posted on September 20, 2000 03:13:55 PM new
I wanted to send a very strong message to Paypal.
As a customer, I am more than unhappy with the posts made by Damon as Official Paypal Statements. There were several statements that were blatently untrue - such as Paypal has always said that PayPal would be free for person-to-person payments and not for ecommerce and that your business accounts were presented as something all businesses were morally and by terms of services required to use, rather than ~just~ a deluxe account that was simply extra service for a price.
This alone causes me huge problems with Paypal. But add to that the 'verification' scheme that tried to bully sellers into giving permission to take money from their bank accounts so you wouldn't advertise to their customers that they are 'not verified' (which wasn't true at all) and the sleezy 'win 10,000 if you give us permission to access your checking account'.
I can't go on with your company unless they apologize and admit the misrepresentations. I don't care how good a setup of charges they come up with or how closely they listen to our suggestions.
I can't trust PayPal - it's as simple as that. If they think I should, then they aren't qualified to run the kind of operation they are trying to run.
As for you Damon. I've worked for several different companies - some good and some bad. It's unethical to tell lies - I don't care if it does mean your job if you don't. I wouldn't do such a thing. It's quite obvious that you would.
Frankly I don't know how you can live with yourself. Either you are stupid or you think we are.
I guess it's time to talk to my legislator about some new laws. Apparently this business is not regulated enough yet.
posted on September 20, 2000 03:45:21 PM new" add to that the 'verification' scheme that tried to bully sellers into giving permission to take money from their bank accounts"
I'm not sure who told you that PayPal could take money from your bank account, but you should read the TOU that PayPal has.
X.com will never make electronic transfers from your bank account without your explicit permission. Furthermore, X.com provides you unlimited protection against unauthorized withdrawals from your bank account.
Not only can PayPal NOT take money from your bank without permission, if anyone else does via hacking your account you've got $100,000.00 insurance.
Before you have your meeting with your legislator you might want to brush up on these "violations".
posted on September 20, 2000 03:57:58 PM new
What violations did I talk about? I never used the word 'violations'. I used the word 'misrepresentations'.
Paypal rated sellers as 'Unverified', if they didn't fill out something that according to PayPal gives PayPal access to take money from their checking account.
Now if they can't take money from the account, and I don't think they can without express permission for a specific amount - what the heck was that all about and why did PayPal want it?
PayPals words - not mine. If it doesn't make sense, you are putting down the wrong party.
posted on September 20, 2000 04:09:39 PM new
HI KateArtist,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What violations did I talk about? I never used the word 'violations'. I used the word 'misrepresentations'.
Paypal rated sellers as 'Unverified', if they didn't fill out something that according to PayPal gives PayPal access to take money from their checking account. (Yes, there are two distinctions. Unverified and Verified. The only difference is that we can guarantee the identity of the person in question more strongly to guarantee the transaction because they have provided us with more information to support their identity, thereby reducing the risk of fraud to the company and other buyers and sellers. We will not access a customer bank account without their consent, which is the customer starting a transaction based off of logging into the web site. There have been no lies in this)
Now if they can't take money from the account, and I don't think they can without express permission for a specific amount - what the heck was that all about and why did PayPal want it?(Identification purposes, as I have said all along)
PayPals words - not mine. If it doesn't make sense, you are putting down the wrong party.
posted on September 20, 2000 04:43:12 PM new
"Paypal rated sellers as 'Unverified', if they didn't fill out something that according to PayPal gives PayPal access to take money from their checking account.
(Kate - these are my words, although Damon ran them together with his own, so I don't know where his statement starts and mine leaves off).
(Yes, there are two distinctions. Unverified and Verified. The only difference is that we can guarantee the identity of the person in question more strongly to guarantee the transaction because they have provided us with more information to support their identity, thereby reducing the risk of fraud to the company and other buyers and sellers. We will not access a customer bank account without their consent, which is the customer starting a transaction based off of logging into the web site. There have been no lies in this)"
Well that's an interesting statement to make that there have been no lies in this. I didn't accuse PayPal of lying about the verification scheme. Extortion was more what I was implying that PayPal seemed to be trying.
There is inadequate explaination how it protects the buyer more completely to give Paypal some sort of erzatz 'permission' to access one's bank account? And why would you want people to give you this in return for entry in a drawing. Incidently - Paypal really skirted the line there - it is illegal to request money for entering a drawing. A phone number requirement is not (which one would assume a company would want to call you and sell you things). Why would PayPal want a bunch of bank account accesses for, if they don't intend to profit from them? That is pretty scarey for us without a legal degree in Banking law.
