[QUOTE=Athena;26487335]Paypal has no defense.[/QUOTE]
Breach of TOS seems like a perfectly reasonable defense to me.
[QUOTE=Wnd;26487418]That's probably because you are ignorant and stubborn.[/QUOTE]
You've never had to deal with these guys have you. Neither the donors or Wikileaks will get that money back. It's Paypal's forever now. They do this all the time and because they're not a bank they're not regulated.
[QUOTE=TH89;26487513]Breach of TOS seems like a perfectly reasonable defense to me.[/QUOTE]
They should have killed it from the start, because, as you so adequately put, it was "blatantly illegal". Letting it live, making interest off the money and then seizing it years down the road isn't tenable.
Good.
[QUOTE=Athena;26487335]Paypal has no defense. Wikileaks' objective has been perfectly clear since the outset - Paypal is deciding just now that they're breaking TOS? [i]Please.[/i]
You're right they've got no obligation. But I'm also under absolutely no obligation to use their services.[/QUOTE]
PayPal is a private company, they can do what they want. As they have proven many times over the years by closing accounts.
But they really should have done it earlier, this is just stupid.
[QUOTE=Athena;26487537]You've never had to deal with these guys have you.[/QUOTE]
I have done that few times
[QUOTE=Athena;26487537]You've never had to deal with these guys have you. Neither the donors or Wikileaks will get that money back. It's Paypal's forever now.[/QUOTE]
Which I agree is a shady policy, but it's a separate issue from the Wikileaks thing. The money-seizing thing has always been their M.O., so why protest it now?
The closure of the account itself was realistically the only thing PayPal could do. The fact it's been open this long COULD mean they were evilly trying to fatten up the account before closing it (assuming Wikileaks was stupid enough to store its assets in the PayPal account) but it's equally likely that it hadn't come to their attention until recently, or even that they WANTED to keep it open. Do we even know when this account was opened? It could be it's a new one and Wikileaks is playing this for publicity.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;26487122]Alex Jone's InfoWars website is being censored by google mysteriously...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOihKMJAxtM[/media]
Also, if they do release the password, how do I input it into the insurance file?[/QUOTE]
It's probably censored because it's a load of shit
The real question is, how much money was on it?
Paypal probably gave wikileaks a time frame to remove their money and tell people to stop using the account before they would close it permanently.
[QUOTE=TH89;26487808]Which I agree is a shady policy, but it's a separate issue from the Wikileaks thing. The money-seizing thing has always been their M.O., so why protest it now?[/quote]
Now is as good as any, but protests are happening now because this particular seizure is worth thousands dollars.
[quote]The closure of the account itself was realistically the only thing PayPal could do. The fact it's been open this long COULD mean they were evilly trying to fatten up the account before closing it (assuming Wikileaks was stupid enough to store its assets in the PayPal account) but it's equally likely that it hadn't come to their attention until recently, or even that they WANTED to keep it open. Do we even know when this account was opened? It could be it's a new one and Wikileaks is playing this for publicity.[/QUOTE]
I agree it's foolish to keep any kind of money in a paypal account given the company's track record, but I disagree that this hadn't come to their attention until recently because the Collateral Murder release was far more substantial and damaging, and nothing happened. If someone was stepping on their toes, it should have happened then.
That's not to say that's not what's going on now because Wikileaks is the most popular it's ever been, but its latest release amounts to what highschoolers write about each other and its surge in popularity translates to a surge in donations.
Wiki's been taking donations since inception so I doubt it's a new account and I also doubt they would do anything to make more reasons for people to hate them than necessary.
[QUOTE=Valnar;26488322]Paypal probably gave wikileaks a time frame to remove their money and tell people to stop using the account before they would close it permanently.[/QUOTE]
You put way too much faith in Paypal.
[QUOTE=1239the;26481368]The only "illegal" activity that the U.S. has actually been able to pin on Assange is "suprise sex". (Apparently that's enough for an international arrest warrant, too.)[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact it wasn't the US that filed the charges.
I downloaded and i live in the us...come and get me you over-bearing bastards!
[QUOTE=nemmises5;26489905]I downloaded and i live in the us...come and get me you over-bearing bastards![/QUOTE]
No one cares about your encrypted file.
Try again when you got the key
This sort of thing should be a random event in the next Civilization game. Suddenly all civs know your relations with eachother, your secret pacts, etc.
[QUOTE=markg06;26487926]It's probably censored because it's a load of shit[/QUOTE]
It's probably censored because somebody has something to hide.
What about Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show being pulled? He ran one episode about some "death camps" all over the US, apparently FEMA-owned, and his show was [I]pulled[/I].
[I][B]Pulled[/B][/I].
If that's not something shady by the government, I must've been born by a virgin birth, because it's just as likely. If he was another "crazy" person, what threat is he? The channel can't be the perpetrator; they haven't had issues with him before. That one particular episode set someone off, though, and that's got me wondering even more than this Wikileaks tomfoolery.
[QUOTE=Shadow Core;26486546]Good, can't wait until he is hanged for being a traitor.
I would rather have him shot.[/QUOTE]
A traitor to the US, a hero to everyone else. You crazy Americans living under a media controlled hysteria... you really need to get out more.
[QUOTE=Athena;26487537]They should have killed it from the start, because, as you so adequately put, it was "blatantly illegal". Letting it live, making interest off the money and then seizing it years down the road isn't tenable.[/QUOTE]
Paypal, profiting off of something illegal and then shutting it down afterwards and calling themselves the good guys? Well fuck me, now I've seen everything.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;26491656]It's probably censored because somebody has something to hide.
