4 ms·

Can someone explain me if reading these documents is even legal for journalists? I mean I am pretty sure most of the people that used that law office are comple

by usaphp 11y ago

Can someone explain me if reading these documents is even legal for journalists? I mean I am pretty sure most of the people that used that law office are completely innocent and having their personal information leaked and now read and investigated by some journalists is kind of crime in its own, I would not want my legal papers stolen and read by anybody if I am doing everything according to the law. My question is - what legal right do these journalists have to read this confidential information?

ixtli 11y ago
I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know there is no US law that makes it illegal for a civilian to see something. It's important, though, that if you have a security clearance you can be fired or put in jail for reading something outside of your clearance but those laws don't apply to normal people.
- ixtli 11y ago
  It's unclear why my response is getting downvoted when other people are giving normative answers to a legal question.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    > It's important, though, that if you have a security clearance you can be fired or put in jail for reading something outside of your clearance but those laws don't apply to normal people. What happens if your clearance is secret and you are doing your job and some time later, they decide something you were working is now top secret? Or if your clearance is secret and TS stuff is on the morning NYTimes? I'm sure the military has all sorts of rules about this that makes no sense but a lot of non military also have these clearances. Who reads the 150 some page application in its entirety?
    - ixtli 11y ago
      Again, I'm pretty sure that the military will not hold you responsible for something you were shown. That is, I don't see how they would hold someone responsible for being accidentally exposed to something on the morning news. That said, there are many articles from around the Snowden times that talk about the Navy and Air Force blocking wikileaks so that people won't expose themselves to things outside their sec level. Here's one I was able to find from around that time: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15wiki.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15wiki.html . It might seem backwards, but members of the military are subject to trial by military tribunal. They agree to this when they sign up, and you agree to more restrictions on your actions when you apply for security clearances. I don't know specifically what they are and I am not a military lawyer, but I have five or six friends who have at one point or another had S or TS clearance in the army, navy, and two other three-letter agencies and have had casual discussions with them about it. tl;dr: You agree not to read things outside your security clearance when you get one. If you do so, you're subject to legal repercussions. It's my understanding that going to a website and knowingly downloading these things would be treated similarly to reading something using a coworkers network account that has access to a higher security level than your own.
gareim 11y ago
It's not illegal. You reserve rights that are not explicitly taken away.
akanet 11y ago
A few things to consider when evaluating the morality of this leak: 1. I can assure you that the majority of people purchasing services from Mossack Fonseca are not "completely innocent". 2. There is firm precedent for the legality of whistleblowing when you believe there to be crimes occurring. 3. "Who owns a business" is not generally considered to be a highly protected class of information, and that's mostly what the data in the leak is about. It's generally about board structure and ownership of various shell companies. 4. Only in Panama (and a few other countries) is business ownership information considered to be "confidential" information. But to answer your direct question - what legal right do these journalists have? I believe they have the same legal right all citizens do: the right to know if our leaders are committing crimes secretly.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 11y ago
The leak occurred in Panama. It might have something to do with Panamanian laws, but there are no international laws regarding the use of leaked data as far as I know. It isn't a crime against humanity.
pcurve 11y ago
As long as journalists didn't hack into server and got the information themselves, they can read leaked information without fear of prosecution. However engaging in publishing of the leaked information 'may' get them in trouble, unless it is in public's interest to do so. And that's a big 'may'. See the quoted block below. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-fear-wikileaks-law-and-you https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-f...
jMyles 11y ago
Mere possession of information is rarely illegal. The right to possess information - even that which was gleaned illegally initially, goes back further than the US Constitution and is clearly established. If you are interested in the current jurisprudence surrounding the matter of when possessing information can be (and can't be) illegal, you might be interested in "illegal numbers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
- usaphp 11y ago
  But can't this Mossack Fonseca firm now go ahead and send a legal request to these journalists to delete these confidential documents and journalists will have to comply with it? It's just so hard to believe for me that company confidential information is not protected by any law and these leaks can happen with no punishment for those who possess this confidential information. It's a great success that this leak had some information to bring public's attention to individuals who evade taxes, but what if there was no compromising data in it - does it mean you can get away with just reading people's confidential data?
  - jMyles 11y ago
    > company confidential information is not protected by any law This is not the case. Presumably the original leaker(s) are in violation of their contracts with the company and possibly Panamanian criminal law (which I know nothing about). In some jurisdictions, there may also be statutory civil liability surrounding the subsequent losses realized as the result of the information being in the hands of these non-parties.
    - zanny 11y ago
      Aren't these documents the copyright of Mossack Fonseca? They could just sue everyone reproducing copies for copyright infringement, beyond just the original leaker breaking contract and also committing copyright infringement. If there is no license, full rights are reserved and copyright is implied.