As far as the moderator's complaint - my point about Damon himself was not intended to be emotional and gratutious (sorry no spellchecker) although I can understand you thinking that. Damon made the claim he was just the newsbearer and didn't deserve the grief he was getting. I was making the point that there was no way he could not be partially responsible and that logically, just as Paypal is seen by us the customers as either stupid or thinking we are stupid - so is he.
Sorry - it's hard to write all that out sometimes.
IMO this is an abusive situation by this company over it's customers. I strongly feel that lies must be challenged and not smoothed over, or we are all partially responsible for them. Frankly that includes you in your hardly easy job as moderator. I feel for you - I've done that job a few times myself.
posted on September 20, 2000 04:50:56 PM new
HI KateArtist,
Verification protects parties simply because the identity of the party in question can be established. If we did not employ this method of identification, we would require a credit check, something many users would feel hesitant to give on-line.
Why does this work? We send money (point a) to your bank account (point b), which you verify on your account (point C, pointing back to A). You have said that this is your bank account, which traditionally requires fairly stringent items to open (DL,SSN,etc) from a valid financial institution.
Verifying the bank account on file does not give us any access to your bank account automatically.It would not be accessed under any other circumstance other than you initiating said transaction.If you never wanted to add funds to or withdraw funds from your PayPal account to/from your bank account it would never be accessed.
posted on September 20, 2000 05:25:14 PM new
"Verification protects parties simply because the identity of the party in question can be established. If we did not employ this method of identification, we would require a credit check, something many users would feel hesitant to give on-line.
Why does this work? We send money (point a) to your bank account (point b), which you verify on your account (point C, pointing back to A). You have said that this is your bank account, which traditionally requires fairly stringent items to open (DL,SSN,etc) from a valid financial institution.
Verifying the bank account on file does not give us any access to your bank account automatically.It would not be accessed under any other circumstance other than you initiating said transaction.If you never wanted to add funds to or withdraw funds from your PayPal account to/from your bank account it would never be accessed."
How is this different than the information you already have on file that allows you to deposit my funds into my checking account? Why isn't that enough?
Each account requires a verified credit card and home address if I recall right - why isn't that enough?
posted on September 20, 2000 05:57:44 PM new
Hi Kateartist,
Credit card fraud is much easier to pull than someone doing bank fraud.
Why is it more secure?
In your scenario, you are simply telling us where to send it. You input the number and the money goes there. No interaction between to verify that this is where it should go (it also helps reduce incorrect routing number and bank account errors caused at initial sign-up)
Verification on a two-way mechanism is much more secure.
posted on September 20, 2000 06:58:49 PM new
So what you wanted was to verify the seller's name for the buyer other than by credit card number. It's hard to balance this as any level of protection for the buyer, when he can enter any email address and the money is automatically sent to that address's account, whether or not he types it correctly.
Access to the account itself was not what you wanted. Access is when you are allowed to take money. What you wanted was a verification of identity from the bank holding the account. Really really bad wording on PayPal's part. Paypal should have established several different methods to do this and allowed the seller to choose which one he wanted. I would have vastly preferred to have you do a credit check than take the chance that I was allowing you to take money out of my checking account, only prevented from doing that at will by what you have promised me so far. That you were so hot to have this 'access' that you were willing to give away 10 thousand dollars for as many as you could have give it to you did not help your credibility at all.
Certainly explaining that transfer of funds out to someone's bank account does not verify someone's name would have helped. You can't expect the consumer to know the ins and outs of EFT.
Interestingly enough, I've read the rules on EFT - it's part of my work. I didn't know that either.
posted on September 20, 2000 07:05:30 PM new
Hi Kateartist,
For long posts I paste in your comments. I am sorry if this causes any confusion.
