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

The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#21

Post by snassar »

sickbeard wrote: post #8

I'm uncomfortable with trial by media instead of trial by court room. If they did something illegal get a prosecutor to sue them, we shouldn't be quick to bring out the pitch forks because of an accusation of wrongdoing.

I am going to assume your comment is a serious one.

This case isn't a "trial by media". What is happening is that several investigative journalism groups are getting together to examine data acquired through a leak.

The examination may lead to lawsuits, criminal investigations, and legislative action, but is by no definition a trial.

The questions asked as a result of the examination of the leaked information may lead to uncomfortable questions in private and in public.

At this point, who is being accused of wrong-doing?

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#22

Post by kasey_junk »

justsaysmthng wrote: post #18

The way I understand it, the offshore companies exist for the purpose of funneling money out of "onshore" companies and out of the country. Extraction of dirty money (from bribery) is also very easy to do with offshore companies. The third reason is to add confusion about ownership of companies and real estate. More simply, offshore companies help rich people pay less taxes. Why do countries permit offshore companies…

International trade requires operating companies in many jurisdictions.

Even something as small as a single person consultancy that has clients in 2 countries (Canada/USA say) are frequently benefitted by having entities in each location.

Those entities also need money, frequently in each location, so holding cash in banks in each location is also beneficial.

Having offshore corporations is not evil, its just mechanics.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#23

Post by leroy_masochist »

sickbeard wrote: post #8

I'm uncomfortable with trial by media instead of trial by court room. If they did something illegal get a prosecutor to sue them, we shouldn't be quick to bring out the pitch forks because of an accusation of wrongdoing.

I think that argument holds up a lot better in countries that have (relatively) impartial and transparent rule of law than in countries that don't.

In other words, it looks like this is having real and immediate consequences in Iceland, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Vladimir Vladimirovich or any of his cronies to be indicted.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#24

Post by justsaysmthng »

kasey_junk wrote: post #22
justsaysmthng wrote: post #18

The way I understand it, the offshore companies exist for the purpose of funneling money out of "onshore" companies and out of the country. Extraction of dirty money (from bribery) is also very easy to do with offshore companies. The third reason is to add confusion about ownership of companies and real estate. More simply, offshore companies help rich people pay less taxes. Why do countries permit offshore companies…

International trade requires operating companies in many jurisdictions. Even something as small as a single person consultancy that has clients in 2 countries (Canada/USA say) are frequently benefitted by having entities in each location. Those entities also need money, frequently in each location, so holding cash in banks in each location is also beneficial. Having offshore corporations is not evil, its just mechani…

Your comment doesn't contain an answer to my question.

Having entities in different countries for easier interface with local customers and authorities is very different from transferring ownership or large chunks of money to a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, population 28,054.

Maybe "it's just mechanics" in some countries where corruption is low, but the world is very corrupt and offshore companies are tools which allow for this corruption to happen.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#25

Post by wastedhours »

snassar wrote: post #21
sickbeard wrote: post #8

I'm uncomfortable with trial by media instead of trial by court room. If they did something illegal get a prosecutor to sue them, we shouldn't be quick to bring out the pitch forks because of an accusation of wrongdoing.

I am going to assume your comment is a serious one. This case isn't a "trial by media". What is happening is that several investigative journalism groups are getting together to examine data acquired through a leak. The examination may lead to lawsuits, criminal investigations, and legislative action, but is by no definition a trial. The questions asked as a result of the examination of the leaked information may lea…

The "trial by media" point is a fairly common one, insofar as media can influence the public's perception of any activities before any legal wrongdoing is established.

I.e. in the UK, Cameron is on the front pages for his father's activities, regardless of whether he had any part/they're genuine/benefited etc...

