Oh, sure. This is the equivalent of "Unlimited Data!" from cellular providers.

...and by unlimited, we mean limited.

Except in Full Tilt Poker speak, "We don't share your data" means, "We share your data."

That doesn't excuse the fact that it's complete bull****, and FTP's deposit screen (which I can't post a copy of from work) is a bald-faced lie.

Couple of nice side-steps...

In re: Palimax, how about the deposit page in their cashier that Palimax quotes?

In re: to my post, you said NOTHING about the direct quote I made from later in the same exact page you were quoting from that is relevant, if you missed it, here it is again:

Our agents or sub-contractors who are given access to your personal information will be required to keep the information confidential and not use it for any other purpose than to carry out the services they are performing for us

Was it on a deposit or withdrawal?

Maybe you should look up the word "normative" in the dictionary.

I did. In fact, that is all I was referring to. You seem to be saying that unless FTP can go arrest or sue them, they should not put "will be required..." in the T&C. But "will be required" doesn't mean "and if they don't we'll lock them up or sue them." It could simply mean "and if they don't we will fire them," or even "and if they don't we'll slap them on the wrists." So when you say they shouldn't put "will be required" in the T&C unless they can & will arrest or sue, that is just your opinion.

Maybe true, but irrelevant. In the OP you said that FTP "promised" that they didn't share information when in fact they made no such promise.

Long story short: buyer beware.

Maybe you should look up 'implied' in the dictionary because if they are not implying that they will see that your data and or financial safety is kept secure (by whatever means) then I'm a monkey's uncle. At the very least, false advertising.

Whatever they do or do not imply has no relevance on anything I'm saying. You're off on a tangent.

So if a company says for example:

"We require that our employees don't dump toxic waste in the river next to our plant"

In a statement to the public, that means they are relieved of responsibility for an employee doing just that at some point in the future as long as they fire said employee after the fact?

A wholly bs argument on your part. And I'm done arguing what is fully evident to every thinking person with you. FT bears (or should by all rights) responsibility for their employee/subcontractor misdeeds plain and simple.

What argument? The only person arguing here is you.

All I said was the only promises made by FTP were those spelled out in the T&C, and that in the T&C they say that they will share information. That's simply fact. I never said they didn't imply one thing in one place, and then say something else in the T&C. I never said that it was OK for FTP to just wash their hands of this problem.

You are the one that took what I said and drew unfounded conclusions from it. Dumping waste in a river? Really?

I'm not your enemy here. Walk it off.

Here are cliff notes of my conversaton with SpaceGhost:

Me: The T&C says they will share information.
SG: If you can't make it stick via civil and/or criminal legal means then you shouldn't advertise/promise that you REQUIRE it
Me: I'm not talking about what they should or should not do, only what the T&C says.
SG: They imply on the webpage that they don't share information.
Me: I'm not talking about what they imply on the webpage, only what's in the T&C.
SG: You think FTP should not be held responsible for anything? Your argument is BS.
Me: Huh?

ABSOLUTELY a false statement, I said that they imply SECURITY FROM MISUSE of your information/financial transactions by employees or subcontractors. Purely and simply a lie on your part, Palimax may have said that FT guarantees they won't share information, I DID NOT.

Sorry, my mistake.

Me: The T&C says they will share information.
SG: If you can't make it stick via civil and/or criminal legal means then you shouldn't advertise/promise that you REQUIRE it
Me: I'm not talking about what they should or should not do, only what the T&C says.
SG: They imply they imply SECURITY FROM MISUSE of your information on the webpage
Me: I'm not talking about what they imply on the webpage, only what's in the T&C.
SG: You think FTP should not be held responsible for anything? Your argument is BS.
Me: Huh?

Better?

Boys and boys. while you all debating semantics, FTP former or current partner is actively ripping off unsuspecting customers and players bank accounts. Think of how many non 2+2ers have no clue that this is happening to them. These crooks somehow associated with FTP at one time or the present are just sitting back, laughing and collecting the money in masses from us players. (not just 2+2ers).