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=41&thread=2721
posted by: kateartist
So what you wanted was to verify the seller's name for the buyer other than by credit card number. It's hard to balance this as any level of protection for the buyer, when he can enter any email address and the money is automatically sent to that address's account, whether or not he types it correctly.(Yes, because the money is not claimed until the person has an account. This transaction is reversible until it is claimed in the other account)
Access to the account itself was not what you wanted. Access is when you are allowed to take money.(please see the terms of use. Under no circumstances will we withdraw money. This is located under item#7) What you wanted was a verification of identity from the bank holding the account(YES) Really really bad wording on PayPal's part. Paypal should have established several different methods to do this and allowed the seller to choose which one he wanted. I would have vastly preferred to have you do a credit check than take the chance that I was allowing you to take money out of my checking account, only prevented from doing that at will by what you have promised me so far. That you were so hot to have this 'access' that you were willing to give away 10 thousand dollars for as many as you could have give it to you did not help your credibility at all.(More customers are reluctant to give out their social security number, which is not as "available" as a checking account. Checks traditionally have your name,phone number,bank account number,routing transit number, and (sometimes) your driver's license number.How many users do you think would want to supply their SSN on-line? Not many)
Certainly explaining that transfer of funds out to someone's bank account does not verify someone's name would have helped. You can't expect the consumer to know the ins and outs of EFT.(It verifies that the account we sent money to has been verified by the person holding the account. Logic being that only the account holder would have access to this information (deposit amounts))
Interestingly enough, I've read the rules on EFT - it's part of my work. I didn't know that either.
posted on September 21, 2000 05:13:21 AM newCertainly explaining that transfer of funds out to someone's bank account does not verify someone's name would have helped. You can't expect the consumer to know the ins and outs of EFT.(It verifies that the account we sent money to has been verified by the person holding the account. Logic being that only the account holder would have access to this information (deposit amounts))
The bolded statement above is completely illogical. If a crook doesn't have access to a bank account, he would never request to have an ACH deposit put into that account by PayPal. He could never access the money, defeating the purpose of requesting the deposit in the first place.
Then again, if a crook DOES have access to a bank account, he can simply verify the 2 small PayPal deposit amounts and PayPal has just "verified" a crook.
When you say that the owner of the bank account is the only person who "logically" would have access to the amounts of the 2 small verification deposits, then if we apply your "logic" there is no reason for the verification process at all. After all, you have just basically said that only the real account holder would have access to information about deposits into the account. How can you "logically" distinguish between an ACH deposit requested by the user and the 2 verification deposits sent by PayPal. If a crook has access to one, then he obviously has access to both.
PayPal might want to consider a different approach to verification. This one is seriously flawed.
posted on September 21, 2000 01:29:28 PM new
(damon)*For long posts I paste in your comments. I am sorry if this causes any confusion. **
(kate's current comment) If you could at least skip a line before your comments, it would make them far more readable
(kate)**So what you wanted was to verify the seller's name for the buyer other than by credit card number. It's hard to balance this as any level of protection for the buyer, when he can enter any email address and the money is automatically sent to that address's account, whether or not he types itcorrectly.
(damon)*(Yes, because the money is not claimed until the person has an account. This transaction is reversible until it is claimed in the other account)
(kate's current comment) And if the person accidently types in a ~real~ account someone else owns already? Lets see, during my time on the net, I've received probably 10 emails meant for someone else and sent out 5 or so that were actually received by a real person who responded.
(kate)**Access to the account itself was not what you wanted. Access is when you are allowed to take money.
(damon)*(please see the terms of use. Under no circumstances will we withdraw money. This is located under item#7)
(kate's current comment) The point being that PayPal is asking us to ~trust~ it's word that you won't do this. Paypal has already proven that it will change it's TOS without warning or proper notification, why on earth would anyone trust it not change it's decision not to do this without explicitly given authorization?
Paypal is asking us to tell the bank that we trust it to have this access to our funds. I don't trust PayPal. Now it is telling my buyers that I am not verified and implying that I am a risk to do business with. There are millionss of ways to verify my name without giving withdrawal access to my checking funds.
(kate)** What you wanted was a verification of identity from the bank holding the account
(damon)*(YES)
(kate)**Really really bad wording on PayPal's part. Paypal should have established several different methods to do this and allowed the seller to choose which one he wanted. I would have vastly preferred to have you do a credit check than take the chance that I was allowing you to take money out of my checking account, only prevented from doing that at will by what you have promised me so far. That you were so hot to have this 'access' that you were willing to give away 10 thousand dollars for as many as you could have give it to you did not help your credibility at all.
(damon)*(More customers are reluctant to give out their social security number, which is not as "available" as a checking account. Checks traditionally have your name,phone number,bank accountnumber,routing transit number, and (sometimes) your driver's license number.How many users do you think would want to supply their SSN on-line? Not many)
(kate's current comment) Is your company so unable to handle more than one way of doing something? That doesn't speak well of it at all. I think I mentioned giving people a choice? Choice implies more than one option.
