Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Bomb Explodes At PayPal Headquarters 551

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the disgruntled-customers dept.
Pooua writes to tell us that an explosive device left outside of PayPal headquarters exploded last night. The explosion was powerful enough to knock out one of their plate glass windows but thankfully that was the only casualty of the blast. Perhaps they should have offered employee protection instead?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bomb Explodes At PayPal Headquarters

Comments Filter:
  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:38PM (#16675307) Homepage Journal
    I hear people rant about how terrible paypal is, I don't understand why. Someone please explain.

    I get a better deal with an ATM card through paypal than I get through my own bank. I actually collect interest on all my money as if it were a savings account. My "free" checking at my bank doesn't give me interest on money in my checking account. And if I put money in my savings account I can get fined for taking money out of it too often.

    If you want to go around bombing finanicial institutions why not go after the ones that are actually greedy and evil. (seriously I am not recommending this, instead of a bomb why not write a nasty letter or post a rant/complaint in your blog to boycott the company)
  • Funny? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nos. (179609) <andrew@NospaM.thekerrs.ca> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:43PM (#16675403) Homepage

    I just don't find any of this funny. Planting a bomb anywhere but in strict controlled testing areas is not a joke. Obviously this was at least meant to damage the building, and possibly even to harm people. Imagine for a minute that you're a tech at this location, regardless of who it is. You're not responsible for corporate policy. Yet you're in as much, or more danger from an attack like this than those who do make the decisions.

    I'm just glad nobody was hurt, and that the damage was relatively minor. I hope the culprit or culprits are caught quickly, and dealt with harshly.

  • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dontspamme (1017550) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:43PM (#16675413)
    Your own bank is less likely to freeze all your money for a minimum period of 6 weeks and to end up keeping it all without having the possibility to do nothing about it.
  • Re:Radiological?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:44PM (#16675417)
    Because the election is one week away.
  • Re:Radiological?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:46PM (#16675473) Homepage Journal
    Wow. Why would the officials bother to mention that?

    Because it's very easy to get your hands on low-grade nuclear material, wrap it around a conventional explosive, and create a "dirty bomb" that will throw a bunch of nuclear crap around and render the neighborhood effectively uninhabitable until it can be cleaned up. Do it in the rain and that might require digging up tons and tons of dirt and hauling it off, etc etc.

  • Re:What a shame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rufus211 (221883) <rufus-slashdot@h ... g ['kis' in gap]> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:50PM (#16675553) Homepage
    What a shame the bomb wasn't bigger.

    I may not like some (a lot) of PayPall's policies, and I might wish paypall to go out of business. That said why do the 20-odd hackers that were in the building at the time deserve to be bombed?
  • Re:Funny? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by otacon (445694) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:52PM (#16675603)
    Most people aren't trying to make a statement by choosing where they work. They just want to collect a paycheck. Simple as that.
  • Re:Funny? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:52PM (#16675607) Homepage Journal
    Ethically and morally I totally agree with you.

    However, due to an odd mixture of customer dissatisfaction, slightly warped senses of drama and poetic justice, and good old-fashioned schadenfreude, I still chuckled.

    Humans, eh?
  • by way2trivial (601132) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:56PM (#16675675) Homepage Journal
    Luckily, Our president is not some "RANDOM" idiot..
  • Re:What a shame (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nastard (124180) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:10PM (#16675917)
    It's the NOC (eBay NOC, at that) we're talking about. Would you really want a group of geeks to get killed because you don't like PayPal's service? As an employee in another NOC, I'm just glad none of our people were hurt.
  • by teneighty (671401) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:24PM (#16676147)

    I've been ripped off by PayPal twice, with absolutely no recourse whatsoever to get things rectified. The amounts involved are small enough that its not worth getting the legal system involved, but big enough that it's intensely irrirating. I think PayPal's business model is at least partly based on having free will to screw over individual customers in this manner.

    While I don't even slightly agree with the bomber's methods, I do understand what would drive them to do this. Individuals are powerless against PayPal, so its no suprise they will lash out any way they can. This is a classic terrorist attack in that sense - someone who felt they had no options left, so they turned to the increasingly commonly accepted equalizer: bombings.

    The very moment there is a viable alterntive to PayPal, I'll be switching (Google, are you listening? I'm getting desperate here!).

