Paxum: Dealing with file lockers ?
 

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Paxum say they wont deal with File Lockers ?

http://stopfilelockers.com/squillion...right-content/

You sir are correct.

.

Just in theory, i could run file locker site, accept paypal payments, then exchange it for paxum somewhere, and then pay my affs via paxum, and paxum would not know what am i doing and why am i sending cash to people on other side... So i would not call this dealing with file lockers...

:1orglaugh

Companies can change their minds ...

:1orglaugh

...And yet another reason I keep my check payouts. Don't need another middle man touching my money.

Rogue account manager.

You are correct. We will not deal with any illegal activity sites. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we will investigate the situation and take appropriate action.

:thumbsup


If you find any others using our services, please feel free to email me directly - [email protected] - with the information :)

With all due respect Ruth, you demand excessive and unwarranted scans of ID without watermarks yet you can't do due diligence on your clients.

I won't email you, I will post every example here. Your company needs to clean up it's act :2 cents:

Just goes to show exactly how much they pay attention to shit.

Not to bust your balls Ruth but he's got a point there :2 cents:

No ID says "I'm a filehost owner".

It could be a personal account as was suggested above, not registered to move funds from filehosts specifically, but for genetal use and occasionally used for filehost payments too. Same as it is with paypal - they do not work with adult, but many companies still use it every now and then to pay affiliates, with some discreet transfer description.

Just give them time, it absolutely doesnt look at this point that paxum isn't going to follow through on their stated policy not to process payments for filehosts. But they need time to find out what's going on.

That squillion dude is maybe bullshiting for all I know, about having paxum payouts, to attract more affiliates. Pirates are kinda not exactly known for their crystal honesty and impeccable reputation.

As I just stated in another thread:

When business clients sign up with us, we ask them to provide us information relating to their company, including a URL. This information is then checked and the account is usually approved unless we see something that is in direct violation with our Terms of Service.

We cannot start an in-depth investigation into every single client at the point of signup. We perform due diligence. We check the information on the URL provided, we confirm the ID's and business registrations are valid, but we simply do not have the resources to perform deep background searches on every single one of our clients before they are approved with us.

PS - I was not trying to keep this information off the boards with my request for email, I have no issue with you posting the information on here, I just figured I wouldn't miss any information if they were sent to me directly. I can't be on GFY 24/7, and the GFY search doesn't always work properly :)



Actually we pay close attention to our business and clients, we simply don't want it to take weeks for clients to be verified into our system, and so we don't perform a huge in-depth investigation on new clients. People use our service for ease, convenience and speed.

If it didn't get noted on the forums it didn't happen?

Please take the time to read my response to that before passing judgement. I didn't ask him to NOT post on GFY, I simply asked him to email me the info directly. Reason being; I can't be on GFY 24/7 and I do not want to miss any of these notifications!

Thanks.

Sorry Ruth, when you want my Passport in high resolution without a watermark which is open to abuse at a later stage I have no sympathy for your company being busted dealing with file lockers.

If you think I am being unreasonable then that's your prerogative.

Yes, this seems to be correct. We have located the account in our system and it is UNVERIFIED, no documents have been uploaded to this account yet, all that has occurred is the registration.

Therefore, Squillion has not gone through our Due Diligence process, but they are also not validated to use our services, or to offer Paxum as a payment option.


I understand. I'm sorry you have a personal beef with Paxum. I did not say you were being unreasonable at all, in fact I thanked you for providing the information. I was simply hoping you might be willing to email me as well so that I don't miss any future threads like this.

You have explicitly stated on this forum that your company takes security very seriously. You keep quoting know your customer rules and being willing to lose clients because of your overly stringent desires to obtain unwatermarked ID.

So if you are saying that your company can't type in Paxum and File Locker or File Sharing into Google then you just reinforce my concerns about your company's bona fides.

It's not up to people to notify you about nefarious clients, your own security procedures should have that in hand.

:thumbsup

Good to see Bagdad Ruth living up to her good name once again!:thumbsup

AdultKing went from topnotch file locker fighter to childish paxum hater.

For the record, anyone can sign up for a Paxum account with any email address; gmail, hotmail, domain mail, etc. There are no restrictions on the emails we accept.

In order to get a VERIFIED Paxum account though, we do require valid ID and for businesses, we require a valid business/company registration as well.

It is at THAT stage of the signup (with documentation) that we are able to perform our Due Diligence/KYC. We have encountered business clients in the past wishing to use our services for purposes banned in our TOS. At that time the client is informed we will not be able to accept their business or verify their account. We have had to turn down multiple business accounts in the past for this reason.

This specific case that you're referencing is an UNVERIFIED account in the Paxum system. Squillion posted that they were using us before they even verified their account, AND before they submitted any documentation. We never look at an account until there has been some documentation uploaded, it would not be good time management to do otherwise.