I don't know about you, but I'm far more willing to enter my ssn into a secured web page than I am my credit card number, and your company already asked me to do that. At any rate, why is it that you/Paypal seems to have such a problem with mailed in or phoned in information that you won't even consider it as an option?
(kate)** Certainly explaining that transfer of funds out to someone's bank account does not verify someone's name would have helped. You can't expect the consumer to know the ins and outs of EFT.
(damon)*(It verifies that the account we sent money to has been verified by the person holding the account. Logic being that only the account holder would have access to this information (deposit amounts))
(kate's current comment) ? That was a non sequitor.
posted on September 21, 2000 02:19:04 PM new
Hi Kateartist,
Here we go again
(damon)*For long posts I paste in your comments. I am sorry if this causes any confusion. **
(kate's current comment) If you could at least skip a line before your comments, it would make them far more readable
(kate)**So what you wanted was to verify the seller's name for the buyer other than by credit card number. It's hard to balance this as any level of protection for the buyer, when he can enter any email address and the money is automatically sent to that address's account, whether or not he types itcorrectly.
(damon)*(Yes, because the money is not claimed until the person has an account. This transaction is reversible until it is claimed in the other account)
(kate's current comment) And if the person accidently types in a ~real~ account someone else owns already? Lets see, during my time on the net, I've received probably 10 emails meant for someone else and sent out 5 or so that were actually received by a real person who responded.
NEW COMMENT-Where the party sends money to is the responsibility of the person sending it. If they send it to the wrong account, this issue is theirs to correct. We have no control over where someone sends money to. I have brought forward a product suggestion, based on feedback from users, to have it go to a claimed status only when the receiving party clicks on something. As it stands now, payments into an account are immediate.
(kate)**Access to the account itself was not what you wanted. Access is when you are allowed to take money.
(damon)*(please see the terms of use. Under no circumstances will we withdraw money. This is located under item#7)
(kate's current comment) The point being that PayPal is asking us to ~trust~ it's word that you won't do this. Paypal has already proven that it will change it's TOS without warning or proper notification, why on earth would anyone trust it not change it's decision not to do this without explicitly given authorization?
NEW COMMENT-
As noted before, withdrawals are federally mandated. No access if the customer doesn't start the transaction. Verification is for identification only. The only permission that is granted is on a per-use basis, an item that is customer-prompted by logging into the web site.
Paypal is asking us to tell the bank that we trust it to have this access to our funds. I don't trust PayPal. Now it is telling my buyers that I am not verified and implying that I am a risk to do business with. There are millionss of ways to verify my name without giving withdrawal access to my checking funds.
NEW COMMENT
(Yes. We could have a credit check done, but that is more intrusive. In the past, you could send a cancelled check to us and a driver's license. This gives far more information than verifying your bank account)
(kate)** What you wanted was a verification of identity from the bank holding the account
(damon)*(YES)
(kate)**Really really bad wording on PayPal's part. Paypal should have established several different methods to do this and allowed the seller to choose which one he wanted. I would have vastly preferred to have you do a credit check than take the chance that I was allowing you to take money out of my checking account, only prevented from doing that at will by what you have promised me so far. That you were so hot to have this 'access' that you were willing to give away 10 thousand dollars for as many as you could have give it to you did not help your credibility at all.
(damon)*(More customers are reluctant to give out their social security number, which is not as "available" as a checking account. Checks traditionally have your name,phone number,bank accountnumber,routing transit number, and (sometimes) your driver's license number.How many users do you think would want to supply their SSN on-line? Not many)
(kate's current comment) Is your company so unable to handle more than one way of doing something? That doesn't speak well of it at all. I think I mentioned giving people a choice? Choice implies more than one option.
NEW COMMENT
The only other choice was a credit check or the old way of sending in information, which gives far more access to personal information)
I don't know about you, but I'm far more willing to enter my ssn into a secured web page than I am my credit card number, and your company already asked me to do that. At any rate, why is it that you/Paypal seems to have such a problem with mailed in or phoned in information that you won't even consider it as an option?
NEW COMMENT
The inherent weakness with a phone call is that nothing is concrete and that only words are exchanged(and are not documented)
(kate)** Certainly explaining that transfer of funds out to someone's bank account does not verify someone's name would have helped. You can't expect the consumer to know the ins and outs of EFT.
