The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
nytimes.com
The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#2Mostly 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.”"
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#3I 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.
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#4I 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 social liberties or illegal government activities (e.g. Snowden) it is clear, but when the media is showing documents that are not illegal per se but the illegal activities are more connected to their clients [1] I think they can be hardly sued for it.
All this was triggered by the following quote: "Using information/documentation unlawfully obtained is a crime, and we will not hesitate to pursue all available criminal and civil remedies”.
[1] Mossack Fonseca was indeed engaged in illegal activities because they obstructed the US justice over companies suspected of connections to politicians. But this was not known in advance.
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#5>Here’s What We Know About the ‘Panama Papers’ by LIAM STACKAPRIL 4, 2016
Sorry to be That Guy, but this would be a tidier title and fix the errant copy & paste:
Here’s What We Know About the ‘Panama Papers’
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#6I 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…
> 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 fair use thwarted. Political leaks are sometimes simply scurrilous and provide more heat than light.
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#7I 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…
The general rule in journalism seems to be that if the information is sufficiently public and there is a sufficient public interest in it, it should be reported on as if it were published legitimately. There's an obvious trade-off between public interest and confidentiality and privacy concerns, of course.
I'm not sure what the legal situation is in every country but as I understand it, similar trade-offs exist in German law (which otherwise has a very strong stance on privacy).
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#8I'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.
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#9I 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.
But what if the common folk in each nation finally realizes its national leaders have become, in essence, multinationals, just like Google and Amazon, with all that this entails regarding their actual agendas and worldview?
Re: The Panama Papers: Here’s What We Know
#10Mostly 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.”"
Here's an article that discusses it: http://fusion.net/story/287671/americans-panama-papers-trove...
Turns out that in many cases, forming a company within the US can be more secretive that forming in British Virgin Islands, Panama or the Bahamas.
> If you form a British Virgin Islands company you have to declare who you are to the person forming the company for you; if you form in Nevada, for example, you don’t… So Nevada is great because it’s much more secret than the British Virgin Islands.