Paypal releases Wikileaks funds

In the midst of various DDOS attacks, Paypal has moved to release Wikileaks' funds from it's account, after it was suspended late last week for a breach of the sites Terms of Service.

AllthingsD reports that the Paypal team posted to their blog that they have made the decision to release funds to Wikileaks, and have said that they have not received any correspondance from the US government and made the decision independently based on their policy terms. Paypal say that they have previously reviewed the Wikileaks account for other reasons, also, but had made the decision to leave it open.

According to Paypal, Wikileaks breaks this part of the Acceptable Use Policy;

[Paypal] do not allow any organization to use our service if it encourages, promotes, facilitates or instructs others to engage in illegal activity.

The payment site says that they will release the remaining funds in Wikileaks' accounts to them today, but the account will remain in a restricted mode, as it is "encouraging sources to release classified material, which is likely a violation of law by the source." They also added that the procedures they are following apply in all other situations such as this, where an account is restricted.

 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

PayPal and Visa back up after attacks by Anonymous [Update]

Next Story

Santa switches to Google Voice

84 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Assange in August posted on his blog...

"1,300 people were eventually killed [in Kenya], and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi...sange-wikileaks-afghanistan

He tried to scrub his blog and now posted this...

"WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed."

Liar retracts his own admission now.

Some hero.

Blog? It's an interview you linked that states what you pasted. Which _then_ states:

"On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

Selective quoting ftw - you're trying to imply that those people died as a direct result of the leaks, not because the leak exposed corruption that resulted in violent protests. Want to post some sources about the scrubbing?

revparadigm said,
Assange in August posted on his blog...

"1,300 people were eventually killed [in Kenya], and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medi...sange-wikileaks-afghanistan

He tried to scrub his blog and now posted this...

"WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed."

Liar retracts his own admission now.

Some hero.


that quote is not from his blog but from an interview. did you even bother to READ the article you linked to?

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

It's the kind of moral conundrum that would unnerve most people, that made some wonder last week what the potential ramifications of the latest leak might be, but it is a subject on which Assange himself is absolutely clear: "You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion."

treemonster said,

that quote is not from his blog but from an interview. did you even bother to READ the article you linked to?

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

It's the kind of moral conundrum that would unnerve most people, that made some wonder last week what the potential ramifications of the latest leak might be, but it is a subject on which Assange himself is absolutely clear: "You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion."

I tried to fix the "blog" quote...but it wouldn't let me. Hello? Did YOU read it. Assange said HIMSELF "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange."

What don't you people who defended understand what HE SAID HIMSELF ABOUT HIS OWN LEAK???

Kirkburn said,
Blog? It's an interview you linked that states what you pasted. Which _then_ states:

"On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

Selective quoting ftw - you're trying to imply that those people died as a direct result of the leaks, not because the leak exposed corruption that resulted in violent protests. Want to post some sources about the scrubbing?

The post about the violence in Kenya was originally posted on his blog, and he mentioned it in this article again in the Guardian. "Selective quoting"...It is merely repeating his own words back that Assange himself said his leak was responsible for deaths and violence in Kenya. Now he claims nothing he has leaked has resulted in any deaths.

Is this too simple to understand???

revparadigm said,

Some hero.

So it's your opinion that people in Kenya were better off dying squashed under a corrupted government than knowing the truth and fighting for their rights?

What would you have done? Shut up and leave them with their misery? Invade the country?

ichi said,

So it's your opinion that people in Kenya were better off dying squashed under a corrupted government than knowing the truth and fighting for their rights?

What would you have done? Shut up and leave them with their misery? Invade the country?

First of all I merely pointed out the fact Assange blatantly contradicted himself by claiming now his leaks are so innocent that "nobody has died as a result of them".

What would I have done? Okay I'll roll with the classic deflection here that puts the burden on me for some absurd reason to sort out Kenya's political landscape.

Nothing. I would have done nothing. I know my limitations and I am involved in voting here in my own country [USA] and I would follow the structure of our government that elected officials determine foreign policy. If I do not think they are doing their job honorably, I would vote for someone else.

To tell the truth, I'm not that concerned with Assange leaking things. I'm more enraged with our own American government that is so careless with supposed classified material that could do more harm than good when leaked in a way that carries no context why it was classified in the first place.

Anon are terrorists if you think about it. Causing mass destruction on a digital scale, causing millions of people problems with their dumb protest (they obviously didn't read the terms that wikileaks got caught on... Or feel they should choose who's above the terms).

It's digital terrorism. And they have the gall to say it's for the greater good? Break the law, expect consequences. Don't like it, petition for change. Hacking stuff won't make a huge difference, but passionate groups of people have famously changed laws by doing it the right way. These hackers don't do it for the right reasons, they do it for a kick.

