Right. I don't mean to be unduly critical of e-gold -- they may be better
than "normal banks," although that may be faint praise. It would be useful
if they would publicly clarify exactly what constitutes suspicious activity
and under what circumstances they will freeze accounts.
-Declan
At 13:23 2/29/2000 -0900, Daniel J. Boone wrote:
>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > The e-gold execs told me on multiple occasions at FC they will freeze
> > accounts if they think the activity is "suspicious," and dare the account
> > holders to sue them in US courts to unfreeze it. They cited Ponzi schemes
> > as one use they found unacceptable. They assured me FWIW that they will
> > refund the grams in the frozen account.
>
>OK, that's good to know. Now, it would be nice if they would make this
>assurance publicly, to all of their customers. That's my beef -- I can live
>with "it's our sandbox and so everybody plays by our rules" but I'm becoming
>increasingly cheezed off by the refusal to specify what the firkin' rules
>are.
>
>-- Daniel
>
>=======================================================
>The Law Office of Daniel J. Boone
>704 West 11th Street
>Juneau, Alaska 99801
>(907) 723-9902
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=======================================================
>"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe when the
>legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon Tucker
>=======================================================
>
>
>
