Do you work in PR? Because that is 100% grade A PR damage control spiel and seems completely plausible and reasonable unless you know better, which both I and they do and so will you shortly.
There was no fraud detection, no flags, no payments to me ever. None.
Paypal demanded, out of the blue copies of drivers licenses, passports, bank statements etc that they have no right to, claiming they needed them to comply with law. Suspicious much? Well I sure was and am. They have only ever been an online click-clack machine for my credit card and nothing else. Ever.
I have the _right_ to refuse to do business with them if they unilaterally change their rules. I have done so.
There /can/ be /zero/ fraud possible by closing the account because I don't trust them and going elsewhere to get my credit card processed.
From their point of view it would be a negative metric. Better to not have declining account numbers you have to report so just block them.
They are just crooks from top to bottom. It's their default response. They are arrogant, obnoxious and deserve to be prosecuted and should be.
What I want them to do is repect my wishes not to be associated with them in any way and not to have an identity theft vector avaialble with people and an organisation I have justifiably decided don't trust when I have told them that is what I now want.
So f%#k them and anyone sticking up for the crooks they are.
> Paypal demanded, out of the blue copies of drivers licenses, passports, bank statements etc that they have no right to, claiming they needed them to comply with law.
I stopped reading your rant here because it's clear you are not familiar with financial regulations.
> I stopped reading your rant here because it's clear you are not familiar with financial regulations.
I think the issue is with shifting expectations with no clear way to terminate a business relationship. Not sure how being "familiar with financial regulations" would change that.
For what it's worth, harry8's post inspired me to close my Paypal account while I still can. Done.
Sortaaa. There's several financial regulations invoked in the USA that requires financial institutions to ask for proper identification IF continuance of business is pursued. However, there is nothing - to my knowledge - that compels PayPal to hold these identification vectors as "ransom" for an account held hostage from closure.
The thing is that having an account open at all is presumably because you intend to use PayPal at some point in the future. They could keep an account in an 'inactive' state but then that just moves the identity requirement further along to whenever the user tries to check out with PayPal once or move money.
GP doesn't want the account to be open, they've requested to close it and paypal has refused to close it because they demand information needed for an open account in order to, presumably, reactivate the account with all relevant identifying documents submitted for the moments it must take in order to close it, because they've developed a technical process that requires accounts be open and in good standing in order to be closed. Which given this situation is a ridiculous design decision unless you are interested in maintaining these data after the account should close.
Good observation. I should not need to be familiar with regulations in /your/ country either. The quote you outlined:
>> Paypal demanded, out of the blue copies of drivers licenses, passports, bank statements etc that they have no right to, claiming they needed them to comply with law.
Is a statement of fact. Make your accusation plainly about it if you choose to do so or maybe apologise for insinuating it?
How so? I'm not the person you're replying to, but I have used PayPal in exactly the same way over the past 20 years: only linking credit cards, and using it to pay for things on websites rather than having to give my credit card information to yet another random site. And I've never had to provide any kind of documentation in order to keep my account open and functional.
So clearly these "financial regulations" you speak of don't actually exist, or at least PayPal has just -- lucky for me -- conveniently forgot to comply with them for my account.
Also consider that there are two things at issue here: account ownership, and account operation.
PayPal seems to not believe that the grandparent is even the owner of the account. If they did, then they'd allow him to close the account. That seems distinct from allowing someone to operate the account, that is, perform financial transactions. Which, sure, depending on the kind of transactions or kind of account, that might require further verification. (But assuming the GP is telling the full story of how he uses the account, PayPal certainly does not legally need further documentation.)
So it's a little weird PayPal has taken the stance they've taken. If all they cared about was complying with "financial regulations", then they should have no problem with the account owner asking them to close the account. But clearly they are doing something shady, because presumably knowing the account password, or at least demonstrating having control of the email address and/or phone number (or other contact method) associated with the account, should be enough to satisfy PayPal in order to close the account. The fact that it isn't is a red flag that should make us question PayPal's motives here.
At any rate, the fact remains that using a PayPal account solely to pay for stuff online should not invoke any "financial regulations" requiring the account owner to upload ID photos or other documentation. If that were the case, every intermediary in payment processing -- like Stripe, Venmo, Square Cash, or even Google Pay (all entities I use but have never given identity documentation to) -- would be required to collect this information.
Now remove the "cpu on a network" being involved and see if you can think it through. You've never been murdered so there's no need for laws and regs. Equivalent with no cpu on a network. Obviously murder is pretty extreme and selected on that basis to underline the principle.
There was no fraud detection, no flags, no payments to me ever. None.
Paypal demanded, out of the blue copies of drivers licenses, passports, bank statements etc that they have no right to, claiming they needed them to comply with law. Suspicious much? Well I sure was and am. They have only ever been an online click-clack machine for my credit card and nothing else. Ever.
I have the _right_ to refuse to do business with them if they unilaterally change their rules. I have done so.
There /can/ be /zero/ fraud possible by closing the account because I don't trust them and going elsewhere to get my credit card processed.
From their point of view it would be a negative metric. Better to not have declining account numbers you have to report so just block them.
They are just crooks from top to bottom. It's their default response. They are arrogant, obnoxious and deserve to be prosecuted and should be.
What I want them to do is repect my wishes not to be associated with them in any way and not to have an identity theft vector avaialble with people and an organisation I have justifiably decided don't trust when I have told them that is what I now want.
So f%#k them and anyone sticking up for the crooks they are.