Anon are terrorists if you think about it. Causing mass destruction on a digital scale, causing millions of people problems with their dumb protest (they obviously didn't read the terms that wikileaks got caught on... Or feel they should choose who's above the terms).

It's digital terrorism. And they have the gall to say it's for the greater good? Break the law, expect consequences. Don't like it, petition for change. Hacking stuff won't make a huge difference, but passionate groups of people have famously changed laws by doing it the right way. These hackers don't do it for the right reasons, they do it for a kick.

I'm not supporting one side or another or saying that WikiLeaks is doing right or wrong, but I'm wondering why MasterCard, Visa and PayPal think that it is less acceptable to transfer funds to WikiLeaks than to the KKK?

einsteinbqat said,
I'm not supporting one side or another or saying that WikiLeaks is doing right or wrong, but I'm wondering why MasterCard, Visa and PayPal think that it is less acceptable to transfer funds to WikiLeaks than to the KKK?

Source and proof please

satus said,
Anon is so powerful.

Not really DDOS attacks have been around forever and has long been the "script kiddies" attack of choice.

If I was PayPal I'd freeze those funds right back up and sight the fact that "We believe that the attacks were based by members of the website WikiLeaks" and tell them to go pound sand while we hold their money.

Well that didn't help them lol. Paypal.com just went down, but is coming back up.

Anon seems split between attacking Paypal and not attacking Paypal...some say them releasing funds means they are no longer a target. Others say they still are.

Somehow happy about the ending, but ANON is not the only party to thanks, TPB asked for its users to withdraw all their money from the site. I guess when everybody on the web is against a web-based company, better take precautions.

Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of a gang who have an illegal weapon that can be pointed at websites. Terrorisim in any form is still terrorisim. Would you ally yourself with the govenment or Anon and his followers?? Hmm not a hard choice in my mind!

imachip said,
Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of a gang who have an illegal weapon that can be pointed at websites. Terrorisim in any form is still terrorisim. Would you ally yourself with the govenment or Anon and his followers?? Hmm not a hard choice in my mind!

Anon: does not disguise the fact that they are using morally questionable means to achieve just ends

Government: veils atrocities in rhetoric of "national security"

you're right, not a hard choice to make at all.

imachip said,
Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of a gang who have an illegal weapon that can be pointed at websites. Terrorisim in any form is still terrorisim. Would you ally yourself with the govenment or Anon and his followers?? Hmm not a hard choice in my mind!

How is this terror? How can you even pull this bs?

Glendi said,

How is this terror? How can you even pull this bs?


terror - panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety
terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons);

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

One could argue DDOSing is a form of violence, thought without physical means, it has much the same effect online as rioting does on the streets, shuts them down, does damage, and costs them business.

Ryoken said,

terror - panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety
terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons);

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

One could argue DDOSing is a form of violence, thought without physical means, it has much the same effect online as rioting does on the streets, shuts them down, does damage, and costs them business.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I think they are simply using the "your either with us or with the terrorist (i.e. governments with secrets to hide). This was bound to happen. It is probably only the beginning. I don't really care at the moment. I don't have a vested interest either way, though I am moving much more to the side of full disclosure.

SoLoR1 said,
Stupid paypal... if you take certain stand, no matter what are reasons YOU SHOULD STICK TO IT.

Yes, never admit fault and never be wrong amiright!!1!? /sarcasm
(not that I agree with any of this)

Sylar2010 said,
How do we support anon?

EDIT: They seem to have changed the config.

"Settings:
Server: loic.AnonOps.net
Channel: #loic
Select "hivemind mode"
Sit back and watch the show"

Edited by lalalawawawa, Dec 9 2010, 12:27am :

KavazovAngel said,

Download LOIC (google it). Use "****ING HIVE MIND" to connect to irc.anonops.net and hit the big flashy button.

I trust they wont virus my pc or anythin in the process?

SoLoR1 said,
You mean... put irc.anonops.net as a target host and hit big flashy button?

Hmm I think it's put http://www.twitter.com as a target host and hit the button.
The IRC channel is where you can join to talk about it with others.

See PayPal is a website that's in trouble if their main page is down. MasterCard and Visa though I think are pretty safe as I have had a MasterCard credit card for years and never once needed there site.

Ently said,
See PayPal is a website that's in trouble if their main page is down. MasterCard and Visa though I think are pretty safe as I have had a MasterCard credit card for years and never once needed there site.

+1 for this. Its only a warning I guess. Even though Visa is down, my card works just fine, I bought few things from Amazon few hours ago.

