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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by amcdiarmid (856796) <amcdiarmNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:36PM (#16675257) Journal
    I see that you have never tried to actually use "Safe Harbor" provisions. Lucky you. Paypal operates as a wire transfer service, and as a bank - with the regulations of neither.

    I actually tried to use the "Safe Harbor" once. First they told me that I had to wait for the account to be cleaned out. Then they told me to file with my credit card company. Some "Safe Harbor" I'm actually surprised it did not happen sooner, they really have screwed a lot of people along the way.
  • Not very big (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Silver Sloth (770927) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:38PM (#16675297)
    From TFA
    "Whatever caused this was pretty strong,' said San Jose Fire Department Capt. Jose Guerrero. "It's tough to break one of these windows."
    Er... As someone who lived in the UK during the IRA bombing campaign I can suggest that if the 'bomb' only broke a few windows then it wasn't exactly huge. Consider this atrocity [wikipedia.org]

    Looks more like the sort of thing I used to knock up as a teenager - Sodium Chlorate and sugar anyone?

  • by Amouth (879122) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @01:57PM (#16675695)
    that my friend is very evil.. and yet wise at the same time..
  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:03PM (#16675801)
    In the UK they are regulated as a 'electronic money institution' under the Financial Services Authority, so Im happy. These regulations cover Paypals entire European business arm.

    Also, I must be one of their rare happy customers - two weeks ago somehow my Paypal account was compromised and several thousand USD was transfered around, with no fuss at all every single one of those transactions have been reversed at no cost to myself. All it took was 20 minutes to a local rate number, no queues, very helpful Irish call handlers.
  • Justice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StarvingSE (875139) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:19PM (#16676069)
    While I cannot say that bombing the PayPal office is a good way to settle disputes, it still made me smile to read this article as I have recently been subjected to their horrible customer service.

    I am a casual ebay user, and probably sell roughly 10 items a year. Since paypal is the defacto standard there, I use them and have it linked to my checking account to transfer payments to myself. Well, I recently sold an old video card for $100 and was paid for it through the paypal service. Now, after hearing about people not being able to transfer their funds etc, I always immediately transfer the $$$ to my checking account. So, I have my $100. 5 days later, paypal sends me a notice saying that the payment might be fraudulent and is being investigated. 2 days later, they say it is indeed fraudulent, and that $100 is being deducted from my paypal account. Great, I already shipped the item, so I call paypal, spend an hour on hold, and finally talk to someone. The only response I get is "sorry, can't do anything about it. Sorry, can't tell you the reason it was fraudulent." Now I already have the money in my checking, so its not like I'm totally screwed, but I can't use my account becuase it has that negative balance on it. Any money into it will automatically go against it. I can't cancel either becuase of it.

    They also told me that my item was not valid for seller protectrion because it is an electronic item. Why the hell does it matter what item was sold???? I don't udnerstand why I am responsible for the fraudulent transaction when PayPal deemed this other users account valid and processed the payment in the first place. This is another example of a business who thinks that they can do business without any risk what-so-ever. Just screw the end user.

    btw... If anyone has had a similar experience and has some advice as to how I can cancel this account or otherwise solve the problem, please let me know!
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:36PM (#16676381) Homepage Journal
    Disgruntled high schoolers who plant bombs should be shot. All "disgruntled" people who plant bombs should be shot anyway.

    "Don't kill people, or we'll kill you." Doesn't it strike you as being hypocritical to have a death penalty when there's a law against killing people? Not to mention that in our system it actually costs more to kill someone than to keep them in prison for life.

    There's a fine line between terrorism and protest and while we all know how misused the label terrorism is, but I think if actual explosives are involved, it definetly qualifies for a big T label.

    You said it, kiddo: "label". Terrorism is a label. If you bomb the living fuck out of a country full of people you consider to be inferior to you, indiscriminately killing both soldiers and civilians, that's war; but if you deliver one bomb to a key location, that's terrorism. That's all bullshit. War is hell no matter what you call it. These bombers are using the only delivery method they have available - themselves. It doesn't make it right but it's important to understand that these people don't just get a stick up their ass and decide they don't like us one day. We carry out a systematic program of control over a lot of these people and when they realize it sometimes they become angry. We also have a long history of exterminating the civilians in countries that later on, for "some reason", become breeding grounds for terrorism. Frequently, we have set up a puppet government in these places long before any of this stuff happens, as well. In almost all cases we have provided the perpetrators with the training and often even the equipment used in the so-called "terrorist" attacks. Speaking of that label, don't you think people are terrified when we're saturation bombing their countries?

