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

91–100 of 102 posts

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

#91

Post by AmericanChopper »

lolc wrote: post #89
AmericanChopper wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat is a necessary element of the crime. To convict somebody of extortion or blackmail you have to prove that the threat occurred, and that the accused intended to make the threat (which is slightly different in the case of extortion via intimidation rather than threat). Extortion is not a strict liability crime, and the interpretation you've provided doesn't account for the mens rea requirement. If your inter…

Yes my wording was incomplete. It requires intent, just causing the connection is not enough. What I wanted to say is that it's hard not to leave evidence of one's intent. And be it circumstantial. So while I'm sure a lot of blackmail happens with most cases never reaching the courts, I'm also sure that even people who are smart about it run the risk of a conviction.

But you still need an actual threat, not just a theory that a person intended for a threat to be implied. If everybody understands the potential consequences of not complying, then a threat isn’t necessarily required.

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

#92

Post by porsager »

seanhunter wrote: post #63
porsager wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

But the illegal act is him contaminating the food. Of course the victim is tesco and their customers, but that's not related to the blackmail in any way. What is happening in that case is extortion. Not blackmail. [1]

I also don't see any difference in your linked definition to the one used in the paper.

[1] https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-...

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

#93

Post by seanhunter »

porsager wrote: post #92
seanhunter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

But the illegal act is him contaminating the food. Of course the victim is tesco and their customers, but that's not related to the blackmail in any way. What is happening in that case is extortion. Not blackmail. [1] I also don't see any difference in your linked definition to the one used in the paper. [1] https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-...

No, both the contamination and the blackmail were found by the court to be illegal. And he was convicted of blackmail so I don't think your argument of it not being blackmail makes any sense whatsoever.

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

#94

Post by lolc »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #91
lolc wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes my wording was incomplete. It requires intent, just causing the connection is not enough. What I wanted to say is that it's hard not to leave evidence of one's intent. And be it circumstantial. So while I'm sure a lot of blackmail happens with most cases never reaching the courts, I'm also sure that even people who are smart about it run the risk of a conviction.

But you still need an actual threat, not just a theory that a person intended for a threat to be implied. If everybody understands the potential consequences of not complying, then a threat isn’t necessarily required.

Now I wonder how common cases are where the threat is made in such an abstract way that it wouldn't qualify for a court. Because from the victims perspective, just acting on a highly abstract threat is difficult. You'd expect some bartering and a deal, no? The victim will need some kind of trust that their action will cause inaction on the perpetrators part.

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

#95

Post by porsager »

Closi wrote: post #79
alignItems wrote: post #17

Writing nonsense is not a crime. Being a paid academic is not a crime. Writing nonsense as a paid academic should be a crime.

One of the authors also wrote this book, "The Case For Discrimination" where he argues that companies and individuals should be allowed to discrimate against whoever they like. https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Case%20for%20Discrimination%20Wa... A few soundbites from that book which show that this guy is pretty disgusting: > When women enter in the military in any great numbers, it will be a threat to the entire human rac…

Wow. What a dishonest way of pulling things out of context to paint a false picture!

> "When women..." - This was in the context of describing how precious women are because they are the ones who bear our future children. Not because they are lesser people in any way. [Chapter 11 - page 32]

> "Today, we..." - Again, if you actually read the thing, here's the point from that section: "Second, apart from considerations of this sort, there is no intrinsic reason to favor male over female politicians.". The silver lining point was made in relation to a description of females leaning towards social welfare schemes, which of course is the opposite, of the goal of the author, in his cause for a stateless society.

> "It is eminently..." I think it's your own wishes coloring this section, so there's no point in going through it. Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist?

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

#96

Post by porsager »

seanhunter wrote: post #93
porsager wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the illegal act is him contaminating the food. Of course the victim is tesco and their customers, but that's not related to the blackmail in any way. What is happening in that case is extortion. Not blackmail. [1] I also don't see any difference in your linked definition to the one used in the paper. [1] https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-...

No, both the contamination and the blackmail were found by the court to be illegal. And he was convicted of blackmail so I don't think your argument of it not being blackmail makes any sense whatsoever.

You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot.

So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come up with an example where it's easy to identify the victim?