Heh, yes it did hurt some innocent bystanders, but when U.S. went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote "democracy", I wonder how many lives they messed up...

DeathsyctheHe11 said,
Heh, yes it did hurt some innocent bystanders, but when U.S. went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote "democracy", I wonder how many lives they messed up...

do you wonder about the lives that were messed up before we got there? Of course not, the Taliban and Saddam were perfect angels, only the US is the villian on this planet.

Well if nobody can go to paypal to pay for ebay items then they can't get their fees!! Damn though, I'm scared now! :eek:

Jose_49 said,
They're scared that their site is brought down.

Would make sense. With the DDoS attacks against Visa / Mastercard.com, most payments weren't affected..only the ones that require Verified by Visa / MC were.

Now with Paypal, they don't have that kind of "luxury"...a DDoS attack on their site will take down their payment processing...and well eBay will also become partly useless.

said that they have not received any correspondance from the US government and made the decision independantly based on their policy terms.

Yeah... right...

stevember said,

Why would government tell them to release funds? Duh

They're talking about why they FROZE the funds to begin with...

Leroy Jethro Gibbs said,
damn anon. im worried this wont end well for anybody.

+1

Exactly....anon has indirectly controlled a company as big as Paypal.
Whats next?

aftas said,

+1

Exactly....anon has indirectly controlled a company as big as Paypal.
Whats next?

Anon isn't trying t destroy the world, they're just making a point. No one person is greater than the whole.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs said,
damn anon. im worried this wont end well for anybody.

Im glad this is going well for anon, once i read about the US abusing its power and siezing domains...labeling wikileaks as terrorists(and pirates for that matter)..i basically just waited to see what sorta backlash that would have..and hopefully the attacks continue indefinitely and costs the US some $

Neoauld said,

Im glad this is going well for anon, once i read about the US abusing its power and siezing domains...labeling wikileaks as terrorists(and pirates for that matter)..i basically just waited to see what sorta backlash that would have..and hopefully the attacks continue indefinitely and costs the US some $

Yes because that would be so good for the international economy as well! take down a nation that represents 50% of the sales.

It's wrong to abuse power given to you. Are you being too nearsighted to see the bigger fallout?

Leroy Jethro Gibbs said,

It's wrong to abuse power given to you. Are you being too nearsighted to see the bigger fallout?

I do think it's time to worry about bigger picture here quite frightening really.

Leroy Jethro Gibbs said,
damn anon. im worried this wont end well for anybody.
Way to go Anon....you just proved that you are no better than the government who told them to block wikileaks funds in the first place by bullying around a company! I knew you could do it!

XeonBuilder said,

Those wiki *******s broke the law. What the govt did was well withing their rights. Personally I say lock his ass or or better yet, silence him for good. Once you leak stolen govt classified docs you become a terrorist and a criminal. Simple as that.
I completely agree, what I said was a bit of sarcasm aimed at the people who think DDOSing a website as "payback" or "revenge" or however they want to justify it, is okay/good.

XeonBuilder said,

Those wiki *******s broke the law. What the govt did was well withing their rights. Personally I say lock his ass or or better yet, silence him for good. Once you leak stolen govt classified docs you become a terrorist and a criminal. Simple as that.

No, no it isn't. Or would you call our Founding Fathers "terrorists" and "criminals" for their lawful rebellion against British tyranny?

One man's terrorist is another man's hero.

excalpius said,

No, no it isn't. Or would you call our Founding Fathers "terrorists" and "criminals" for their lawful rebellion against British tyranny?


One man's terrorist is another man's hero.

So, assuming that other groups labeled as terrorists such as Al Queda, the Taliban and other similar groups are included in that statement, is their "rebellion" "lawful" as well?

UsuallyNotFrank said,

So, assuming that other groups labeled as terrorists such as Al Queda, the Taliban and other similar groups are included in that statement, is their "rebellion" "lawful" as well?

They might argue so from their perspective perhaps. But I would argue that our Founding Fathers did not focus their rebellious tendencies on innocent civilians. Al Qaeda and the Taliban spread their "rebellion" through repression, butchery, and fear through senseless murder, etc.

Remember that we, the U.S. CIA, trained Bin Laden and his "freedom fighters" to "rebel" against Soviet occupiers. Once they kicked the Russians out, they used the skills we taught them against us as "terrorists". Their tactics did not change, only their targets.

My point is simply that not everything is black and white. In this particular case, the U.S. media is no longer and check and a balance on power and corruption, as they now share the same agenda of fear for ratings as the politicians who sow fear for power. The watchers and the watchmen are on the same side now...meaning not ours.

