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

31–40 of 54 posts

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

#31

Post by ewzimm »

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.

What I said is that it's a contentious issue. It doesn't really matter what copyright is meant to be, only what it actually is, and there are both people who belive it's beneficial to society and people who believe it's detrimental to society. The overall effects of leaked material are related but not the same as the existence of copyright. Both copyright and leaks can and do coexist, so even if copyright is a social good, leaks could still be an overall benefit to society. I would say that it's hard to argue that the ability to make and share infinite copies of something at almost no cost is a benefit to society, especially for the spread of culture, but I agree that it's damaging to the concept of intellectual property.

So this issue of leaked materials being overall good or bad is really a proxy for a deeper argument. If you're starting from the position that property rights are more important than the spread of culture and the availability of material, you can still believe that leaks are overall a social good, one which needs to be sacrificed at times for the greater good of copyright and protection of intellectual property. We have to make these kinds of sacrifices all the time, which leads to interesting situations like this.

Sometimes, the best thing for society is that laws are broken, even if those laws are essentially correct. The perfect society isn't necessarily one that always follows the rules, but one that makes the right sacrifices for the overall good. Copyright is probably the best example of this situation. Even if the laws are entirely justified, there are plenty of situations in which innovation happened because someone learned something from leaked copyrighted material.

It's tempting to believe that it's possible to create a set of rules that everyone can agree to and always create the optimal situation, but in the real world, this never happens. The real world is messy, and sometimes entirely justifiable laws have a net positive effect when they're broken.

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

#32

Post by kasey_junk »

justsaysmthng wrote: post #24
kasey_junk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here is a more direct answer then. Banning trading with foreign companies would destroy international trade for the company doing the banning. Most jurisdictions view the benefits of that trade to be worth the costs.

As for legislating how you can do transfers/ownership/taxation etc of foreign entities and cash, every jurisdiction in the world already legislates that. This article is about a law firm that exists solely as experts in that area for instance.

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

#33

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

vixen99 wrote: post #12
ommunist wrote: post #3

I do not think Mr Cameron will stop his political activity just because Panama Papers reveal that his father was one among those who designed the system.

Agreed provided it's clear that he and his family have not profited from activities shown to be those of tax evasion as against tax avoidance. However he's attacked some folk engaged in the latter (though aren't we all in terms of following the rules to minimize our tax bill?) so he may find that difficult.

Cameron can't do much, because if he did his party would tie him up in a sack and throw him in the Thames - politically, if not physically.

The reality is that a large part of the UK's so-called service industry is based exactly on the creation and maintenance of offshore schemes of all kinds, and much of the wealth of Cameron's party backers would evaporate if the schemes were made public.

Voters are mostly too uninformed to know much about this world. But public exposure plays very badly with them, because Cameron famously said "We're all in this together" while promoting austerity at the start of the first Coalition term.

Now, even the most unaware British voters are beginning to wonder if perhaps he was being less than entirely honest.

Conveniently, it would be the easiest thing in the world to throw Cameron overboard, leave Europe - so the scams can continue - and carry on with someone fresh, new, shiny, and untainted by association, who can guarantee business as usual behind the scenes.

It's still surprising how limited the revelations have been in the UK. It's very hard to believe that more household names aren't involved - but so far we've had a hit list of minor Lords hardly anyone has heard of, some former MPs no one cares about, and Lord Ashcroft, who may not be Cameron's favourite person after he offered some unexpected insights into Cameron's hobbies as a student earlier in the year.

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

#34

Post by Broken_Hippo »

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…

In the case of the movies, most of us know the movie would be released to the public after a short time without the leak. Few leak movies that won't be released in theaters later on, and most folks will have a venue to view the movie in a legal fashion. The release itself can hurt a few and the secretness surrounding the movie beforehand isn't seen as public deceit as there are a few good reasons to delay release (simply logistics of distribution and scheduling, for example).

The panama papers, and such things, aren't actually available to the average person nor do I believe there are legal ways to check this sort of thing. It most definitely isn't socically acceptable - in fact, many of us attempting even a small portion of such a thing would be put in jail if ever found out. Furthermore, some of this seems to the expense of the people - Iceland, for example, took a hit as a country only to show that a politician had a nice, cushy account somewhere safe from the stuff that happened at home.

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

#35

Post by Broken_Hippo »

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.

What do you think the likelyhood of an actual trial would be without public outcry about the situation?

Don't get me wrong, in general I would agree with you. It is completely unfair for folks in the US (Think casey antony) to be forced into protective custody after being found non-guilty because of the media coverage of her court case, and even as a teenager I found the whole thing surrounding OJ as ridiculous. But in extreme cases, this is often felt as the only recourse, especially to those in power whom may have some influence over whether or not they will ever be sued or arrested.

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

#36

Post by tehmaco »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #27
jonnathanson wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ho…

I'd think that even if they can't use the leaked data in a prosecution, it'll give them some very good ideas on who needs to be thoroughly audited, and will provide some useful information for financial patterns that might indicate illegal activity in future.

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

msabalau wrote: post #2

Mostly a synthesis of what you'd find from other sources. The most interesting bit was adding the US context: "One reason there may be relatively few Americans named in the documents is that it is fairly easy to form shell companies in the United States. James Henry, an economist and senior adviser to the Tax Justice Network, told Fusion that Americans “really don’t need to go to Panama.”"

[deleted]

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

#40

Post by Ensorceled »

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…

> 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.

Copyright is a limited monopoly, granted by society, to provide incentive for the creation of content; breaking that contract is a social ill. I disagree society breaking that contract, in a bait and switch, can ever be a social good.

Post reply on HN