51–60 of 89 posts
I guess the real world isn't so boring afterall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wouldn't describe your position on cryptography and privacy in general as "moderate" by any chance?
I don't think those two things are analogous. Being an owner of a company is something decidedly public. It has nothing to do with encryption or privacy.
If that were true then the concept of registered agents wouldn't be tolerated, but in reality they're commonly used - even by the lowly working class setting up their LLCs. In any case, an appeal to the tyranny of the majority isn't a strong argument - I certainly wasn't a part of that decision... unless we're talking about the social contract I implicitly agreed to upon emerging from the birth canal.
Can someone explain me if reading these documents is even legal for journalists? I mean I am pretty sure most of the people that used that law office are completely innocent and having their personal information leaked and now read and investigated by some journalists is kind of crime in its own, I would not want my legal papers stolen and read by anybody if I am doing everything according to the law. My question is…
Mere possession of information is rarely illegal. The right to possess information - even that which was gleaned illegally initially, goes back further than the US Constitution and is clearly established. If you are interested in the current jurisprudence surrounding the matter of when possessing information can be (and can't be) illegal, you might be interested in "illegal numbers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ill…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mere possession of information is rarely illegal. The right to possess information - even that which was gleaned illegally initially, goes back further than the US Constitution and is clearly established. If you are interested in the current jurisprudence surrounding the matter of when possessing information can be (and can't be) illegal, you might be interested in "illegal numbers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ill…
But can't this Mossack Fonseca firm now go ahead and send a legal request to these journalists to delete these confidential documents and journalists will have to comply with it? It's just so hard to believe for me that company confidential information is not protected by any law and these leaks can happen with no punishment for those who possess this confidential information. It's a great success that this leak had…
This is not the case. Presumably the original leaker(s) are in violation of their contracts with the company and possibly Panamanian criminal law (which I know nothing about). In some jurisdictions, there may also be statutory civil liability surrounding the subsequent losses realized as the result of the information being in the hands of these non-parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Some" really isn't good enough. From what I've been able to put together, the whole thing seems choreographed if not outright rigged. Why is it that Putin and Assad seem to be the only targets with the initial release? I will have a hard time believing any of the reporting until the raw data is released.
The group putting out this leak is also funded by George Soros and Rockefeller Funds through OpenSociety. Makes me skeptical to say the least.
Even if this was orchestrated by the usual US suspects, the rest of the world has some house cleaning to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finger crossed for some dirt on Hillary.
(Assuming you are a US citizen from your previous comments) Why are you hoping one of your presidential candidates is corrupt? Shouldn't you be crossing your fingers not to find dirt?