8 ms·

Was it wrong to hack and leak the Panama Papers?

36 points by rgarcia 10y ago

Kyoushu 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
- AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
  My first thought as well.
- arkem 10y ago
  This is one of the least appropriate use of Betteridge's Law of Headlines. The article starts with 'yes' and waters it down to 'maybe' and a real discussion could be had about whether or not the ends justifies the means, especially when it comes to criminal acts revealing dubious but legal acts.
  - aethertron 10y ago
    Agreed on the appropriateness of using Betteridge's law. MR's headline could have instead been 'Was it RIGHT to hack and leak the Panama Papers?'
    - pyrale 10y ago
      Betteridge's law is totally appropriate : His point was that people heading an article with a question intend to defend a position while not immediately associating with it. And that's totally what this article does.
      - bryanlarsen 10y ago
        This article discusses both sides of the issue, doesn't come to a firm conclusion, and leads the reader to consider the question in their own mind. IMO, this is one of the few articles where I believe that a rhetorical question as a title is appropriate.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    No, it is entirely appropriate to invoke Betteridge to illustrate how TFA is contradicted by its own headline. This is a common use of Betteridge, and is indeed the only interesting way to use it.
Zikes 10y ago
That comparison makes no sense to me. There's a world of difference between blowing the whistle and subverting due process.
blainesch 10y ago
> probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal Mostly legal and nothing illegal are contradicting.
- ominous 10y ago
  "The internet is used for (mostly) legal purposes"
- pbreit 10y ago
  Not when there's as much gray as exists in international tax law.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Our law is not logically consistent - the same action can be legal in some instances yet illegal in others.
adriand 10y ago
The difference between sharing information about ordinary people charged with crimes and about the rich and powerful, is that the rich and powerful people are rich and powerful. These are people who exert power over the rest of society and therefore their business dealings - especially shady, quasi-legal or outright illegal business dealings - are in the public interest. The fact some random person has been charged with a DUI is not comparable with the fact the Icelandic prime minister engaged in questionable business practices and possibly a conflict of interest, especially from the perspective of Iceland's citizens.
- kra34 10y ago
  So privacy protection isn't an absolute right, more of a relative / subjective one and the deciding authority on the subject should be the internet at large. Weird to hear that kind of thinking on hacker news...
  - circlefavshape 10y ago
    Not unusual to hear "absolute" anything being questioned on HN
jacalata 10y ago
I like how his comparison implies that of course everyone exposed by the Panama papers is already under criminal investigation.
jessaustin 10y ago
Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Let's stipulate that some things are illegal and not "wrong", just as others are legal and "wrong". It's not clear to me, however, that this case actually is a hack, in the sense that whoever released this material might have had legitimate access to it as a part of doing business. In that case this is certainly an unethical failure to uphold terms of contract. Who's going to enforce that contract, however? Certainly not IRS or any other USA agency. [EDIT:] In case it's not clear, I don't think that society in general is ethically limited by any "poison tree" doctrine in situations like this. Once this information is public, however it came to be so, we are free to use it as we see fit.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  So should the police do the same? No need for search warrants anymore...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Of course not. Police are employed by society. Unfettered police will destroy society. We would never choose to fund our own destruction, so police have to follow rules. Are there really educated adults who think that we should accept any behavior whatsoever from our police?
    - krapp 10y ago
      If you believe "hacking and leaking is never wrong" because they're forms of speech, except when the state does it, you're not really a free speech absolutist.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Because we live in a civil society, if the police can't break into your house and take what evidence they want, and they won't accept evidence from anyone else who broken into you house what exactly does this serve? If the only thing that is ok here is to leak stuff to the media stuff that usually cannot be collaborated, and often might actually be intentionally if not completely fabricated than at least edited to some extent you are advocating for mob rule and trial by public opinion.
slg 10y ago