  • Sign of the times (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rich Klein (699591) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:36PM (#16676385) Homepage Journal
    This article has been tagged with "terrorism." I can remember when people would hear this news and think not "terrorism," but "nutcase setting off a bomb."
  • by malsdavis (542216) * on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:45PM (#16676529)
    It's scarey now that something like this - which is obviously a purely criminal act (one of vandalism and possibly GBH or even murder) - can now be called a "terrorist act". With all the negative connotations which are implied. I wonder what else our government will start declaring as "terrorism", surely any malicious act could ultimately fall under the government's ever widening definition of the word.

  • Re:I imagine... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shaitand (626655) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:52PM (#16676665) Journal
    "So let me get this straight, you see the biggest story on domestic terrorism in five years, and you think it's funny?"

    Yes I look upon this pathetic excuse for a terrorist act and agree that it is the biggest incident of domestic terrorism in five years the second largest in the past fifteen years, third largest in decades.

    With that in mind I look at the 'war on terror' we wage that has caused more terror and death than the United States has seen as a result of domestic terror. Yes, I find the situation so sad that it transcends sadness and can only be comprehended as a joke.
  • by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @03:01PM (#16676857)
    Thank you all, but we civilized people don't kill, maim or bomb anyone who we don't like for the last 50 out of ~8000 years.

    Fixed.
  • by Fozzyuw (950608) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @03:10PM (#16677049)

    Next time, I'd go with the "Treat".

  • by Dankling (596769) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @03:10PM (#16677059) Homepage Journal
    Simple question here: Do you have free will?
  • by pla (258480) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @04:11PM (#16678475) Journal
    Thank you all, but we civilized people don't kill, maim or bomb anyone who we don't like for the last 50 out of ~8000 years, unless they have sufficiently large oil reserves.

    Fixed.


    Sorry, you had still missed a spot. Better now.
  • Re:Funny? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dAzED1 (33635) <brianlamere&yahoo,com> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @04:23PM (#16678741) Homepage Journal
    agreed that planting bomb isn't appropriate.

    That being said, two things: honestly ask yourself which side you fall on the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Palestinian plants a bomb in a cafe' because that's all they can do, they can't attack non-civs with actual military success (note the "military" limit to the word "success"). By the same token, if corporation X deprives someone of their life, liberty, and persuit of happiness...do you really think the courts are going to care in this extreme capitalism world we live in? The side with the bigger lawyers wins. Little guy that lost $500 to paypal fraud can't do anything; the cost of any action to reclaim damages would far exceed the original damages themselves.

    Second thing: "You're not responsible for corporate policy" - wrong. Refuse to work there. If you work there, you should be held culpable for the actions of the company; at the very least, you should be held liable for any action of which you are aware. I've left places because I didn't agree with their corporate policy, business model, etc. Don't like what the Republicans are doing? Don't be a Republican, don't vote Republican. Don't like what Paypal is doing? Don't work at Paypal, don't use Paypal. Patronization of a product or service, or involvement in the production of the product or service, counts you as partially responsible for the ramifications of that product or service. Don't like factory farming? Then don't buy factory farmed meat. Think we are causing global warming? Stop driving cars and wasting electricity. Be responsible. If nothing else, thermodynamics; if you're willing to add energy to a closed system (like paypal) then you must be willing to accept the heat, as it were.

    If Paypal's offices were located in some small farming community, and you really had no other employment options that paid enough so you could take care of your wife who was dying of cancer, then fine, your responsibility is limited. However, we're talking about a bomb outside offices in San Jose...with thousands of other employment opportunities within walking distance.
  • by tinkertim (918832) * on Thursday November 02, 2006 @01:55AM (#16685049) Homepage
    >> It's scarey now that something like this - which is obviously a purely criminal act (one of vandalism and
    >> possibly GBH or even murder) - can now be called a "terrorist act". With all the negative connotations which
    >> are implied. I wonder what else our government will start declaring as "terrorism", surely any malicious
    >> act could ultimately fall under the government's ever widening definition of the word.

    Sorry, but if you look at the word .. the shoe fits. Terrorism is doing things to make people fear for their safety in hopes they see your point of view. Its ugly, despicable and (you are correct) a very easy label to slap on anything of this nature.

    I really hope this was just kids being stupid. We (Gen X kids) all did dumb shit too, but we never endangered someone's life or physical safety in the process. Making someone piss their pants : fun. Making someone bleed : not fun.

    If it was a disgruntled customer .. sorry, but the T word fits and should be applied.

    I got a chuckle out of this too since nobody got hurt but someone very easily could have .. there's a fine line between prankish fun and violence.

You will lose an important disk file.

Working...