"Trial by media" is less a witch hunt, and more influencing the zeitgeist.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#26

Post by jonnathanson »

wslh wrote: post #4

I have a sincere question that may sound hyperbole but worth to discuss in HN: what are the ethical/legal limits of leaks when some of the leakers are the classical media? I mean what is the difference of a movie leak (e.g torrent share) with a political leak on media? I will clarify my question to not sound radically stupid: if the Panama Papers had been published anonymously or showing cases of attacks against soci…

I'll try to give the simplest possible explanation that tries to be value-neutral and avoids getting bogged down in an ethics debate: copyright. Movies are intellectual property; political information is generally not.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#27

Post by dave_sullivan »

jonnathanson wrote: post #26
wslh wrote: post #4

I have a sincere question that may sound hyperbole but worth to discuss in HN: what are the ethical/legal limits of leaks when some of the leakers are the classical media? I mean what is the difference of a movie leak (e.g torrent share) with a political leak on media? I will clarify my question to not sound radically stupid: if the Panama Papers had been published anonymously or showing cases of attacks against soci…

I'll try to give the simplest possible explanation that tries to be value-neutral and avoids getting bogged down in an ethics debate: copyright. Movies are intellectual property; political information is generally not.

What about use as evidence in a court? If police illegally search and seize, you can conceivably get the case thrown out. If a whistleblower dumps the same information to the internet, that's a different story? The answer is yes, but it does create a new path for prosecution doesn't it? (Can't get a warrant? Hack anonymously, dump to internet, and presto. Good luck proving the source of the leak.)

More worryingly, how hard is it to create fake data? People are leery of accusations by prosecutors, far less so of "data". Video and audio evidence can even be faked now.

For instance, a bunch of your emails get dumped (all of which are indeed your real e-mails). But then there's one (fake) message to a random email address nobody knows the identity of, "Yes, I'd like to buy 100 kilos of coke and I need help laundering the money after I sell it." Who is the burden of proof on? You to prove that you didn't write it? Or them to prove that you did?

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#28

Post by netrus »

ewzimm wrote: post #19
Ensorceled wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean what is the difference of a movie leak (e.g torrent share) with a political leak on media? At it's most simple level: a movie leak is a social ill, breaking of the social copyright contract, and a political leak is a social good, revelation of corruptions and education. That's a simplification of course, copyright is abused, for instance to prevent all access to the copyrighted material in some places and fa…

I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. It's a social good in the sense that public domain is a social good when society can benefit, but also a deeper social…

You do not mention that the existence of property is meant to benefit the society as a whole. Copyright provides us with blockbusters. We can discuss about fair use, expiration, fines etc, but let's not pretend that STAR WARS would have happend without copyright law.

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#29

Post by snassar »

wastedhours wrote: post #25
snassar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am going to assume your comment is a serious one. This case isn't a "trial by media". What is happening is that several investigative journalism groups are getting together to examine data acquired through a leak. The examination may lead to lawsuits, criminal investigations, and legislative action, but is by no definition a trial. The questions asked as a result of the examination of the leaked information may lea…

The "trial by media" point is a fairly common one, insofar as media can influence the public's perception of any activities before any legal wrongdoing is established. I.e. in the UK, Cameron is on the front pages for his father's activities, regardless of whether he had any part/they're genuine/benefited etc... "Trial by media" is less a witch hunt, and more influencing the zeitgeist.

I am not sure what you mean by "trial by media" being a common point. Common where and used by whom?

I am also not sure what you mean. Are you taking the view that "influencing the zeitgeist" should only happen in the court system?

Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know

#30

Post by iamcurious »

netrus wrote: post #28
ewzimm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that you're simplifying, but I don't think social ill is the right word. It's more like a social good which is ill for the copyright holder. The question in that case is balancing the benefit to society against the benefits to the company which claims copyright or intellectual property. It's a social good in the sense that public domain is a social good when society can benefit, but also a deeper social…

You do not mention that the existence of property is meant to benefit the society as a whole. Copyright provides us with blockbusters. We can discuss about fair use, expiration, fines etc, but let's not pretend that STAR WARS would have happend without copyright law.

Plenty of works of art were created without copyright law. Would we have STAR WARS? No idea. Would we have awesome films? Definitely.
Post reply on HN