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

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#71

Post by nickpsecurity »

dzdt wrote: post #52
nickpsecurity wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 opp…

Keep in mind that legal vs illegal is a completely different question than right vs wrong. Whistleblower protections need to extend to cover more than just exposure of illegal activites.

Exactly. The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. So, one American's opinion doesn't define right and wrong for whole country esp as many disagree with him. So, he was wrong for leaking legal stuff on top of it being criminal.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#72

Post by bitchypat »

lumberjack wrote: post #10
sohcahtoa wrote: post #4

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.

That might be why they wouldn't have American clients, but they do - 400+ American clients.

What that doesn't explain is why no American clients were listed in this "leak".

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#73

Post by sgnelson »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #59
chapium wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowdens role in exposing the rubber stamp fisa courts may be exposing something legal, but clearly broken.

Lol what you talking about? That the only leak you read? I'm clearly talking about all the foreign, classified operations that were both legal in US and whole reason NSA exists. He had no need to leak them to protect Americans' Constitutional rights.

So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional ("Hey, John Yoo said it's okay to spy on our own people and torture people, then it must be!") that you should not report the fact that its being grossly abused in a way that it was never intended to be?

If no one knows that our constitutional rights are being violated because of secrecy, it doesn't mean that they're not being violated (ironically, this is what the government has been using as a defense now for a while when people try to sue over the NSA: You have no proof we are spying on you specifically, so you can't sue us.)

The comment above you makes an excellent point. Just because behavior is deemed legal, does not make it so.

Also, Snowden was no lawyer. Who determines which behavior was legal and which wasn't? Obviously the US government and the NSA believed that everything they were doing was on the up and up (and obviously this was not so.)

Do you think that Snowden should have hired an entire law firm to go over every single file to deem whether or not each and every document either supported illegal and legal behavior by the government? (Which is somewhat what he did by giving all the documents to reporters to vet and disclose what they thought was important)

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#74

Post by nickpsecurity »

mindcrime wrote: post #70
nickpsecurity wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He's not a traitor because a subset of the things he leaked were actually legal." Strawman this time. You m are fun. He's a traitor because he leaked national secrets critical to ongoing operations that were legal and mandated. Further, Americans approved of NSA spying on foreign countries as they know it works both ways. Hope you get it now. Violating classified info laws in a way that damages American ops but does…

Where's the evidence that his info leaks actually damaged American ops? Oh, right, it comes in the form of testimony from the NSA, CIA, etc... and we all know they never lie. Hope you get it now.

The spy agencies of foreign countries published all the details at http://are.youkidding.com. Go check it out for details.

Meanwhile, a rational perdon should assume that if (a) a major method/weakness for NSA surveillance is published then (b) defenders will start addressing that hole/weakness. Further, the proof of subversion for America, but not others doing espionage, means America took a huge financial hit as people boycotted its products.

The damage is real even if the spy agencies don't list each, classified example on their websites as you require. You can bet NSA is also adjusting tools and strategies to deal with it. Yet, they have to be feeling the pressure as encryption, air gaps, Tor, non-US software/hardware, FOSS vs their proprietary buddies, and so on across board in response to leaks. I mean, you cant simultaneously think the Snowden leaks are helping fight NSA surveillance while saying no surveillance losses resulted. That's hilarity of your position.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#75

Post by didjdjnfnf »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #46
chimeracoder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 opp…

Fuck you shill.

Mods will delete. Fuck the pro state mods as well.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#76

Post by ryandrake »

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?

Because of Moloch? http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#78

Post by nickpsecurity »

sgnelson wrote: post #73
nickpsecurity wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol what you talking about? That the only leak you read? I'm clearly talking about all the foreign, classified operations that were both legal in US and whole reason NSA exists. He had no need to leak them to protect Americans' Constitutional rights.

So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional ("Hey, John Yoo said it's okay to spy on our own people and torture people, then it must be!") that you should not report the fact that its being grossly abused in a way that it was never intended to be? If no one knows that our constitutional rights are being violated because of secrecy, it doesn't mean that they're not being viol…

"So you're saying that if something is "legal," even if it's unethical/unconstitutional"

That's what you're saying. Strawmaning is full-time profession in Snowden threads here. I've said consistently in my replies that the legal stuff is activities against foreign countries, within their operational mandate, and that Americans have accepted as morally right (or a necessary evil) for decades. Not unconstitutional stuff, not gross abuses, not anything like that. Just that they develop tools and capabilities to spy on foreign countries for America's interests. Aka, their job and one that's legally a state secret.

" Just because behavior is deemed legal, does not make it so."

It actually does. The whole concept of a legal system haha. However, I'm allowing for activism against abuses. It's why, as above, I'm talking about all the stuff he leaked that Americans were fine with and endorsed as legal. Even celebrated in "patriotic" films.

"Obviously the US government and the NSA believed that everything they were doing was on the up and up (and obviously this was not so.)"

Red herring important in other discussions about NSA's bullshiting legal team but not here. NSA's beliefs != the laws. Snowden, as a trained spy, knew it was legal for them to spy on foreign nations. That's what we're talking about.

"Do you think that Snowden should have hired an entire law firm"

Jesus. You're really grasping at straws and blowing up the hypotheticals. He claims to read each document at one point. No, all I expect is a simple question asked on each one: does it fall within their legal mandate or is it evidence of unconstitutional, deceptive activity against Americans in violation of the Constitution, their mandate and claims? That simple. Would've kept the leaks to just what America collectively would've had a problem with. Instead, the fool leaked all the legal stuff, too, giving right-wingers the excuse to dismiss him entirely as a traitor. Lots of lost votes for reform.

Also, leaking our foreign secrets to foreign media and trusting them to act in our interests... wtf. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that was treason.

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#79

Post by NoGravitas »

libertymcateer wrote: post #18
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?

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…

> But the idea that we should be castigating attorneys for taking advantage of legal loopholes that exist in their clients favor is utterly absurd. If you fail to take advantage of those loopholes you wind up getting sued for malpractice, plain and simple.

This seems worrisome to me. It looks like one of those cases where the system is set up so that we end up getting exactly what no one wants. Moloch[0] in other words. I don't have a solution (no one has a solution to Moloch), but it's worrisome.

[0]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: Panama Papers source issues statement

#80

Post by bdhe »

rayiner wrote: post #57
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…

> I agree that castigating all attorneys is going to far, but this comes dangerously close to two fallacies; that because it's legal, it's moral (namely that you can divorce your moral responsibility because you're acting in the letter of the law) and that you were just "following orders." If the consequence of failing to take advantage of loopholes is lawsuits for malpractice then that indicates a problem in itself.…

> I just watched the People v. OJ Simpson. Here's a man who was clearly guilty of a heinous crime. Yet, his lawyers' job was not to pass moral judgment on him, but to represent him. It was their ethical obligation to try and exonerate their client by exploiting every shred of doubt so long as they did nothing to undermine the integrity of the process (lying to the Court, etc).

As a people, we've made the judgment on the tradeoff that we should like the criminal system to behave this way because it's better off to have a thousand guilty men go free than jail an innocent person.

I believe we have strayed a little off track if we apply a similar sentiment to something like corporate loopholes.

Post reply on HN