Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens • Hacker News Board

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#81

Post by radicality » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 9:28 AM UTC

xor_null wrote: post #72

It's kind of sad, that the data is not really published. I mean i cant go to some side and take a look at the data. Maybe this is one reason: "The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include - Ford Foundation - Carnegie Endowment - Rockefeller Fam…

I also wish the data was published in its raw form so people can not only form their own conclusions but maybe someone out there would find an interesting link that no other journalists have found.

Otherwise it's like reading a research paper that provides no raw data - this way the analysis is not replicable by third parties.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#82

Post by MagnumOpus » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 10:09 AM UTC

panamaleak wrote: post #41

ratsmack wrote: post #31

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.

Süddeutsche Zeitung is funded by Soros? Any proof? And here I thought it was owned by five Munich publisher families for generations - Friedmann, Goldschagg, Seidlein, Schwingenstein and Dürrmeier...

(BTW, people will believe your rather out-of-the-box accusations more if you don't create separate brand-new accounts to post them.)

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#83

Post by MagnumOpus » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 10:13 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #68

jMyles wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> company confidential information is not protected by any law 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-partie…

Aren't these documents the copyright of Mossack Fonseca? They could just sue everyone reproducing copies for copyright infringement, beyond just the original leaker breaking contract and also committing copyright infringement. If there is no license, full rights are reserved and copyright is implied.

They could sue but they would lose because of fair use/fair dealing clauses. In the UK for instance the rule is:

"Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work other than a photograph. In each of these cases, a sufficient acknowledgment will be required."

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#84

Post by MagnumOpus » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 10:18 AM UTC

xor_null wrote: post #72

It's kind of sad, that the data is not really published. I mean i cant go to some side and take a look at the data. Maybe this is one reason: "The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include - Ford Foundation - Carnegie Endowment - Rockefeller Fam…

Hi throwaway user, The leak is being managed by Süddeutsche Zeitung, which used the ICIJ to distribute the data to 100+ different newspapers.

Are you accusing SZ to be in the pocket of your US corporate overlords? Or are you trying to drop names to discredit the leak?

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#85

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 10:24 AM UTC

qaq wrote: post #16

ikeboy wrote: post #11

http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3... >Generally speaking, owning an offshore company is not illegal in itself. In fact, establishing an offshore company can be seen as a logical step for a broad range of business transactions. However, a look through the Panama Papers very quickly reveals that concealing the identities of the true company owners was the primary aim in the vast majority of c…

It highly depends on your country of tax residence and citizenship.

And the countries in which you do business that in some way involves the offshore entity.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#86

Post by Zigurd » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #12

sshykes wrote: post #8

Is there a torrent available for us to download the documents?

There are banking details, passports, drivers license info for thousands of people.. It'd be hugely irresponsible to publish all of that in a Torrent.. Redacted docs are accompanying all of the news reports.

More or less irresponsible than to "manage" access through rather establishment org?

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#87

Post by wglb » Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

wglb wrote: post #65

In terms of e-discovery, 2.6TB is not really all that large.

Large, in terms of e-discovery, is on the order of 1PB.

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#88

Post by mtimjones » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 12:20 AM UTC

wrong_variable wrote: post #48

tomlock wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good news :)

Finger crossed for some dirt on Hillary.

Don't complain about liberals or democrats; you'll be automatically downvoted here...

Re: Panama Papers - 2.6TB leak on offshore tax havens

#89

Post by ixtli » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 12:23 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #70

ixtli wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unclear why my response is getting downvoted when other people are giving normative answers to a legal question.

> It's important, though, that if you have a security clearance you can be fired or put in jail for reading something outside of your clearance but those laws don't apply to normal people. What happens if your clearance is secret and you are doing your job and some time later, they decide something you were working is now top secret? Or if your clearance is secret and TS stuff is on the morning NYTimes? I'm sure the…

Again, I'm pretty sure that the military will not hold you responsible for something you were shown. That is, I don't see how they would hold someone responsible for being accidentally exposed to something on the morning news. That said, there are many articles from around the Snowden times that talk about the Navy and Air Force blocking wikileaks so that people won't expose themselves to things outside their sec level. Here's one I was able to find from around that time: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15wiki.html .

It might seem backwards, but members of the military are subject to trial by military tribunal. They agree to this when they sign up, and you agree to more restrictions on your actions when you apply for security clearances. I don't know specifically what they are and I am not a military lawyer, but I have five or six friends who have at one point or another had S or TS clearance in the army, navy, and two other three-letter agencies and have had casual discussions with them about it.

tl;dr: You agree not to read things outside your security clearance when you get one. If you do so, you're subject to legal repercussions. It's my understanding that going to a website and knowingly downloading these things would be treated similarly to reading something using a coworkers network account that has access to a higher security level than your own.