Live data from Hacker News

Panama Papers source issues statement

panamapapers.icij.org

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#31
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'd think it's the least achievable thing of all. Governments will happily pass laws to {increase transparency / reduce privacy} and will happily pass laws that {add new taxes / close tax loopholes}, because these things align with their pre-existing agendas. They will not, under any circumstances, make it easier to engage in whistleblowing and especially not large data dumps, because governments absolutely do not want millions of { citizens holding them to account / vigilante info-warriors } increasing their OWN transparency!

That said, whilst I agree with that part, the rest of John Doe's essay left me cold. Other than its defence of whistleblowers it reads like more or less any standard left-ish Guardian article. The cause of increasing global inequality being a handful of law firms, really? They "write the laws" themselves, really? Which laws does he have in mind? All lawyers are corrupt and unethical? The British island territories are the "cornerstone of institutional corruption worldwide" and not, say, African states where the corruption actually occurs? Billionaires own the press and serious investigative journalism is dead, except, presumably, the press and the journalists who he worked with?

I was and still am a huge supporter of Snowden because he revealed behaviour that was unquestionably bad. Literally nobody tried to defend what he showed was happening, and in fact the people doing it had lied in Congress to try and cover it up. It was a classic case where whistleblowing is justified. Additionally, Snowden had a very clear and straightforward thought process justifying his actions: what was happening was unconstitutional, and his attempts to use the formal complaint paths had failed.

John Doe comparing himself to Snowden rubs me up the wrong way, because although he claims the MF files are bursting with criminal evidence, so far all the stories I read about the Panama Papers were about things that are not illegal, and in fact apparently some of the papers show MF dropping clients when they started to suspect illegal activity, which implies MF was not quite the sinister conspiracy Doe makes it sound like. They clearly had legal compliance efforts and they clearly did things. And his justification is a long, rambling and rather incoherent screed that tries to claim the fault of every problem in the world lies with a kind of global conspiracy of evil and spineless people.

I think Doe is walking a very thin line between whistleblowing for a cause and generic vigilante-ism with his actions.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#32
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there would be a Panama Papers leak, why do only a limited amount of people are allowed to see these things, who's deciding what to publish? (I know, they always quote privacy as a reason but just as John Doe said: Those who use the vehicle of an offshore account has most often something to hide...)

>The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists will release on May 9 a searchable database with information on more than 200,000 offshore entities that are part of the Panama Papers investigation. ... >When the data is released, users will be able to search through the data and visualize the networks around thousands of offshore entities, including, when available, Mossack Fonseca’s internal records of th…

Thank you very much for this. I was under the false impression that these informations would be hidden forever and just be accessible for a few.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#33
post #12

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?

Nature by default doesn't have nuclear weapons, stock exchanges, global supply chains, industrial manufacturing, central banks, etc. Humans need morals (and norms more generally) in order to ensure that the above serve us rather than hurt us. Morals are a cultural technology like language or counting, and like those they may be (at least in their strong form) uniquely human.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#34
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 advise on the law, not act as wannabe politicians.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#35
post #17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But there have been morals for a long time. So either humankind is part of nature, and then it's safe to conclude that nature has morals (no matter how little right now, it's certainly part of humankind), or we're out of nature and there's no advantage in pointing out that nature has no morals.

Or there have been claims of morals for a long time. As in, "what serves my interests is moral".

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#36

And yet... why no American names in the leaks? Funny that.

It is a legitimate question but it could simply be the case that the US has laws that made it impossible for Americans to exploit the services of this particular law firm.

It's the other way around. American's can more easily get the same services on-shore, for instance, by setting up shell companies in Delaware.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#37

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…

> I'm ethical - the lawyers I work with are ethical. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical.

Please don't confuse "ethical" with "not illegal".

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#38
The call for whistleblower protection is important, but it'll never happen. The powers-that-be don't want to encourage whistleblowers.

What may change their mind is if all the data were made public. Since whistleblowers have not much protections, their only protection right now is to release everything on the 'net, anonymously. Now, clearly this is not a good idea, as in many cases there will be collateral damage. But what is the alternative? Once the governments see that such collateral damage is the only alternative, they will be force to enact meaningful whistleblower protection.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#39
This statement is very interesting, it is very well written and researched, and it uses less common words. I wonder if there was some level of editing/embellishment done to it.

Might as well be a non-native speaker. It also seems to me that the author might have had some personal reasons to target MF

But to be honest, I don't think Income Inequality is one of the most defining issues of our time, through human history, inequality, not only monetary, but cultural and intellectual has usually been higher.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm ethical - the lawyers I work with are ethical. The vast majority of lawyers are ethical. Please don't confuse "ethical" with "not illegal".

I find this an interesting argument. Shouldn't it be the governments responsibility to make proper laws? If you want ethics to matter when it comes to tax law (something to do with paying a "fair share") then they should make laws that account for that.
Post reply on HN