NEW COMMENT
Yes, I agree. After the verification policy was announced I spent a great deal of time reducing these concerns.
(damon)*(It verifies that the account we sent money to has been verified by the person holding the account. Logic being that only the account holder would have access to this information (deposit amounts))
posted on September 21, 2000 05:25:54 PM new
(damon)Here we go again "
Kate - Hmmm, even with a smiley face, that's hard to read as anything but condescending.
(damon) As noted before, withdrawals are federally mandated. No access if the customer doesn't start the transaction.
Kate - I don't see it noted in this thread so I did not assume it was so. You can't reasonably expect me or anyone else to read every thread.
Since it's quite easy to set up a company to withdraw funds at will from a checking account, as far as I could tell from what was announced and what you have said so far, this is what PayPal was requesting the customer grant it in order to be 'verified'.
(damon)The inherent weakness with a phone call is that nothing is concrete and that only words are exchanged(and are not documented)
Kate - now that's just silly. How do you think mail order companies take orders?
Well, obviously you and PayPal are not interested in thinking about other options than the ones you've all ready have set up. As a systems engineer, I'd have to say that's a very foolish way to do business - especially in the wide open market you are trying to set up in.
The problem was, you didn't explain what you really wanted in terms that the consumer could easily or even reasonably understand and back it up right up front with information that had credibility. Now the company is taking a holier than the customer response to people being very rightfully offended, and worse, trying to rewrite history about the company's actions.
If you think that you've seen the worse of this customer backlash, you haven't, unless you backtrack quick and make amends. Most people haven't run across your new 'TOS' rules and your snippy 'reminder' about it, and those who have, myself included can do nothing until the current auctions clear and are paid off.
At this point, until I see some kind of apology for the misrepresentation of what the company told it's customers, I will be removing your logo from future auctions. If it's this hard to make PayPal see what it's done wrong when it's so obvious and well documented, I can't imagine what the company will come up with next.
posted on September 21, 2000 05:49:10 PM new
HI kateartist,
Not condescending at all, as I think we have been going back and forth on a very valid concern and it is not hostile. Emails and boards are tough to express intent at times and I am sorry if you felt offended in any manner.
Our concern ,as a corporate entity, is to protect the integrity of the network for the safety of those doing transactions over it.The only way we can do this is through verification, which costs us a fair amount of money (other companies doing business on-line charge their users to be verified).
Before bank account verification, we had street address confirmation, a much slower process that many users of the service in the auction crowd did not like because their limits were capped and there was no way to raise their spending limits in an expedient manner.Users that wanted to spend over 500.00 had to wait two (or more weeks) in some cases to have the limit lifted. Before the limit was 500.00, it was actually 100.00 and 200.00 and we raised those demands based on auction user feedback. This exposes us to a fair amount of fraud risk. The only way to get this done quickly for users was to have a check that was not intrusive, simple,quick, and cost-effective.
Verification does this without asking for SSN,DL#,etc., generally within a 3-5 day period and it does not have the same cost factor as doing a credit check.
We are concerned about what our users say. It is one of the reasons we are in the forum (and many others) gathering customer information about what they like, don't like, and any other concerns/issues they have. All of the feedback, be it negative or positive in nature, is given to policy makers within the company so that we can adjust quickly to items and bring them in line with company needs and consumer demand.
For coming out in the forums, as a representative of the company providing help wherever possible, I have been called a liar (and much worse) by people for providing information that is true and accurate at the time it was presented, while at the same time addressing their concerns and correcting misinformation or fears. If I make a mistake, I will also come out and apologize/make a retraction.
I realize all of the concerns over the business accounts issue, but I have stated that there will be no forced upgrades and that a policy will be released shortly. Before that policy goes into effect there will be a two-week period of notification to advise of the changes and any other specific requirements.
I understand that mail order companies do business along those lines, but that option was not viable to us for a variety of reasons.We looked at several alternatives before settling on this method.Our terms of use explicitly advise that under no circumstances will we withdraw money from a bank account without user permission and this is also in accordance with federal law.
posted on September 21, 2000 08:25:41 PM new
(damon) Not condescending at all, as I think we have been going back and forth on a very valid concern and it is not hostile. Emails and boards are tough to express intent at times and I am sorry if you felt offended in any manner.
(kate) - OK - sincere lack of intent to offend accepted.
