I’m guessing I probably won’t get it because I assume they already have it since i use PayPal credit. Hard to beat 0% for 6 months when you don’t have 5k laying around and the guy selling the trailer you really want takes PayPal. Same with my tire machines.
you guys should look into it, or not because you can probably get in trouble buying a billion car parts. I know i have.
Appleseed said:berkeley em. If they want all that, I won't deal with them. If a seller (not just on EBay) only deals with PayPal then, unfortunately, I won't deal with them. It might make it more difficult, but I'll make the choice, not someone else.
I closed my Paypal account when they screwed Assange and Xorg. I have not had any problems using Ebay since doing this. Paypal processes my debit card, nothing more.
Appleseed said:berkeley em. If they want all that, I won't deal with them. If a seller (not just on EBay) only deals with PayPal then, unfortunately, I won't deal with them. It might make it more difficult, but I'll make the choice, not someone else.
I'm the same way. I'll just stop using them.
eBay is switching to Adyen here shortly anyway. So congrats on driving yourself into irrelevance PayPal.
I don't think I need to.
If I just use PayPal as a middle man for my credit card, there is no reason to right?
That's the only reason I use PayPal, so I don't have to enter a CC number on sites that I am not super sure of (smaller shops / websites etc). I honestly don't like the idea of even having my bank account associated with my PayPal account.
SVreX said:In reply to dculberson :
I’d have no problem with the last 4. I don’t like the entire SSN being misused.
I think you are assuming the Feds are requiring it. I don’t think that is the case. I think it’s just a company policy.
Well, there's no way for us to know from where we're sitting, so either one is an assumption. I just think PayPal wouldn't bother with it unless they were facing some sort of scrutiny that would require it. Just sending out notices costs a company like this a ton of money, and if it didn't need done they wouldn't bother. Obviously that's an opinion. They just don't have anything to gain from it.
SVreX said:And there is another issue....
Even if I chose to give my SSN to my local corner grocer, he does not have a world wide exposure risk and potential for abuse.
PayPal does.
Are you sure? Small/medium retailers get hacked all the time, they don't keep things on paper anymore, and unlike Paypal a small retailer won't have any budget for computer security.
I got a similar notification recently from a cryptocurrency exchange I signed up for back when gambling with that stuff seemed like a decent idea, the verification used to be optional but will now be required. I don't plan to ever buy any cryptocurrency in the future so I'll let the account close.
In reply to SVreX :
In fact, PayPal themselves have this to say about it:
"Even though PayPal isn’t a bank, we need to comply with the same government regulations as other financial institutions. We’re asking for identifying information so you can continue to keep and spend money directly from your PayPal balance."
They claim it's due to regulations. I choose to take statements like that at face value. There's not much benefit to me fretting about ulterior motives in cases like this.
In reply to dculberson :
I'd prefer if they weren't acting as a psudo-merchant account and would just act as a payment processor by default. Two or three times a year I end up being passed a refund and Paypal, rather than transferring the money into my bank account, floats it on their books until I manually transfer it. I've never really investigated if there's a pass through mechanism because it's infrequent enough that I just deal with it.
On the other hand Paypal may be legally obligated to operate that way, the Treasury CAS website seems to indicate that might be the case, but damn if it isn't annoying. (Looking at it now there isn't a real obvious mechanism to have the service act as just a processor.)
Lastly, Paypals processor fees are stupid high compared to actual processors. If they're going to hassle you about acting more like a real bank maintaining a merchant account you may as well get a better rate if you do any volume of business.
I am on PayPay now and didn't receive that message. But I did get this:
On Nov. 7, Instant Transfers will cost 1% of the amount you transfer, with a maximum fee of $10.00. Use your eligible debit card for Instant Transfers. Transfer times vary by bank and may take up to 30 minutes.
noddaz said:I am on PayPay now and didn't receive that message. But I did get this:
On Nov. 7, Instant Transfers will cost 1% of the amount you transfer, with a maximum fee of $10.00. Use your eligible debit card for Instant Transfers. Transfer times vary by bank and may take up to 30 minutes.
Looks like I need to stop using PayPal on eBay since it incurs more fees to make a quick transaction. That sucks if true.
Thanks for this thread, looking for something about this I found an email about a paypal credit account I didn't know I had. Now I have my own suspicious mess to investigate.
dculberson said:In reply to SVreX :
In fact, PayPal themselves have this to say about it:
"Even though PayPal isn’t a bank, we need to comply with the same government regulations as other financial institutions. We’re asking for identifying information so you can continue to keep and spend money directly from your PayPal balance."
They claim it's due to regulations. I choose to take statements like that at face value. There's not much benefit to me fretting about ulterior motives in cases like this.
Really not trying to beat a dead horse, but this is foolish.
We ALL need to comply with those same regulations.
So (for example), if a regulation says “You must do yada, yada, yada if you are a bank...”, guess what? All of us who are not banks are in compliance with those regulations by doing absolutely nothing.
I certainly wouldn’t read into that statement and assume they are doing something special to protect my data.
I used to work for a medical facility. There were thousands of patient files (worth millions of dollars on the black market) sitting on shelves in unsecured hallways open to the public. Anyone could have walked out the back door with them. Complete violation of HIPAA regulations. But they were old files, and the company was not willing to put the money into digitizing them. They made a calculated risk, knowing they probably wouldn’t get caught. Companies do stuff like this all the time. And bigger companies (with better knowledge of the rules, and better legal teams) are often more guilty (because they know what they can get away with).
Bottom line is that you choose to believe them, and I do not.
Ultimately doesn’t matter much. I will lose.
You'll need to log in to post.