I wish I could let the unsuspecting players that do not visit 2+2 (which is most i guess) know what is happening so they can check their bank accounts and call their bank immediately if they were stolen from - and still being stolen from... I bet you both wish you could do the same as others posting on here would like to do.

Afterall, letting someone know that they are being ripped off (especially a fellow poker player in our community) is just basic good ethics.

Since we can't notify them that they are being ripped off, who can ????


Well FTP can by alerting their customers ASAP today of the criminal ring that is actively taking place.

Hey, you two mind taking it outside? You are seriously derailing this thread.

Absolutely right, however I want to say 1 last thing in Palimax' defence.

He is in fact correct that on FTs deposit page, under quick deposit, the clickable 'More information about Quick Deposit' tab it does in fact say in the last line, verbatim.

"We protect your valuable information using the latest encryption technology and never share your information with any third parties."

Once again I added the underline for emphasis.

So they contradict their own TOS (which is obvious) on the deposit information page in the client.

This is not "implied" as Grunch keeps saying.

This is a direct statement regarding your banking information.

It is, unquestionably, a lie.

Hmm lets say I worked at FTP (which I don't). I probably don't make much in wages. But I have an opportunity presented to me by a criminal ring to make a TON of money. So I leak out information to a current or former business partner/processor on how all of this secured player information can get into the wrong hands.

Is this so far fetched. Could this be the reason why FTP is not giving much details as they need to find out exactly who, what and where caused this.

But as all of this investigation and legal mumbo jumbo goes on - unsuspecting non 2 plus 2 poker players/customers are being blindly stolen from in the bank accounts.

Again, if this was UB, all hell would be breaking loose. If this was mainstream business/corporate America, high level mgmt position jobs would be in jeopardy... and this story would be all over front page news.

Shocking how the professional poker community of players states (I am not throwing in 2plus2ers here) it is an ethical close knit group of trustworthy people. Yet not one single poker media outlet is picking up on this story for most likely fear it will hurt poker.... thats right, lets not hurt poker - but perfectly okay for us to allow the stealing of bank account money from other individuals. Theft for the greater good of all of us is allowed, but telling and reporting the truth is not good.

WOW - I am just glad 2plus2 gives a forum to report these issues - just wish other media outlets and others would do the same.

Working at any mortgage processor would give similar name/bank/routing information. And as I've said several times, even the karate studio down the street has ACH information for a whole suburb's worth of people.

Everyone has a payment processor that does their dirty-work. Everyone who takes checks-by-phone, check-by-web, or automatic-withdraw type transactions is susceptible to this sort of problem.

...but the difference is, if my karate studio suddenly had a dozen of their students with unauthorized transactions, they wouldn't have waited three months to do something about it. They wouldn't write it off as "meh. not us."

Has anyone else had or heard of unwarranted deposits going to FT but NOT being credited to PMI?
Today I noticed two withdrawals in March, made for the same amount as my last deposit to FT back in December
But on my Bank of America history it says nothing about PMI.. it shows the deposit with exactly the same ID as the deposits I have knowingly made to FT.
(FTilt DES:FTPayments ID:1715594 INDN)
This has me nervous.
Have already contacted Bank of America, filed a claim and contacted FT through email.
Any other suggestions?
thank you

Those seem much more like older payments catching up to you. Make 100% sure they don't match legitimate deposits that haven't cleared (even after a long time).

Uhhh... fellas that ID info probably should be removed, not so much for FTs sake but we still don't want to give the govt. more handles unless they regulate for real.

http://paymentprovider.com/contact.html
http://systempay.com/contact.html

Even though i've not been effected by this i wantedto chime in and say awesome job the palimax we need more people like you around here keep up the good work mate

Amen to that

Looks like this is all straightened out now. Nobody is reporting any new charges by PMI. Refunds are coming through like promised. Glad it worked out well for people who got cheated. Hope the players who are not aware of being charged by PMI see it on their bank statement when they review it. If not I hope PMI reimburses everyone even if they were not challenged by the account holder. I don't think FTP has ever been connected to PMI. Probably this could be traced to one of the contracted payment processors who got shut down by the feds and had all their money confiscated. They probably saw this as a way to get back the money they lost. Who knows though.