Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

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

#61

Post by OscarCunningham »

Closi wrote: post #35
seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now…

Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?

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

#62

Post by roenxi »

Closi wrote: post #35
seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now…

That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful.

An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at a known price. Not to mention that anyone could buy from the chemist in the good times and set up shop just outside selling at stable prices arbitraging the scheme away.

A key reason of why free markets are practical is that it isn't effective to try and segment market based on consumers' raw need. The product needs to be genuinely different for that strategy to have a chance (eg, an expedited service - which is probably going to justify extra cost to someone dying of poison).

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

#63

Post by seanhunter »

porsager wrote: post #46
seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

If it's not that hard, would you then mind setting up a case where you show who the victim is and why?

Sure Regina vs Nigel Wright. The victim was Tesco because the blackmailer attempted to get Tesco to pay him to stop contaminating their food. They would lose money if the news got out their food was being contaminated. Like I say it’s really not hard to identify the victim if you’re not doing the straw man exercise in the paper where you define blackmail as only threatening to spread gossip. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resource/case-law-r-v-nigel-wrig...

Edit to add: here’s the definition of blackmail in the UK for reference https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

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

#64

Post by Cthulhu_ »

This just seems fallacious. It's not illegal to pick up an item in the store, and it's not illegal to walk out of a store, therefore shoplifting is a victimless crime and should be allowed?

It reminds me of "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise" (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_...) or an inverse "two wrongs don't make a right" (two rights do not make a wrong?)

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

#65

Post by Cthulhu_ »

olalonde wrote: post #56
seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

The "paradox" stems from the fact that the victim is really a victim of the gossip. But gossiping is actually legal. So they are not really a victim of that. So what are they a victim of? From the offer to not gossip? But that offer is actually beneficial to them: it provides a way to prevent the gossip. So it's hard to say they are a victim of that. etc. I can't say I have thought a lot about this but I wouldn't dis…

Except it's frequently not "just gossip", but career- or relationship-destroying information (in the case of people) or PII data (in the case of companies).

Plus, blackmail isn't usually done with just gossip, but with concrete evidence and hard data.

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

#66

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #26
oztamir wrote: 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.

Criminal of Theseus, lol.

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

#67

Post by Cthulhu_ »

KingMob wrote: post #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 shou…

It's someone with a passing knowledge of logic and expecting justice to work like boolean logic (a && b = true but the current legal system says it's false!)

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

#68

Post by robnado »

kazinator wrote: post #8

> Blackmail consists of two things, each indisputably legal on their own; yet, when combined in a single act, the result is considered a crime. A stabbing consists of someone's torso and someone's knife occupying the same space at the same time. Each is fine on its own, though!

I believe it is the transfer of the knife into the space occupied by the torso and the intent to do so that is illegal. If the torso moves into the space occupied by the knife on its own, it’s an unfortunate accident. If the torso moves into the space intentionally, it is self-harm or suicide depending on outcome and where the knofe intersects the torso.

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

#69

Post by Closi »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #61
Closi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now…

Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?

Can you give a specific example?

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

#70

Post by Closi »

roenxi wrote: post #62
Closi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now…

That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful. An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at…

Well, I guess two things:

1. Sam's point is that if you are going for a poison-antidote, you probably don't have time to shop around and will go anywhere because you are price inelastic at that point. It's not a real scenario, but in that situation of course we shouldn't allow pharmacists to just charge whatever they think they can get away with to extort the most money from someone who is dying of a poison. Is this point really up for debate, or are we really saying that should be allowed behaviour?

2. It wouldn't be facism regardless.

Post reply on HN