Live data from Hacker News

Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

papers.ssrn.com

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#21

I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall under defamation, which is illegal. At least in my country.

Defamation requires making false statements about someone. It's not defamation to reveal true embarrassing information.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#22

I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall under defamation, which is illegal. At least in my country.

In the US, publishing true information generally cannot be defamation.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#23
Is this what passes for "insight" in economics nowadays?

Can't wait to hear this author use the same logic elsewhere.

"It's legal to wish for someone's death, and legal to hand over briefcases full of cash. In this paper I will demonstrate how hiring a hitman is, in fact, ..."

or

"It's well-known that hydrogen is an explosive gas, and oxygen is an explosive gas, Q.E.D., the author maintains that the chemical H2O should in fact, also be considered an explosive gas."

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#24

I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall under defamation, which is illegal. At least in my country.

Though not stated in the abstract, I assume that the information to be published is true. In the US, truth of a statement is an absolute defense against defamation. That is, regardless of how humiliating the information is, no matter the personal embarrassment from its release, no matter my intentions in releasing it, it cannot be defamation if the information is true.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#25
This paper seems to have too much 'whataboutism'. Sam says that we shouldn't exploit poisoned people by charging lots of money for an antitode, and the paper literally responds by calling him in favour of a 'fascist model' of society rather than being for free-enterprise.

Talk about being a straw man!

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#26
post #4

Sounds like that Simpsons episode ( https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Bob_Next_Door ): Bob arrives at The Five Corners and has himself and Bart (with his hands and feet bound with duct tape) stand in two of the states at the meeting point. He then tells Bart of his plan to murder him: Bob will stand in one state; reach into a second state and shoot his gun; have the bullet travel through a third state; hit Bart in…

I think there was a man in England insert long ago who killed someone and fled. 40 years later he was found and put on trial. In his defense he argued that he wasn't the same man of 40 years ago. And could point to many many differences to prove his point. The court was quite impressed and had him hung anyways.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#27
post #4

Sounds like that Simpsons episode ( https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Bob_Next_Door ): Bob arrives at The Five Corners and has himself and Bart (with his hands and feet bound with duct tape) stand in two of the states at the meeting point. He then tells Bart of his plan to murder him: Bob will stand in one state; reach into a second state and shoot his gun; have the bullet travel through a third state; hit Bart in…

[dead]

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#28

Drinking is legal, driving is legal, so it should be legal to combine them. trabant00, professor emeritus of mental gymnastics. Plz give money for study and paper. There's plenty of things that are legal except if done in a certain way, at a certain time, with certain persons, circumstances, etc. In fact I would argue most things are legal in a limited scope than things that are legal in any circumstance. And in the…

The thing is that in other cases you are allowed to threaten with legal actions. For example if I have permission to build on some land that would block your view, then I can ask you to pay to prevent me from doing this.

You missed the entire part about context. Threatening with legal action does not make a victim, while threatening with something illegal like blackmail does.

In your example you aren't asking for money not to hurt them, like with blackmail. You are asking for money to give up your legal right to do something. Intent also counts in law.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#29
post #12

insider trading, a victimless crime

How are you not a victim if the secret is a compromising photograph?

Surely, everyone is naked at times, still when secretly captured on camera, you can become a victim.

(Edit: this was supposed to be a root comment)

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#30

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribery.

I'm sure you're very busy, but I'd be willing to compensate your expedited consideration in this matter. Blah blah.

Now it's a facilitating payment ;-)

Post reply on HN