  • Re:Funny? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lurker2288 (995635) on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:43PM (#16676491)
    If I allow my family to suffer because I refuse to profit from ethically-suspect (not necessarily blatantly unethical) actions, have I really made the most ethical choice? If not sending my kids to a good school damns them to poverty and ignorance, then don't I have an ethical obligation to them, as well? And hey, if the old lady isn't paying her rent, then isn't she being unethical?

    Ah, a little moral relativism after lunch. C'est maqnifique.
  • Re:PARENT = CULPRIT? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @02:45PM (#16676519) Homepage Journal

    You know, the kids who are shooting up schools have typically been the subject of a systematic policy of harassment that is carried out by the students but with the effective blessing of the administration which does nothing to prevent it. the people really responsible for the columbine massacre (for example) are the members of the administration who did nothing to prevent bullying. if I'd had access to a gun while I was in high school, there were times when I very likely would have brought it to school and opened up on some of the asshole jocks who used to pick on me when I was just a mama's boy too pussified by his fatherless (and even father-figure-less) upbringing to fight back and stand up for himself. I frequently felt suicidal and was perpetually depressed from about sixth grade up to the time I dropped out of college and took the CHSPE, which was a turning point in my life because I got away from the harassment. I no longer had people striking and tripping me as I walked by even when I didn't look at them, no longer had people constantly assaulting my self-esteem.

    But in fact this is all tacitly approved by the administration. I made frequent complaints in middle school, not understanding that fighting back would solve my problem. I finally got into a fight with a kid one-on-one, not a bully who strikes and leaves but just a kid who wanted respect and had no way to get it other than imitating the other kids. I gave him two black eyes and received an expulsion for my trouble - my reward for defending myself. Granted, I got a little out of control on him, but the school was willing to create a child who would get out of control when attacked, but not willing to protect him from violence so it wouldn't happen in the first place.

    There are only three [groups of] people who you can blame for school shootings, and the perps aren't in any of them. They are the parents who fail to give their children workable strategies for solving their problems, the students who bully them, and the school administration that permits and in the end even encourages bullying by not acting to stop it.

    Again, I was a really fucked up kid in school due to the way I was treated for being precocious, poor, and really tall, and it's a really good thing that I didn't have access to a firearm, because I likely would have used it. I was the kind of kid who would fantasize about that kind of stuff in class instead of doing my work because it's hard to concentrate on your schoolwork when you have to plan your exit from the classroom to minimize the time you spend next to people who typically assault you.

  • by cyberscan (676092) * on Wednesday November 01, 2006 @10:09PM (#16683619) Homepage
    Why target each other? The hackers were not the cause as far as I know. If people want to use violence, then they should select the correct target. I usually don't support violence, however, I can unsderstand why people get frustrated enough to do something like this. It seems that the little guy or the common person has absolutely no recourse when screwed by a big company. The police usually do not want to pursue people who screw over the common man. The FBI only assists if the amount is $5000 or above. Even a thousand dollars is a lot of money for the common person. However, governments do not care about the common person. It seems that the only way to fight back is by doing some sort of damage or breaking some law. I can now hear all of those "Well, if you do not like it, then do business with someone else people." The problem is that that "someone else" is also most likely a big corporation who also screws over some of their customers.

    I just encourage people who feel the need to take some form of disruptive action to make sure they only affect the deserving target. The last major L.A. riot is a prime example of the wrongful use of violence. Why were small businessess and innocent truckers attacked when the police were the target of protesters? It seems to make more sense to me for the rioters to burn down, rob, or vandalize every police precint or police car rather than small businesses whose propriators were probably equally appalled at the verdict. Rather than using violence to punish a target, I suggest other, more creative action that reduces the chance of collateral damage. Does the target have a toll free number? A computer or botnet can fine the target by repeatedly calling that number (from an untracable line). How about bad publicity? I noticed a guy who had lage signs on his car that stated "I got ripped off by ....." The guy drove that car around town and lots of people saw the sign. The targetted business almost closed down as a result. It is also easy to glue doors shut, cut air conditioning lines, use herbicide on landscaping, etc. Big business care about only one thing, and that thing is bringing in money. Damage the money stream will damage the company.

    A public utility is almost invincible against a customer who uses legal channels to file a complaint, however that same utility becomes very vulnerable to vandalism. It is deeply amazing what a crossed line, a closed valve, an open switch, or a plugged meter can do. It is also amazing what instruction passed onto others who are equally dissatisfied with service can also do. When a target is on the defensive it has to think of every way to prevent a malcontent from doing damage while a malcontent only has to discover a single way of exacting damage to be successful.

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz

Working...