Let me address this point first:
(damon)Our terms of use explicitly advise that under no circumstances will we withdraw money from a bank account without user permission and this is also in accordance with federal law.
(kate) I've already observed that PayPal has violated that TOS with another customer due to poor screen design. Like most people, I can't take the chance that another 'poor screen design' will empty my checking account before my check for the house payment goes through. You and I both know how easy it is for a system such as PayPal's to have bugs. PayPal can cry 'user error' when the screen instructions are less than well worded (which has been a huge problem from the outset) or even fool proof, but that doesn't excuse it from the responsibility it has to protect it's own clients from making such errors. At the very least, there should be clear identification of all accounts that money is being moved to and from and confirmation screens with clear descriptions of consequences on all transactions. Come on - that's basic system design standards for database updates, let alone financial transactions.
The point is - once given that access PayPal can and does violate that TOS and neither you nor I can prevent that from happening. If PayPal wants everyone 'verified' in some way, it will have to offer some other ways to do that. So what if it takes a few days - why is that a problem compared to not having the verification at all? Frankly I'm not giving you access like that to my account. Whether or not the law declares it illegal to take my money, the fact is that it gives PayPal the ability to do so and only PayPal's own fair or unfair, accurate or mistaken decision that they've been given permission counts as to whether or not they will.
(damon)For coming out in the forums, as a representative of the company providing help wherever possible, I have been called a liar (and much worse) by people for providing information that is true and accurate at the time it was presented, while at the same time addressing their concerns and correcting misinformation or fears. If I make a mistake, I will also comeout and apologize/make a retraction.
(kate) Someone who speaks a lie is a liar. Responding to challenges to lies by getting upset about being called a liar is deflection.
It was quite clear in the initial advertising that PayPal was simply and clearly free for everyone with no qualifications.
You said: We have always said that PayPal would be free for person-to-person payments. When people started using it for e-commerce, we evolved as a company, expanded our features, and in June created Business Accounts (for companies) and Premier Accounts (for individual entrepreneurs). We told our users that we wouldn't force people to upgrade, but that didn't mean it was OK for business users to violate our terms of use and conduct their commerce with a PayPal Personal Account. That's why we sent out an email in July that reminded business users of our policy.
This in what it says and more so in what it implies is a falsehood. PayPal did 'always say that it would be free for 'person to person payments'. At first it said 'PayPal is free for payments. Then you implied that people took advantage of person to person payments by using it for ecommerce, when this is exactly what PayPal advertised itself as free for even though it never used the word.
You may think that this falsehood is small or indirect - but it tells me that PayPal has no ethics when it decides and states it's policies and that it does not take responsibility for it's own actions. That's a killer Damon and you repeated it as gospel. I can't believe you are so foolish as to not understand that it's a falsehood - it always has been a falsehood or how it completely undermines the entire credibility of the company.
I certainly see enough other customers nailing PayPal for exactly that. It's hardly an issue that isn't present and well understood by every customer you have that's heard about your new TOS and the statements made about it. Only PayPal and you seem to have a problem understanding it.
In other words, I don't find you or PayPal sincere in your lack of understanding or your lack of response on this point.
posted on September 22, 2000 08:32:43 AM newThe point is - once given that access PayPal can and does violate that TOS and neither you nor I can prevent that from happening. If PayPal wants everyone 'verified' in some way, it will have to offer some other ways to do that. So what if it takes a few days - why is that a problem compared to not having the verification at all? Frankly I'm not giving you access like that to my account. Whether or not the law declares it illegal to take my money, the fact is that it gives PayPal the ability to do so and only PayPal's own fair or unfair, accurate or mistaken decision that they've been given permission counts as to whether or not they will.
Few users understand this. When paypal is given access to deposit,through sign up or verification, they automatically receive "permission" to make unlimited withdrawals from bank accounts. The user "request" is sent to the paypal site, not the bank,who then withdraws the money from the bank account. The bank has no direct "request" the user authorized this withdrawal, only that the account owner said release funds anytime paypal says I requested it. Paypal has refused to address this issue. The only response is "we promise we won't withdraw funds unless you "request" it, see paragraph #7".
posted on September 22, 2000 09:23:57 AM new
Paypal doesnt have to address this issue. Federal Banking laws already do. Any time your account is accessed without your written permission, the person doing the accessing is at risk. If PP took money out of your account and they dont have your written permission, they must return it. And an "X" on their web page is not considered written permission. Check with your bank.
posted on September 22, 2000 11:18:24 AM new
[b]Paypal doesnt have to address this issue.