by usaphp 11y ago

ixtli 11y ago

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know there is no US law that makes it illegal for a civilian to see something. It's important, though, that if you have a security clearance you can be fired or put in jail for reading something outside of your clearance but those laws don't apply to normal people.

ixtli 11y ago
It's unclear why my response is getting downvoted when other people are giving normative answers to a legal question.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > It's important, though, that if you have a security clearance you can be fired or put in jail for reading something outside of your clearance but those laws don't apply to normal people. What happens if your clearance is secret and you are doing your job and some time later, they decide something you were working is now top secret? Or if your clearance is secret and TS stuff is on the morning NYTimes? I'm sure the military has all sorts of rules about this that makes no sense but a lot of non military also have these clearances. Who reads the 150 some page application in its entirety?
  - ixtli 11y ago
    Again, I'm pretty sure that the military will not hold you responsible for something you were shown. That is, I don't see how they would hold someone responsible for being accidentally exposed to something on the morning news. That said, there are many articles from around the Snowden times that talk about the Navy and Air Force blocking wikileaks so that people won't expose themselves to things outside their sec level. Here's one I was able to find from around that time: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15wiki.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/us/15wiki.html . It might seem backwards, but members of the military are subject to trial by military tribunal. They agree to this when they sign up, and you agree to more restrictions on your actions when you apply for security clearances. I don't know specifically what they are and I am not a military lawyer, but I have five or six friends who have at one point or another had S or TS clearance in the army, navy, and two other three-letter agencies and have had casual discussions with them about it. tl;dr: You agree not to read things outside your security clearance when you get one. If you do so, you're subject to legal repercussions. It's my understanding that going to a website and knowingly downloading these things would be treated similarly to reading something using a coworkers network account that has access to a higher security level than your own.

gareim 11y ago

It's not illegal. You reserve rights that are not explicitly taken away.

akanet 11y ago

A few things to consider when evaluating the morality of this leak: 1. I can assure you that the majority of people purchasing services from Mossack Fonseca are not "completely innocent". 2. There is firm precedent for the legality of whistleblowing when you believe there to be crimes occurring. 3. "Who owns a business" is not generally considered to be a highly protected class of information, and that's mostly what the data in the leak is about. It's generally about board structure and ownership of various shell companies. 4. Only in Panama (and a few other countries) is business ownership information considered to be "confidential" information. But to answer your direct question - what legal right do these journalists have? I believe they have the same legal right all citizens do: the right to know if our leaders are committing crimes secretly.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 11y ago

The leak occurred in Panama. It might have something to do with Panamanian laws, but there are no international laws regarding the use of leaked data as far as I know. It isn't a crime against humanity.

pcurve 11y ago

As long as journalists didn't hack into server and got the information themselves, they can read leaked information without fear of prosecution. However engaging in publishing of the leaked information 'may' get them in trouble, unless it is in public's interest to do so. And that's a big 'may'. See the quoted block below. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-fear-wikileaks-law-and-you https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/information-antidote-f...

jMyles 11y ago

Mere possession of information is rarely illegal. The right to possess information - even that which was gleaned illegally initially, goes back further than the US Constitution and is clearly established. If you are interested in the current jurisprudence surrounding the matter of when possessing information can be (and can't be) illegal, you might be interested in "illegal numbers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

usaphp 11y ago
But can't this Mossack Fonseca firm now go ahead and send a legal request to these journalists to delete these confidential documents and journalists will have to comply with it? It's just so hard to believe for me that company confidential information is not protected by any law and these leaks can happen with no punishment for those who possess this confidential information. It's a great success that this leak had some information to bring public's attention to individuals who evade taxes, but what if there was no compromising data in it - does it mean you can get away with just reading people's confidential data?
- jMyles 11y ago
  > company confidential information is not protected by any law This is not the case. Presumably the original leaker(s) are in violation of their contracts with the company and possibly Panamanian criminal law (which I know nothing about). In some jurisdictions, there may also be statutory civil liability surrounding the subsequent losses realized as the result of the information being in the hands of these non-parties.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Aren't these documents the copyright of Mossack Fonseca? They could just sue everyone reproducing copies for copyright infringement, beyond just the original leaker breaking contract and also committing copyright infringement. If there is no license, full rights are reserved and copyright is implied.