On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 17:10 -0600, John Hasler wrote: > David writes: > > The way they would withhold payments as not going to approved > > entities > > by the powers that be has forced me into believing they are more of > > an > > information gathering utility disguised as a financial one. If you > > undertake to act as a medium in a financial transaction, that's > > what > > you do. > > They have to comply with the (vaguely worded) law if they want to > stay > in business. I doubt that they like it any more than we do.
This forces _everybody_ to comply with American law: unilateral world order by any other name. > > You don't put through some transactions and not others, simply > > because > > they are heading to an Assange fund or some other entity not > > currently > > approved of by American foreign policy preference. > > The "know your customer" regulations are by no means a US-only > phenomena. It's supposed to prevent "money laundering". A directly attributed, undisguised donation to an Assange fund, or any other (because this applied to more than one isolated case) does not qualify as `money-laundering'. Compare this to the $21 trillion missing from Pentagon finances and the money which has `gone astray' in the Ukrainian scenario to observe the difference. Who knows? Perhaps the Debian Project, represented in the media as `an unaccountable collective of hackers', will be next. Yes, we definitely need something better than Paypal. Cheers! >
