Panama Papers source issues statement • Hacker News Board

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#101

Post by Broken_Hippo » Fri, May 06, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #87

r00fus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. There is Government, but then there are the secret powers-that-be that pull governments' strings. And they can't work effectively to further their own ends while in the light of public scrutiny.

I don't like this attitude. In fact, some whistleblower protection laws already exist (whistleblower protection act). I'm sure there are forces that act on politicians other than loyalty to their constituents, but there's no reason in the American democracy we couldn't (theoretically) get to a point where we elect representatives who understand the importance of whistleblower protection and care more about their cons…

"In fact, some whistleblower protection laws already exist.."

This is true, on paper. But the other reality is that states have passed laws (or tried to) prohibiting the sort of investigative behavior that leads to whistleblowing, and a lot of companies have in-house rules against it. No cameras and cell phones in your work area, for starters. This sort of thing makes it easy to dismiss the paper laws. I imagine that if they are violated, one must sue to get it worked out.

Yes, it is theoretically true we could get to a point where we elect folks that understand the importance of them, or at least have the wherewithal to listen to experts in the field. And care more about their constituents. Unfortunately, I think we are a long ways off, and those very people - the ones that care less about the constituents and have little grasp of the importance of such laws - have made high entry hurdles for the ones that would care.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#102

Post by cname » Fri, May 06, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #71

dzdt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that legal vs illegal is a completely different question than right vs wrong. Whistleblower protections need to extend to cover more than just exposure of illegal activites.

Exactly. The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. So, one American's opinion doesn't define right and wrong for whole country esp as many disagree with him. So, he was wrong for leaking legal stuff on top of it being criminal.

> The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades.

I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying.

In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#103

Post by kuschku » Fri, May 06, 2016, 10:23 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #39

This statement is very interesting, it is very well written and researched, and it uses less common words. I wonder if there was some level of editing/embellishment done to it. Might as well be a non-native speaker. It also seems to me that the author might have had some personal reasons to target MF But to be honest, I don't think Income Inequality is one of the most defining issues of our time, through human histor…

It’s known that the editors working on the panama leaks are mostly Germans, and that Mossack Fonseca mostly targeted German customers, too, (and had mostly German employees).

So it might very well be a case of a German whistleblower, and a German editor.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#104

Post by sgnelson » Fri, May 06, 2016, 10:27 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #81

sgnelson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that's only true depending on where you stand. (and I mean that quite literally, as in Where are you from, what country do you live in?) If you're the state of Germany, they probably don't think it's legal for others to spy on them. That's certainly true in the US. And of course you'll argue that it was a US citizen reporting on US gov't affairs. But, isn't a whistleblower someone who believe they are s…

Now, this was the first, thoughtful reply I got in this. I'm addressing it last as it deserves a bit more thought. Let's look at the points. " If you're the state of Germany, they probably don't think it's legal for others to spy on them." It's true. An NSA proponent we shred on Schneier's blog made one good point: each country makes spying on everyone else legal for them but makes it illegal for anyone to spy on the…

we'll agree to disagree. But one last thing.

"Reward the good, punish the bad, and increase accountability where needed. Always my answer."

That hasn't occurred. All we've done is gone after one person who made us aware of what has been going on. Nobody from the NSA has gone to jail over what they were doing, nobody who told them to do it has suffered any real consequences. And increasing accountability? From whom? Congress? If anything, it's arguable that the NSA (and the entire US Intelligence system, down to the local police department) have gotten worse since Snowden's revelations, not better. But at least as a US citizen, I now know (with proof) what my government has been doing to me and "for me." I don't approve of those actions.

If Snowden is a traitor, we could do with a thousand more traitors like him in the US government.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#105

Post by nickpsecurity » Fri, May 06, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

sgnelson wrote: post #104

nickpsecurity wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, this was the first, thoughtful reply I got in this. I'm addressing it last as it deserves a bit more thought. Let's look at the points. " If you're the state of Germany, they probably don't think it's legal for others to spy on them." It's true. An NSA proponent we shred on Schneier's blog made one good point: each country makes spying on everyone else legal for them but makes it illegal for anyone to spy on the…

we'll agree to disagree. But one last thing. "Reward the good, punish the bad, and increase accountability where needed. Always my answer." That hasn't occurred. All we've done is gone after one person who made us aware of what has been going on. Nobody from the NSA has gone to jail over what they were doing, nobody who told them to do it has suffered any real consequences. And increasing accountability? From whom? C…

I agree. They haven't done much of anything. It's a larger problem that led me to counter any claims that a technical solution would happen. Just slow it since it's a political problem involving apathetic voters and corrupt politicians. That has to change to counter this mess.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#106