You're right, they don't have to address this issue. However, it would be smart business to address it.
Federal Banking laws already do.
Paypal is not a bank.
Any time your account is accessed without your written permission, the person doing the accessing is at risk.
Blanket permission to withdraw funds is granted at the same time permission to deposit is granted, either at sign up or verification.
If PP took money out of your account and they dont have your written permission, they must return it.
I would be more interested in making sure it couldn't be withdrawn in the first place.
And an "X" on their web page is not considered written permission. Check with your bank.
The X on their web page is only the user request to paypal for that transaction. The users bank already has been granted authorization to release funds anytime paypal says they have permission. "We will never withdraw from your bank account without your permission" simply means, we can do it, but trust us.
[/b]
posted on September 22, 2000 12:19:45 PM new
Hello Kate
After reading through all your posts, its obvious to me that its time you get back on your paranoia medication. You better be careful because you know those people in your walls are watching you too. Maybe you should go over to Ebay and buy a life. I would certainly donate some money toward that cause.
posted on September 22, 2000 01:34:38 PM new
Hello rry
I think you misunderstand. I don't believe that PayPal dishonestly would clean out my checking account. I believe that they easily can and do make mistakes in moving money around from account to account and person to person. I believe that they easily may come up with policies that may unfairly judge a person and with the access we grant them confiscate funds, or lock them up in a manner which can cause a citizen no end of headache and cost trying to pay his or her other bills until the matter is cleared up.
I do not believe that their goal of verifying people's names is enough justification to give them this access to people's bank funds and I also don't believe (with a fair amount of experience and knowledge under my belt) that they are sincere when they say there is no other reasonable way to do that.
Basically PayPal is asking for practically unlimited immediate power over your bank accounts in return for marking you as a seller as 'verified' to the buyers. There are no doubt legal consequences to this power, but I have some experience in the banking industry and I have no such faith in the current laws to protect the average consumer or small businessman from being caught in some extended legal hell hole with their funds locked up and having to pay a lawyer 300 dollars an hour to free up their checking account.
Currently I see PayPal has publically judged many customers as being dishonest and leeches to other customers with no basis in reality and no repentance or even acknowledgement over this public judgement.
I see that they have changed their policies that have major financial consequences for some of their customers without warning and without an honest attempt at notifying those customers that they have done so.
I see that they have made these new policies with little or no thought to exactly what they mean.
I see that they have made implied threats of financial enforcement of these policies without thought to how they would enforce them or exactly whom they would enforce them.
I see that they have created a questionable promotional giveaway, requiring people to give them complete immediate power over their banking funds in order to qualify to win a large sum of money. I see no valid reason for doing this.
I see that they have no scruples over extorting their business customers into giving them this access or they publicly label them as a risk to do business with.
If any of these statements make me officially paranoid, then Honey, you have my permission to send me all your money for a new life on Ebay.
Kate
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and believing that this time, the result will be different.
posted on September 22, 2000 03:27:15 PM new
The Initial Investment Interview at PayPal:
MrPayPal: "Hey Bill, I have this great idea to make money on the Internet"
MrInvestor: (Bill) "Ok, lets here it."
MrPayPal: "Well basically, it's just another one of those credit card merchant account scams, but I have a new twist"
MrInvestor: "I don't know, those things never make any money"
MrPayPal: "Oh, but this one will. Just listen. I got the idea from the drug dealers in my hood, 'get 'em hooked then stick it to them.' Anyway, here it goes..."
"First, we give away merchant accounts to anyone. We let them accept credit cards, and we pay all the fees. In fact, we'll even pay them to join so we can get more people hooked. Then, once we have a bunch of sellers using our service we will start charging them fees. Then little by little we will keep raising the fees, add a surcharge for this, a little extra for that, and wham, we're makin' the big bucks."
MrInvestor: "But what if all the sellers leave ?"
MrPayPal: "That's the beauty of my scam. Once their customers are all using our service, they will be afraid to leave."
..........................................
Did anyone out there actually believe that the statements made by PayPal and their employees were really true when they said: "we will never force anyone to upgrade to a business account, it will always remain free for individual sellers"
It was always part of the business plan to deceive the public by masquerading as a free service to jumpstart their company.
[ edited by mrjim on Sep 22, 2000 03:28 PM ]
