21–30 of 72 posts
Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Let's stipulate that some things are illegal and not "wrong", just as others are legal and "wrong". It's not clear to me, however, that this case actually is a hack, in the sense that whoever released this material might have had legitimate access to it as a part of doing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed on the appropriateness of using Betteridge's law. MR's headline could have instead been 'Was it RIGHT to hack and leak the Panama Papers?'
Betteridge's law is totally appropriate : His point was that people heading an article with a question intend to defend a position while not immediately associating with it. And that's totally what this article does.
IMO, this is one of the few articles where I believe that a rhetorical question as a title is appropriate.
>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they pla…
Wealthier people are doing the same thing.
People get angry more so because they don't get the privilege to participate in those advantages. While simultaneously taking advantage of what they can.
Was it wrong for rosa parks to hack the segregated bus system in montgomery?
>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they pla…
if you buy a set of rules, and then "play by the rules," I dont think you deserve kudos.
Like I said, you can have a problem with the magnitude of influence they have and I think we should move to reduce that magnitude. But you are being biased if you simply have a problem with the fact they do have influence.
Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Let's stipulate that some things are illegal and not "wrong", just as others are legal and "wrong". It's not clear to me, however, that this case actually is a hack, in the sense that whoever released this material might have had legitimate access to it as a part of doing…
Wow, a "free speech absolutist". How absolute? So if I am a voyeur, poke a camera through your window and put it on the Internet that's OK per my free speech rights? I break into your bank's website and leak all the usernames and passwords -- I can be prosecuted for the break in but not be responsible for the consequences of leaking the login credentials? It's OK for me to publish a front page article claiming you're a convicted rapist, even if that's not true?
The difference between sharing information about ordinary people charged with crimes and about the rich and powerful, is that the rich and powerful people are rich and powerful. These are people who exert power over the rest of society and therefore their business dealings - especially shady, quasi-legal or outright illegal business dealings - are in the public interest. The fact some random person has been charged w…
>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they pla…
For example, when law makers do things that would be considered to be a conflict of interest or due to them having insider info on what laws are coming to effect.
Or when people like Marianna Olszewski hiring a stranger to conceal her ownership of offshore accounts.
Somewhere there's a line crossed that isn't just reducing the tax a person has to pay. It went from tax reduction as an incentive to do something to being malicious.
When you deduct education expenses to reduce your tax, it's a reduction meant to encourage you to do something.