you on that one.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26564920]What don't you understand?
If Wikileaks procured them by asking the source, then they're legally in the shitter...
If Wikileaks did not ask them, but published them, there may be some legislation previously enacted that protects the publication of classified documents. This is likely.
And what is most likely, Congress passing retroactive legislation outlawing what Wikileaks is currently doing, allowing them to charge the directors of the organisation for publishing the documents.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, wikileak doesn't specifically ask people for information.
And ex post facto laws aren't allowed under the US constitution.
[QUOTE=Nerts;26564983]Except wikileaks isn't burning corpses and brainwashing people, terrible analogy.[/QUOTE]
Neither did Goebbels, the point is, they are still liable for the things they have said/done.
Also, we have no idea where this wikileaks thing will go.
They might release something that will cause mass anarchy, and so, wikileaks did infact cause the things you just mentioned.
[QUOTE=doggyalt;26564353]Read this article and read up on Supreme Court cases and you know, the first amendment.
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks-and-the-first-amendment/[/url]
It is not illegal for an organization or person to publish classified documents as long as they're not the one who leaked it originally.[/QUOTE]
I learned something today. Thanks Doggy.
One thing I don't get about this whole Wikileaks thing.
Didn't Julian also leak classified documents form governments?
So why does everybody only really mention the US.
Is it because the government is up in arms about it?
/weird formatting go
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;26565031]As far as I know, wikileak doesn't specifically ask people for information.[/QUOTE]
Who knows what goes on behind the scenes.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;26565031]And ex post facto laws aren't allowed under the US constitution.[/QUOTE]
And the US Supreme Court has not upheld that in the past.
[b]EDIT:[/b] Ahh, they haven't upheld it when it's been deemed "not a punishment". What a joke the Supreme Court is. So inconsistent.
ITT: People complain that the governments can't keep their own data secure.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26565055]Neither did Goebbels, the point is, they are still liable for the things they have said/done.[/QUOTE]Are you seriously suggesting Joseph Goebbels, [b]Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda,[/b] did not brainwash people? You're not confusing him with Goering, are you?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26565119]Are you seriously suggesting Joseph Goebbels, [B]Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda,[/B] did not brainwash people? You're not confusing him with Goering, are you?[/QUOTE]
Goebbels did not burn bodies himself, that is what I was saying.
The people he affected did his affairs for him.
Regardless, you get my point. Even if you didn't come up with your opinion, if you are the medium from which people get the information, you are just as much accountable as the source for this information/opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.