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

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#41

Post by charlesdm »

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…

Often these "loopholes" are there by design, i.e. through lobbying. Governments should make proper laws, and adjust where necessary.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#42

Post by woodman »

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?

You are going to have a tough time finding the answer unless you really pin down your terms. I'll skip that part and just pretend that you said "universal preference" instead of "morals". Yes, I think that there is universal preference - but to keep it simple we will just consider things of like kindness (inanimate objects, bacteria, humans, etc). For example: all things being equal, humans prefer life to death (ex afterlife). The only serious challenge to that, I've found, is the idea of the greedy gene - genetic immortality. Upon that rock you can build your church of moral precepts - but just a heads up, it will look very different from what we have now. I think that is why moral violations are so common, because they aren't consistent with reality - you face the same problem with violations of IT security guidelines that are similarly divorced from reality.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#43

Post by woodman »

glup wrote: post #33
psadri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems pretty common among social animals, violators get cut from the herd or monkey stomped.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#44

Post by marcosdumay »

phn wrote: post #25
psadri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The question is, do we want to be like the rest of the animals, survival of the fittest and all that jazz. Or do we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard? I don't condemn people who accept the first option as the absolute truth, but I'd like to believe we can make this blue marble a better place than that somehow.

Hum, unavoidable natural law vs. what some people want.

I guess we don't have much of a choice here. The best we can do is hack natural selection trying to get some collectivism out of it. And if we want to hack natural selection, the GP question is exactly the kind of stuff we should be trying to answer in order to develop the (social) tech we'll need.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#46

Post by nickpsecurity »

chimeracoder wrote: post #24
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…

> 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 One big difference between Snowden and the Panama Papers (and, to a degree, Manning) is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0], or information directly tied to that (alleg…

"is that virtually all of what Snowden revealed is illegal action on the part of the government[0]"

That's nonsense. Snowden revealed both legal and illegal behavior. In the U.S., as in most countries, it's totally legal to spy on foreign countries for political or economic intelligence. Whereas, it's illegal to spy on our own citizens in the U.S.. Snowden leaked both with full details on how they did it to point opponents could counter a bunch of the legal stuff.

That's why he's both a whistleblower (illegal stuff) and a traitor (leaking legal stuff).

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#47

Post by r00fus »

1024core wrote: post #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. Bu…

This is correct. There is Government, but then there are the secret powers-that-be that pull governments' strings.

And they can't work effectively to further their own ends while in the light of public scrutiny.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#48

Post by [deleted] »

sievebrain wrote: post #36
lumberjack wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#50

Post by tmptmp »

glup wrote: post #33
psadri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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 the logical aspects of the arguments. Other than that, I do agree with you that we, the humans, need morals to sustain a better life for most human beings.

Post reply on HN