Today, Wikileaks is doing EXACTLY the same thing as the Washington Post did in revealing the crimes of Nixon's paid stooges, re: Watergate, so it can be legitimately argued that Wikileaks might just be the only true representative of the Fourth Estate (aka journalism) left.

excalpius said,

They might argue so from their perspective perhaps. But I would argue that our Founding Fathers did not focus their rebellious tendencies on innocent civilians. Al Qaeda and the Taliban spread their "rebellion" through repression, butchery, and fear through senseless murder, etc.

Remember that we, the U.S. CIA, trained Bin Laden and his "freedom fighters" to "rebel" against Soviet occupiers. Once they kicked the Russians out, they used the skills we taught them against us as "terrorists". Their tactics did not change, only their targets.

My point is simply that not everything is black and white. In this particular case, the U.S. media is no longer and check and a balance on power and corruption, as they now share the same agenda of fear for ratings as the politicians who sow fear for power. The watchers and the watchmen are on the same side now...meaning not ours.

Today, Wikileaks is doing EXACTLY the same thing as the Washington Post did in revealing the crimes of Nixon's paid stooges, re: Watergate, so it can be legitimately argued that Wikileaks might just be the only true representative of the Fourth Estate (aka journalism) left.

Well said Sir.

A nugget of sense among the madness.

excalpius said,

They might argue so from their perspective perhaps. But I would argue that our Founding Fathers did not focus their rebellious tendencies on innocent civilians. Al Qaeda and the Taliban spread their "rebellion" through repression, butchery, and fear through senseless murder, etc.

Remember that we, the U.S. CIA, trained Bin Laden and his "freedom fighters" to "rebel" against Soviet occupiers. Once they kicked the Russians out, they used the skills we taught them against us as "terrorists". Their tactics did not change, only their targets.

My point is simply that not everything is black and white. In this particular case, the U.S. media is no longer and check and a balance on power and corruption, as they now share the same agenda of fear for ratings as the politicians who sow fear for power. The watchers and the watchmen are on the same side now...meaning not ours.

Today, Wikileaks is doing EXACTLY the same thing as the Washington Post did in revealing the crimes of Nixon's paid stooges, re: Watergate, so it can be legitimately argued that Wikileaks might just be the only true representative of the Fourth Estate (aka journalism) left.

I don't know if there is any documentation regarding what your Founding Fathers did to civilians during the war with the UK and am not sayng that this took place, but it was rather common at that time that enemies down would be pillaged, men would be slaughtered and women raped...

excalpius said,

They might argue so from their perspective perhaps. But I would argue that our Founding Fathers did not focus their rebellious tendencies on innocent civilians. Al Qaeda and the Taliban spread their "rebellion" through repression, butchery, and fear through senseless murder, etc.

Remember that we, the U.S. CIA, trained Bin Laden and his "freedom fighters" to "rebel" against Soviet occupiers. Once they kicked the Russians out, they used the skills we taught them against us as "terrorists". Their tactics did not change, only their targets.

My point is simply that not everything is black and white. In this particular case, the U.S. media is no longer and check and a balance on power and corruption, as they now share the same agenda of fear for ratings as the politicians who sow fear for power. The watchers and the watchmen are on the same side now...meaning not ours.

Today, Wikileaks is doing EXACTLY the same thing as the Washington Post did in revealing the crimes of Nixon's paid stooges, re: Watergate, so it can be legitimately argued that Wikileaks might just be the only true representative of the Fourth Estate (aka journalism) left.

+1
Bravo, well said!

Leroy Jethro Gibbs said,
It's wrong to abuse power given to you. Are you being too nearsighted to see the bigger fallout?

The bigger fallout that is complete US control?
They scared companies away from WikiLeaks, they frose they're assets, and they persuaded the swedish police force to "do something" (again, let's not forget TPB.)
I'd rather live through another financial crisis than see complete control from the US in every country in the world.

America is supposed to be the land of the free, yeah right...

sviola said,

I don't know if there is any documentation regarding what your Founding Fathers did to civilians during the war with the UK and am not sayng that this took place, but it was rather common at that time that enemies down would be pillaged, men would be slaughtered and women raped...

There is documentation that the Founding Fathers did not support such things as a matter of policy, etc.

In fact, until Abu Graib torture, extra-judicial rendition, violations of habeus corpus, and the unjustified Iraqi invasion under President Bush, the U.S. held the moral high ground for over 200 years. From the way U.S. forces handled themselves in the Revolutionary War through WW2 (including the rebuilding of Europe, especially the mercy shown to our vanquished foes Germany and Japan), the U.S. was profoundly respected the world over.

It may be impossible for the U.S. to regain that moral high ground anytime in the near future. 8(