>>>Now I ask you, what is the efficacy of a system that represents to it's
potential clients the "privacy" factor of it's operation, only to have it's
premier MarketMaker act in a way totally contrary to that understanding?
Privacy? Where do you get that? There is nothing in Omnipay's privacy policy
that allows anonymous transactions.
>>>What about the principle of reciprocity? If a password is all that is
necessary to affect an Outexchange from E-Gold, why should the entity that
is
processing that valid request question it?
It's in their User Agreement.
>>>And, finally, IF the Marketmaker has doubts about the Outexchange, why
not
simply refuse it and refer it back to E-Gold? Why all the "demands" for
"additional information" and "disclosure" AFTER "seizing" the money? (And,
please, spare me the argument that Omnipay didn't seize the money, e-gold
did, for if that were the case, Omnipay wouldn't be leading the effort to
get
disclosure of the info, e-gold would.)
This is the only point you make that I think is debatable. It seems to me
that OmniPay did make some subjective decisions here. However, that's what
the court system is for: resolving disputes between people.
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