Post by nickpsecurity » Fri, May 06, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

cname wrote: post #100

nickpsecurity wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, this was the first, thoughtful reply I got in this. I'm addressing it last as it deserves a bit more thought. Let's look at the points. " If you're the state of Germany, they probably don't think it's legal for others to spy on them." It's true. An NSA proponent we shred on Schneier's blog made one good point: each country makes spying on everyone else legal for them but makes it illegal for anyone to spy on the…

In response to your last paragraph, what if an organization is more good than bad and the bad they do is really bad? Does it really matter if there are also good people working there? Even if you can argue that we need the good stuff the good people are doing, that doesn't make the organization redeemable. The worst part is that reasonable-sounding people will make statements like yours, which seems to provide cover…

"The worst part is that reasonable-sounding people will make statements like yours, which seems to provide cover for all the bad stuff... and business continues as usual."

The worst part is that people will read statements like mine without understanding that someone in those organizations ordered the bad stuff done. Probably a number involved in sustaining it and providing immunity for it, too. An organization with plenty of good people and neutral capabilities doesn't need to be eliminated over evil leadership if we can eliminate that leadership instead.

The NSA has already changed in a major way once under Hayden. He turned it from a totally incompetent group, in an organizational sense, into a SIGINT powerhouse tearing up all kinds of technologies. Binney and others noted they were pretty cautious to respect civil liberties for the most part. Post-9/11, they took the gloves off that since it was their orders from America to prevent another 9/11 via only methods (mass surveillance) they knew how. Everything bad followed and continues to as American people are divided over issue. NSA's own culture plays into it, too.

So, just need the country to give them a more reasonable mandate and put someone in power to switch gears to get their mission back into something sane. Plus, reduce, eliminate, or thoroughly audit mass surveillance operations.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#107

Post by nickpsecurity » Fri, May 06, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

cname wrote: post #102

nickpsecurity wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. So, one American's opinion doesn't define right and wrong for whole country esp as many disagree with him. So, he was wrong for leaking legal stuff on top of it being criminal.

> The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying. In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty o…

"I'm sure you have a source for this assertion"

Yes, did you vote in or fund politicians that were in favor of having intelligence services? If so, then you've voted for intelligence services given that will keep them going. If most of America did, then they likewise voted for intelligence services. I already know they did. :)

"I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much."

Try this. Tell... "anyone" you know... to do a thought experiment. In this experiment, national schemes in economics and war have raged for thousands of years. Still happen. Many were prevented or reduced through information from intelligence services. Our competitive allies have them stealing our I.P., trying to win contracts, or trying to negotiate better positions in treaties. Our own spies have caught and reduced plenty of that. Our enemies have spies for similar and worse reasons up to and including killing a lot of us.

Now, with that backdrop, ask those people if they think we should have an intelligence service spying on those competitive "allies" and enemy nations. Mention that the alternative is to constantly be a victim of or behind those countries due to being in the dark with no spy agency. Which will they choose? I choose having a spy agency, using it for same purposes the rest do, and taking extra care to avoid it getting out of control or damaging.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#108

Post by nyolfen » Fri, May 06, 2016, 11:28 PM UTC

keane wrote: post #96

psadri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should there have been any morals in the first place? Does nature by default have morals?

>>[mgraupner] Why is there so little moral left in this world? >>[psadri] Does nature by default have morals? Morality is the differentiation of actions proper and improper; generally defined 'morals' is that language that contains imperatives: what humans should do (as sentences, called 'norms'). When we wonder why there seems to be a lack of behavior that follows these morals in the world, we approach the concept o…

Thank you for this truly excellent comment

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#109

Post by keane » Fri, May 06, 2016, 11:53 PM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #108

keane wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>[mgraupner] Why is there so little moral left in this world? >>[psadri] Does nature by default have morals? Morality is the differentiation of actions proper and improper; generally defined 'morals' is that language that contains imperatives: what humans should do (as sentences, called 'norms'). When we wonder why there seems to be a lack of behavior that follows these morals in the world, we approach the concept o…

Thank you for this truly excellent comment

I'm very glad you found it useful!

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#110

Post by Nullabillity » Fri, May 06, 2016, 11:57 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #78

sgnelson wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional ("Hey, John Yoo said it's okay to spy on our own people and torture people, then it must be!") that you should not report the fact that its being grossly abused in a way that it was never intended to be? If no one knows that our constitutional rights are being violated because of secrecy, it doesn't mean that they're not being viol…

"So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional" That's what you're saying. Strawmaning is full-time profession in Snowden threads here. I've said consistently in my replies that the legal stuff is activities against foreign countries, within their operational mandate, and that Americans have accepted as morally right (or a necessary evil) for decades. Not unconstitutional stuf…

> Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about.

So because it's done against "them" it's suddenly okay? That's trite xenophobic bullshit.

Treason laws and classified information have no place in anything claiming to be a developed democracy.