Fact of the matter is, we are doing what we said we would do. The Squillion account did not 'slip past us' in any way. They NEVER WENT THROUGH our Due Diligence/KYC and they were NEVER VERIFIED with Paxum.

I'm going to criticize any company that works with file lockers. Paxum can and should ensure that if they have a no file locker policy that they put measures in place to find file lockers using their services. It took me 30 seconds to find the site that uses Paxum for it's file locker. Why can't Paxum do that ?

We've had success as Paypal has now blocked Squillion, let's hope Paxum follows up with the same action.

For the record Paxum never followed up with how they dealt with Squllion, only said that they don't take action against unverified accounts.

After a report from a GFY member we reported another site, filefap.com, to Paxum on the 17th August.

Paxum have replied but we think the response is unsatisfactory.

We have been told that no action can be taken against unverified accounts. The account is still able to receive funds.

With all other payment and ewallet systems we have dealt with, Paypal, 2CO, Moneybookers, Payza etc they are able to terminate the account then present the message upon payment flow that the recipient is unable to receive funds.

One must question where the inbound payments end up if Paxum were to cancel the account AFTER it's verified. We have asked that question and are awaiting a response.

We believe Paxum have been tricky with their words. Paxum are doing nothing to prevent their payment system from being used by people to access stolen content in the case of this site.

filefap
Alexa Traffic Rank: 81,212 United States Flag Traffic Rank in US: 24,820

Not like a tube yet traffic-wise but probably making paxum a lot of money.

wow, i really dont understand how can paxum allow this

filefap.com/gopro

am i a total asshole or paxum fucks us over? come on ruth, dont make a stupid assholes from us ... :2 cents:

and adult king for the king! :thumbsup

How exactly does that work?

I'm waiting for the reply where:

1. it's unfair to bring this to the forum without giving Paxum any more than 7 days to deal with the issue, or

2. it's normal Paxum procedure to allow unverified accounts to receive payments even when there is Prima Facie evidence of it being a thing they've previously said they wont process for, or

3. We're going to look into it just as we said we would regarding Squillion but no follow up at all.

Paxum rode in on CCBill's coat tails saying they wouldn't process for file lockers, it was a clear unambiguous statement, now it seems Paxum is going to be tricky with it's words.

Just to be clear Paxum posted this

http://m2.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1071252

however now seem to be saying that if it's an unverified account they'll keep accepting payments anyway.

I have respect for what you are trying to do, but do you even read her reply's ???

The point is JFK that unverified accounts can receive payments, which means that people going through the payment flow can pay for access to a piracy website, the money goes into the unverified Paxum account, then access to the site is given.

Paxum have said they are only able to act on an account once it has been verified but that they cannot act on an account before it is verified.

Wow isn't that wonderful. Now I can proceed with my game plan:

1. Start beastialitycpsharing.com website.
2. Process through some unverified Paxum account.
3. After 3 months and 1 million dollar collected in payments...
4. Close beastialitycpsharing.com website and remove it from the net.
5. Verify Paxum account.
6. Collect.
7. If they don't give me the money, sue. They'll lose because I already removed beastialitycpsharing.com website from the net and there's no evidence to prove my funds are illegal.

:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

this just sounds personal, I agree.

really? unless I've missed it all I've seen you do is praise paypal for some of the sites they banned and bash paxum because they asked you for an id with out watermark. i don't see you criticizing any affiliate or hosting companies that works with file lockers either. all I have seen you criticize is paxum.

We were equally critical of Paypal before they began dealing with the issue:

http://stopfilelockers.com/file-lock...-file-sharing/
http://coldcopy.com.au/paypal-merry-...aints-ignored/

However don't let the truth get in the way of a good story PeterK

We emailed Paxum regarding FileFap.com on 17th August, to which we have had three unacceptable responses.

We have only ever gone public on issues where a organisation has broken promises it has previously made, or has refused point blank to deal with the issue.

Paxum made the commitment here on this very forum that they would not process for file lockers, now it appears that unverified accounts can receive payments.

7 days later filefap.com still has Paxum working in it's payment flow.

http://stopfilelockers.com/wp-conten...efappaxum3.jpg

I continued in this thread with this post because Paxum had never actually dealt with the Squillion issue in an acceptable manner and the very same response was received about FileFap.com

That is that unverified accounts can receive payments. That's not making a payment system unavailable to a web site.

see: https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19140548&postcount=27

:1orglaugh

All quiet from Paxum ?

unfuckingreal

Paxum have replied to us confirming they do not deal with file lockers and stating that after thorough investigation of the account in question that they have terminated the account.

However it appears to us like the payment flow will still work and we were able to progress a transaction stopping short of confirming payment.

We have asked Paxum for clarification.

Bump for the haters and naysayers.

Two semi-related questions to this thread:

What's the rationale behind insisting on a non-watermarked ID scan?

Do they accept an ID scan with the ID number obfuscated?

Interesting, good work OP :thumbsup