What about Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show being pulled? He ran one episode about some "death camps" all over the US, apparently FEMA-owned, and his show was [I]pulled[/I].
[I][B]Pulled[/B][/I].
If that's not something shady by the government, I must've been born by a virgin birth, because it's just as likely. If he was another "crazy" person, what threat is he? The channel can't be the perpetrator; they haven't had issues with him before. That one particular episode set someone off, though, and that's got me wondering even more than this Wikileaks tomfoolery.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe it was a terrible show with terrible ratings and the network decided to cut losses on it. Nope, must be the evil government.
[QUOTE=alt;26481550]The insurance file is supposed to contain every single document. It's got a AES256 encryption though which is pretty much uncrackable. The password is said to be released when Assange gets arrested.[/QUOTE]
Oh damn.
[QUOTE=Jetamo;26491169]This sort of thing should be a random event in the next Civilization game. Suddenly all civs know your relations with eachother, your secret pacts, etc.[/QUOTE]
That's actually a really cool idea.
[QUOTE=Stalk;26483831]Seems that freedom of speech is no longer an acceptable liberty... Assange is a hero in my eyes.[/QUOTE]
hes more to me
[QUOTE=Valnar;26488322]Paypal probably gave wikileaks a time frame to remove their money and tell people to stop using the account before they would close it permanently.[/QUOTE]
This is the same Paypal we're talking about right?
[QUOTE=Athena;26487335]Paypal has no defense. Wikileaks' objective has been perfectly clear since the outset - Paypal is deciding just now that they're breaking TOS? [i]Please.[/i]
[/QUOTE]
Have you been living under a Terms-of-Service-proof rock? TOS's exist to provide companies with as much ability to cover their asses as possible.
[editline]5th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jenkem;26491656]It's probably censored because somebody has something to hide.
What about Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show being pulled? He ran one episode about some "death camps" all over the US, apparently FEMA-owned, and his show was [I]pulled[/I].
[I][B]Pulled[/B][/I].
If that's not something shady by the government, I must've been born by a virgin birth, because it's just as likely. If he was another "crazy" person, what threat is he? The channel can't be the perpetrator; they haven't had issues with him before. That one particular episode set someone off, though, and that's got me wondering even more than this Wikileaks tomfoolery.[/QUOTE]
Is it cherry or grape?
[QUOTE=insane taco;26486302]It's classified information for a reason. Wikileaks are just going to cause shit that didn't need to happen.[/QUOTE]
If we wikileaks never published any of this, we wouldn't have found out about some of the atrocious civilian casualties we inflicted. I think out citizens need to know the prices we pay for in war. Agree or disagree, we shouldn't be ignorant of the damage we do.
There are more things wikileaks released that I've wanted to know about, than release something I didn't want to know, nor care about.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;26491656]It's probably censored because somebody has something to hide.
What about Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show being pulled? He ran one episode about some "death camps" all over the US, apparently FEMA-owned, and his show was [I]pulled[/I].
[I][B]Pulled[/B][/I].
If that's not something shady by the government, I must've been born by a virgin birth, because it's just as likely. If he was another "crazy" person, what threat is he? The channel can't be the perpetrator; they haven't had issues with him before. That one particular episode set someone off, though, and that's got me wondering even more than this Wikileaks tomfoolery.[/QUOTE]
A post about FEMA death camps ladies and gentlemen
[QUOTE=Jenkem;26491656]It's probably censored because somebody has something to hide.
What about Jesse Ventura's conspiracy show being pulled? He ran one episode about some "death camps" all over the US, apparently FEMA-owned, and his show was [I]pulled[/I].
[I][B]Pulled[/B][/I].
If that's not something shady by the government, I must've been born by a virgin birth, because it's just as likely. If he was another "crazy" person, what threat is he? The channel can't be the perpetrator; they haven't had issues with him before. That one particular episode set someone off, though, and that's got me wondering even more than this Wikileaks tomfoolery.[/QUOTE]
1. I saw an advertisement for a new episode less than 5 minutes ago
2. he's batshit crazy and his conspiracies are dumber than any NWO or illuminati shit I've ever heard
3. you're a conspiracy theorist, you have zero credibility
[editline]asdf[/editline]
[b][i]pulled[/i][/b] bro [b][i]pulled[/i][/b]!!!!!!!
[QUOTE=1239the;26481368]The only "illegal" activity that the U.S. has actually been able to pin on Assange is "suprise sex". (Apparently that's enough for an international arrest warrant, too.)[/QUOTE]
Those charges have nothing to do with the U.S.
The majority of the world is out to get him, not just the U.S.
Julian Assange just wanted to be like Notch.
Um, I like how everyone still thinks the US government. If I were them i would've just stopped trying now which is what I figure they've done at this point.
[QUOTE=Swilly;26497322][b]Um, I like how everyone still thinks the US government.[/b] If I were them i would've just stopped trying now which is what I figure they've done at this point.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this sentence.
[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;26496586]If we wikileaks never published any of this, we wouldn't have found out about some of the atrocious civilian casualties we inflicted. I think out citizens need to know the prices we pay for in war. Agree or disagree, we shouldn't be ignorant of the damage we do.
There are more things wikileaks released that I've wanted to know about, than release something I didn't want to know, nor care about.[/QUOTE]
We already knew about these damn casualties.....:doh:
[editline]4th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;26497330]I don't understand this sentence.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that was fail, my bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.