'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

Whoa whoa whoa, you can't just assume that profits come at the expense of the public! There are plenty of businesses that provide valuable goods and services for which I am happy to pay their profit margin, because the value they are providing to me is at least that amount. There are entire companies that spend their entire day coordinating shipments of food for me, including out-of-season fruit and fruits and vegetables unavailable in my location. There are companies that have invested in hideously expensive fabs and detailed technical knowledge to bring my inexpensive microchips that make my first computer look glacially slow. I happily pay Apple's profit margin because I get great hardware that looks elegant and has an operating system that is both Unix and doesn't require me to futz with it. The list goes on. This Marxist idea that companies are inherently exploitative is just incorrect and unhelpful. (That doesn't mean that everything is necessarily great, though, just that it does not take into account the other, very real side. It's not like a society built on companies = exploitative has ever worked in the real world.)

From YKW, and squares with my very foggy recollection from PR.

—

Sure, I'll outline some key differences and similarities between privilege and confidentiality in the context of legal practice, specifically regarding client identification.

*Privilege*

1. Privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between an attorney and their client from being disclosed in legal proceedings.

2. It can be waived by the client, and there are certain exceptions to privilege, such as the crime-fraud exception.

3. However, the scope of privilege is generally limited to the content of communications themselves and doesn't typically extend to information about the client's identity, except in rare circumstances where the disclosure of the client's identity would reveal the substance of a confidential communication.

*Confidentiality*

1. Confidentiality, on the other hand, is a professional ethical obligation that requires lawyers to keep information related to the representation of a client secret, unless the client gives informed consent or the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.

2. This duty of confidentiality is broader than privilege and may cover information the lawyer learned from any source about the client, including the client's identity in many circumstances.

3. Unlike privilege, a breach of confidentiality can lead to professional sanctions for the lawyer, but it may not provide the same protections from disclosure in legal proceedings.

*Comparison and Contrast*

1. Both privilege and confidentiality are essential to ensure the free flow of information between a lawyer and their client, fostering trust in the lawyer-client relationship. They both serve to protect the client's interests.

2. However, privilege is a legal concept subject to legal exceptions and waivers, and it protects from forced disclosure in court, while confidentiality is a broader ethical duty that extends beyond the courtroom.

3. In most cases, the identity of a client isn't protected by privilege, but it may be covered by the duty of confidentiality depending on the context. If revealing the client's identity could harm the client or betray a confidence, then the lawyer has a duty to keep that information confidential.

This is a simplified summary and these concepts can get complicated in real-life situations. Always consider local and jurisdiction-specific rules and case law when dealing with privilege and confidentiality.