Even so, the matter discussed is if blackmailing should be illegal. So here's an example. I go to a doctor who advertises as a specialist in thyroid diseases. Being a doctor myself I can instantly tell he's a quack doctor. Who is the victim if I "blackmail" him by saying he has to pay me $10.000 to not tell the world about it? Is he the victim? He obviously breached contract by selling me something he was not in possession of, so in that case, I'm the victim of fraud, but is he the victim for me seeking restitution by means of blackmail? Well, maybe you could say that the other people who believe him are the victims, but they are not the victims of the blackmail, they are is I was, the victim of his fraud.

Let's take another example where a previous crime was not necessarily involved. I have found you cheating on your girlfried. I tell you to pay me $10.000 not to go tell her. Should making that offer be illegal? Are you a victim when you can simply agree not to? I don't know if you read the paper, but the point made is that asking for an amount of money not to disseminate knowledge shouldn't be illegal. Would you say NDA's should be illegal?

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

#97

Post by AmericanChopper »

lolc wrote: post #94
AmericanChopper wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you still need an actual threat, not just a theory that a person intended for a threat to be implied. If everybody understands the potential consequences of not complying, then a threat isn’t necessarily required.

Now I wonder how common cases are where the threat is made in such an abstract way that it wouldn't qualify for a court. Because from the victims perspective, just acting on a highly abstract threat is difficult. You'd expect some bartering and a deal, no? The victim will need some kind of trust that their action will cause inaction on the perpetrators part.

You're still alluding to the use of a threat, which isn't necessary. If somebody knows that another person "has some dirt on them", then any demands that person makes are going to be evaluated in that context, especially if those demands are plainly unreasonable.

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

#98

Post by Closi »

porsager wrote: post #95
Closi wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the authors also wrote this book, "The Case For Discrimination" where he argues that companies and individuals should be allowed to discrimate against whoever they like. https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Case%20for%20Discrimination%20Wa... A few soundbites from that book which show that this guy is pretty disgusting: > When women enter in the military in any great numbers, it will be a threat to the entire human rac…

Wow. What a dishonest way of pulling things out of context to paint a false picture! > "When women..." - This was in the context of describing how precious women are because they are the ones who bear our future children. Not because they are lesser people in any way. [Chapter 11 - page 32] > "Today, we..." - Again, if you actually read the thing, here's the point from that section: "Second, apart from considerations…

> Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist?

The whole thing in my view, along with other chapters - his argument is essentially that discrimination laws should be removed because the stereotype that ‘blacks are less productive’ is true according to his findings, so people should be allowed to discriminate on a racial basis and as long as we trust the free market and remove regulation everyone will be treated as they should be.

And the part where he decides to indirectly compare not-stereotyping black people to not-stereotyping tigers, with the underlying implication of ‘your nature is your nature’. It’s a small extract from a book that continuously demonstrates a worldview that is racist in my view.

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

#99

Post by porsager »

Closi wrote: post #98
porsager wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. What a dishonest way of pulling things out of context to paint a false picture! > "When women..." - This was in the context of describing how precious women are because they are the ones who bear our future children. Not because they are lesser people in any way. [Chapter 11 - page 32] > "Today, we..." - Again, if you actually read the thing, here's the point from that section: "Second, apart from considerations…

> Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist? The whole thing in my view, along with other chapters - his argument is essentially that discrimination laws should be removed because the stereotype that ‘blacks are less productive’ is true according to his findings, so people should be allowed to discriminate on a racial basis and as long as we trust the free market and remove regulation everyo…

The tiger example is not his, but that of Walter E Williams https://fee.org/articles/racial-profiling/

It's also nonsense that blacks are intrinsically less productive. Nowhere does he say that. Quite the contrary, he is of the belief that blacks would face less discrimination in a stateless society with a free market, which he is certainly in favor of.

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

#100

Post by seanhunter »

porsager wrote: post #96
seanhunter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, both the contamination and the blackmail were found by the court to be illegal. And he was convicted of blackmail so I don't think your argument of it not being blackmail makes any sense whatsoever.

You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot. So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come…

You asked for an example I gave you one. You tried to claim (in spite of the source I provided showing the contrary) that the actions weren’t blackmail and weren’t illegal. Now you’re trying to reframe to get me to provide another example for some reason.

Pretty clear you’re not even attempting a good faith argument at this point.

Post reply on HN