We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001% • Hacker News Board

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#11

Post by bko » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

bko wrote: post #2

> Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden.... We believe that disclosing the identities of billionaires who paid little to no taxes in years their fortunes grew by billions of dollars will help readers understand t…

How you feel about this is going to depend on where you are on the political spectrum. I fully support this decision based on where the country stands on inequality and socioeconomic power imbalances. It’s in the public interest to demonstrate the result of poorly constructed public policy (and thereby stoke inertia to fix it and erode wealth inequality). I’m happy to make my tax returns and income history public if…

So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes?

Privacy is a right that I would think more people on this forum would respect. I don't see why you're so happy to offer up the rights of others as sacrificial lambs to make some political point.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#12

Post by bko » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

deeblering4 wrote: post #9

bko wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxes aren't and shouldn't be secret. Cool. Would you mind sending me your tax returns (assuming you're in the US), or similar income history? You can oppose tax loopholes without encroaching on the privacy of others. To use your example, imagine dumping hacked Facebook user data because you don't like bugs in Facebook software

> Imagine dumping hacked facebook user data because you don’t like bugs in Facebook software No need for imagination here... This happens all the time. Data leaks are a regular outcome from security bugs/breeches.

And it's just as unethical in that case as well

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#13

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #11

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How you feel about this is going to depend on where you are on the political spectrum. I fully support this decision based on where the country stands on inequality and socioeconomic power imbalances. It’s in the public interest to demonstrate the result of poorly constructed public policy (and thereby stoke inertia to fix it and erode wealth inequality). I’m happy to make my tax returns and income history public if…

So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes? Privacy is a right that I would think more people on this forum would respect. I don't see why you're so happy to offer up the rights of others as sacrificial lambs to make some political point.

A better analogy would be breaking and entering to collect evidence that a building was unsafe for occupancy, and I’d support that as well under the assumption that due process had failed and there was risk to those marginalized.

I don’t believe there is an absolute right to privacy. As always, there’s nuance.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#14

Post by nzmsv » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #8

exotree wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not private individuals. They are individuals that are of public interest (much like celebrities) and hold significant sway over communities (much like public officials). This is pretty standard legal precedent.

So privacy is only for those that aren't celebrities? Do you have some barometer for what makes a "celebrity"? Blue check mark? Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?

It's actually very simple. If a year from now you find that the authors (Engelberg and Tofel, others?) of this project are still free then everyone whose data they published was a legit "celebrity" and the leak was OK with the current administration. If you suddenly discover that all of ProPublica are actually sex offenders and evade justice by hiding out in embassies (or something similar) then they overreached and leaked the wrong data on an off-limits "non-celebrity". Makes sense.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#15

Post by greenie_beans » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #11

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How you feel about this is going to depend on where you are on the political spectrum. I fully support this decision based on where the country stands on inequality and socioeconomic power imbalances. It’s in the public interest to demonstrate the result of poorly constructed public policy (and thereby stoke inertia to fix it and erode wealth inequality). I’m happy to make my tax returns and income history public if…

So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes? Privacy is a right that I would think more people on this forum would respect. I don't see why you're so happy to offer up the rights of others as sacrificial lambs to make some political point.

What? That house burning example is absurd and bad logic

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#16

Post by deeblering4 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #8

exotree wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not private individuals. They are individuals that are of public interest (much like celebrities) and hold significant sway over communities (much like public officials). This is pretty standard legal precedent.

So privacy is only for those that aren't celebrities? Do you have some barometer for what makes a "celebrity"? Blue check mark? Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?

Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc.

With regards to celebrity, there is absolutely a tradeoff. On paper celebrities have the same civil rights as anyone else, but e.g. have you heard of the paparazzi before?

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#17

Post by bko » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

bko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes? Privacy is a right that I would think more people on this forum would respect. I don't see why you're so happy to offer up the rights of others as sacrificial lambs to make some political point.

A better analogy would be breaking and entering to collect evidence that a building was unsafe for occupancy, and I’d support that as well under the assumption that due process had failed and there was risk to those marginalized. I don’t believe there is an absolute right to privacy. As always, there’s nuance.

So evidence obtained illegally outside of due-process is fair game in your book?

I guess by saying "when due process failed" kind of makes it so since by definition it "failed".

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#18

Post by deeblering4 » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #11

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How you feel about this is going to depend on where you are on the political spectrum. I fully support this decision based on where the country stands on inequality and socioeconomic power imbalances. It’s in the public interest to demonstrate the result of poorly constructed public policy (and thereby stoke inertia to fix it and erode wealth inequality). I’m happy to make my tax returns and income history public if…

So if someone wanted to demonstrate poor building codes by setting your house on fire, that would be okay too, since you know, it's in the public interest to demonstrate lax building codes? Privacy is a right that I would think more people on this forum would respect. I don't see why you're so happy to offer up the rights of others as sacrificial lambs to make some political point.

If you purposely set it on fire, thats arson. But actually yes, in many cases accidents are catalyst needed to make change happen for the benefit of the public.

A dangerous intersection gets a traffic light after a horrible car crash.

A dangerous building design code gets corrected after the doors wont open outward during a fire.

Problems need to first come to light to be fixed.

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#19

Post by greenie_beans » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #2

> Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden.... We believe that disclosing the identities of billionaires who paid little to no taxes in years their fortunes grew by billions of dollars will help readers understand t…

They obviously considered the ethics of this and decided to share for “the public interest” and not “a political purpose” as you say. What politicians do with this information is another matter. They’re simply telling the story like journalists are supposed to do!

Re: We are publishing the tax secrets of the .001%

#20

Post by bko » Tue, Jun 08, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

deeblering4 wrote: post #16

bko wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So privacy is only for those that aren't celebrities? Do you have some barometer for what makes a "celebrity"? Blue check mark? Right to privacy is a human right. Do you agree? If so, are there classes of human rights that aren't applicable to some groups of individuals?

Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc. With regards to celebrity, there is absolutely a tradeoff. On paper celebrities have the same civil rights as anyone else, but e.g. have you heard of the paparazzi before?

> Unfortunately you are speaking of ideals. In reality a person's right to privacy is dependent on many factors including their country, race, etc.

I disagree. A right is a human right. Human rights are not granted by a country, they can only be violated. My right to free thought and expression doesn't cease being a right if I'm in an oppressive state. A state can violate my rights but human rights are universal. You can disagree that privacy is a human right, and that's fine if you do.

In regards to paparazzi, if you're in a public space, you don't have the same right. It's balance by the right of another person taking photos in that same public space. There is no expectation of privacy, so I'm free to snap your picture, same as I have a right to record a police interaction (despite what some legislation might have you believe). But that doesn't mean I have the right to break into your home and record you sleeping.