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

Panama Papers source issues statement

panamapapers.icij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#131

Post by [deleted] »

themartorana wrote: post #63
jobu wrote: post #6

There's a lot to parse in that statement, but the call for whistleblower protections seems to be the single most important (and achievable) item. Most people are aware of Snowden and Manning, but it really surprises me that these haven't been reported more: "Bradley Birkenfeld was awarded millions for his information concerning Swiss bank UBS—and was still given a prison sentence by the Justice Department. Antoine De…

I was unaware of - and totally flabbergasted by - the Birkenfeld case. His boss, who did not come forward at all, served 5 months probation and paid a $100 fine. Another extradited executive was not found guilty of anything. The tax evading client Birkenfeld helped (that was the basis for Birkenfeld's prosecution) paid a fine but served no jail time. It's not that whistleblowers aren't receiving protections - it's th…

[deleted]

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#132

Post by nickpsecurity »

Nullabillity wrote: post #130
nickpsecurity wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Where does the line go for who is to be considered "other"? As someone living in Stockholm, why should I care more about companies in Gothenburg doing well than a company in Oslo? Or am I an outsider as well, since I have a mother from Copenhagen?" Your wishes don't matter at all. You're not a competing nation referred to in my comment. "No, that just shows that they're not actual democracies either" Or that you don…

> Your wishes don't matter at all. You're not a competing nation referred to in my comment. The point was that nations and citizenship are entirely arbitrary dividers. > Or that you don't know what a representational democracy is or think they all think like you. Look up KSI where you live to find something even less transparent than our NSA. (shocking really) If it doesn't live up to the definition of democracy (rul…

So, your purpose in arguing is strictly ideals and principles with no real-world context or constraints. And you don't know there are multiple forms of democracy?

Sophistry or trolling is undeniable now. Goodbye.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#133

Post by tobltobs »

There will never be better protection for whistleblowers. That is just not in the interest of those who make the laws nowadays. What will come are new laws which will make the publishing of whistleblower material illegal. The EU for example is currently working on a law for better protection against theft of trade secrets. Which such a law in place no newspaper would risk anymore to publish something like the panama papers.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#135

Post by tmptmp »

return0 wrote: post #88
tmptmp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Nature by default doesn't have nuclear weapons.... While I agree with your sentiment, just would like to point this out that nature does have nuclear weapons, pretty scary ones for that matter: the stars. Also, if we take these things to their logical conclusion, then the nuclear weapons created by human beings are, of course, created by nature - in this case, indirectly, using the humans. This is just to point out…

These are nuclear, but not weapons. Nature doesn't have an enemy.

>>Nature doesn't have an enemy.

How are you so sure? Have you talked with Nature by any chance? Has Nature given you this statement, say, in English? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, I am dead serious.

I for example, think that Nature likes to fight many of its creatures against each other. e.g. polio viruses against human beings

I may be wrong, but one cannot be so sure.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#136

Post by [deleted] »

sievebrain wrote: post #34
bdhe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that calling all lawyers unethical is a broad generalizing stroke that serves no purpose in garnering friends. I did think it might be interesting if you addressed this specific point: > Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not al…

The problem is that you can't define "loophole". It's a meaningless term. What one man perceives as a loophole, another man perceives as the correct functioning of the law as designed. Ultimately trying to second guess the law is a bad idea and lawyers, in particular, should not be in the business of saying "this is legal, but you shouldn't do it because it violates my own personal ethics". Lawyers are supposed to ad…

[deleted]

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#137

Post by [deleted] »

libertymcateer wrote: post #18
mgraupner wrote: post #5

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?

I think it is a bullshit indictment. I'm a corporate lawyer who does a lot of cross borders work. I'm ethical - the lawyers I work with are ethical. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical. If anything, the Panama Papers should be an object lesson that one firm or group of lawyers can be responsible for a huge proportion of activity in a given sector. Do you think, for a minute, that other firms have this astounding…

[deleted]

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#138

Post by enraged_camel »

glup wrote: post #28
mgraupner wrote: post #5

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?

This question gnaws at my bones, too. Best answer so far wrt the upper middle class: logics of capitalism (competition, accumulation) combined with ethnic/cultural/ideological/socioeconomic isolation makes it hard to identify with (most) other people. With reduced empathy for those affected by exploitation, we construct a new set of mythologies to normalize the exploitation (increasing efficiency of markets). Moral o…

>>But why would a private individual with $10M have a position in a company that provides payday loans? Beats me.

Payday loan firms are enormously profitable, because they prey upon people who are in dire need of cash. The private individual you mention has managed to accumulate his wealth by exploiting those people.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#139

Post by enraged_camel »

psadri wrote: post #12
mgraupner wrote: post #5

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. Sigh. One of the most puzzling questions I have to deal with in my mind. Why is there so little moral left in this world?

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

Some primates have demonstrated understanding of moral concepts such as fairness. In one experiment, two monkeys were "paid" (in bananas) for doing some type of work. The twist was that occasionally, one of the monkeys would get paid nothing despite doing the work. After a while, the monkey getting more bananas started to refuse them if the other monkey didn't get any.
Post reply on HN