Paypal gives FBI list of IP Addresses of 1000 Anonymous hackers

Originally posted by trika3000
reply to post by Hilltaker

 

For me specifically nothing is wrong with Paypal as i use it for transactions (although, sometimes there's no other alternative).
But i did disagree with them blocking donations to Wikileaks (although, i also don't donate to Wikilks).
It is the priciple of the matter. It was not for them to decide.

Yes the blocked donations to WikiLeaks was plain simply lame.

I did and do still not understand why they decided to do that?

Perhaps someone knows who ordered it and where the order came from.

reply to post by Hilltaker


From what i can tell. No one orders anything Anon doesn't have an office or generals. It seems to me some talk gets going around from an idea about something and someone takes it upon them selves to do something about what that talk or idea is.
Twitter, Reddit, 4Chan, private messages, the Plan, are some places where things are discussed, some openly some not so. Anon isn't a group. It's just people. Anon also isn't only the internet.

Originally posted by ATSforRacialHatred

 

 

Lol you are being removed from all my posts right now it appears.

Please comeback when you comment on the topic and not just lame moron stuff.

Thanks,

reply to post by Hilltaker


Dang, he got removed before i could read. Two times in two of your threads after my comment, so Hilltaker was he trailin' you or me?

i hate the comments removed thing as curiousity always makes me wonder

I don't understand why people get so mad at Paypal for the WL issue. To my knowledge, private companies/corporations have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. (Example: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. You must be 21 to purchase alcoholic beverages, You must be 17 or accompanied by a parent to see this movie, etc...)

If you were the owner or shareholder in that business, wouldn't you turn the info over if said criminal action cost you money? Kinda makes me wonder if they had some sort of insurance policy for this scenario and turning over the info to LE is part of them getting re-imbursed on their claim. Hacking Insurance

Counterpane Internet Security has teamed up with Lloyds of London to offer hacking insurance, with policies of up to US$10,000,000.

The problem as I see it, is the perception (legally) that a company/corporation is a person. Companies/Corporations are not a person. They have no brain, heart, mouth or conscious. They are about money and making money...or they aren't in business. The people that work for that company, they are persons and have those things. Very rarely will a company do something good that isn't tied to making them money either immediately or by way of good public relations to make the consumer want to support them at a later date.

Originally posted by pwndnewb
I don't understand why people get so mad at Paypal for the WL issue. To my knowledge, private companies/corporations have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. (Example: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. You must be 21 to purchase alcoholic beverages, You must be 17 or accompanied by a parent to see this movie, etc...)

WL hasnt really done anything illegal, basically they are just whistle blowing. paypal suspended payments to them presumably from pressure from the government.

i wouldnt be too happy if i paid for a meal that had yet to come, and the restaurant booted me out because they noticed i was wearing the wrong shoes without a refund/meal.

Yes I think most people seeing this post would agree, that wikileaks really did nothing wrong in this case.

I am a little sad to see, that people did not participate more in this thread since with the paypal direction it could have been genial.

reply to post by choos


Choos. I may agree with you that WL didn't do anything illegal. I was pointing out as an example that as a corporate entity, Paypal has the legal right to decide that they didn't want to do "business" with respect to WL.

Unless you are doing the drive through thing or take out, it is usual that you eat first and pay afterwards.

My main point was that people seem to expect a corporation/company to act "with some sort of moral conscious. When in fact, that is a trait for a person and that companies/corporations are not persons. The only reason they exist is to make profit for someone(s).

If a company/corporation's actions (or lack of action) pisses me off, it is my right to withdraw my financial support of them. It is my right to tell others with the hopes that they will follow. IIRC that is called a boycott.

It isn't my right to block others from using them, that is illegal, whether it comes as a result of my physically doing it or using electronic means. In my personal opinion, if one is hiding to avoid the consequences of their actions then they aren't doing Civil Disobedience. It is more like being a "masked outlaw".

I did try to put forth another reason, other than illegality, of why Paypal turned over the information to the Feds.
They lost money due to DDoS. There is a possibility that they had some type of insurance that would under certain terms allow them to recoup some of that loss. It might help if you understand the terms "third party liability" or "subrogation" as they apply to the insurance industry.