>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they play by the rules. You saw this a lot with Occupy Wall Street and you hear similar rhetoric from Bernie Sanders supporters condemning the "donor class" and being angry at banks for being big regardless of anything else. But these people do exactly the same thing you and I do. I take advantage of the tax system when I deduct education expenses. I lobby the government when I contribute to the EFF. I want the companies I invest in to be as big and as profitable as possible. If I had more money, those things would simply be in higher quantities. That is the only thing most of these people are guilty of, doing the same thing we all do but at a much higher magnitude. We can recognize that magnitude difference is a problem and want to shrink it without resorting to vilifying people who simply play the hand they are dealt.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they play by the rules. Playing within the rules is irrelevant when you're the one who gets to write the rules.
  - DigitalJack 10y ago
    As if there existed some impartial authority to make rules.
    - sliverstorm 10y ago
      "Everyone else", is the idea. For example, if you wrote the tax law, you could say "let's tax everyone but me" But if everyone writes the tax law together, nobody will let you exempt yourself, and you won't let them exempt themselves. Like some kind of law-making standoff.
cmdrfred 10y ago
If the net effect was good then the action was good.
- shitgoose 10y ago
  Crime and Punishment is a thick book, there must be a Reader's Digest version somewhere. Try it.
  - HelloRipley 10y ago
    The poster you are responding to is making a utilitarian moral argument. You are referencing a novel that explores the a common source of crime (poverty) and the chain of events that follows. I don't see the connection. :-S
    - awinter-py 10y ago
      argument, meet counterexample
    - shitgoose 10y ago
      The novel that I am referencing explores the possibility of justifying the crime by good intentions. I think there is a bit of connection there. (spoiler alert - this utilitarian moral argument didn't work too well for Rodion)
- chopin 10y ago
  The ends justify the means? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Platitudes like that are how intelligent people trick themselves out of doing what is necessary.
darkhorn 10y ago
The writer assumes that the laws work and asks "Is it ethic leak this illegal activities?". And he says that in this condition, proper way would be the legal ways. No! The laws and legal ways do not work always, in such cases people themselves will be the law and the prosecuters. It is like asking to catch all ISIS members without killing them, that would be the proper law! Not bombarding them! Don't kill ISIS, catch them and prosecute them, oh yeah what lawfull legal world! Would you expect justige from corrupt countries and corrupt procecuters? Revealing these corruptins is proper act and I support these hackers.
awinter-py 10y ago
These authors are confounding malum in se / malum prohibitum. Common error when the law legislates the boundaries of social / economic class. Was it wrong for rosa parks to hack the segregated bus system in montgomery?
supercanuck 10y ago
When is vigilantism morally justified? I'd argue when people need a reminder not to take living in a civilized society for granted.
l34ch 10y ago
No
godgod 10y ago
As George Soros. I'm sure he'll give you a NO.
goodcanadian 10y ago
Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. I've looked into offshore banking and shell companies and the like a bit over the years. I'm not sure why; I guess I just have a fascination with business and finance. My conclusion has long been that, for an individual who intends to comply with the law, there is very little benefit to these structures. Generally, an individual can't legally lower their tax burden through the mechanism of an offshore shell company. The legal versions of this involve genuine corporations headquartering in a business friendly location. They don't do it secretly, however. It is done in the open, and the corporation's owners (the shareholders) still have to pay their taxes on any dividends or capital gains in whatever jurisdiction they live in. You can argue whether or not Google should be legally allowed to move most of their income to Ireland, but that is a totally different scenario to a single person starting a company in Panama to hold his investments. In the United States, at least, a single shareholder company that does nothing other than hold investments is treated as a pass through for income tax purposes. I.e. you can't avoid taxes simply by keeping the money in the company. Moreover, even if you could avoid the tax on the company profits, you would still have to pay tax when your wanted to take the money out to actually spend it.
- circlefavshape 10y ago
  Don't you only become liable to pay the tax when you repatriate the money? So perhaps you can spend it outside the US with impunity?
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    You are correct that a legitimate corporation will not be taxed on the money unless and until it is repatriated, but that doesn't help an (honest) individual; it only helps multinational corporations. For every country (3) where I have filed taxes, you are liable for individual taxes as soon as you earn the income. So, in the case of a legitimate business, as soon as you pay yourself a salary or other benefit (perhaps, buy yourself a yacht; really, anything that is not a clear business expense). It doesn't matter where in the world you earn the income or spend it; you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, to take it a step further, the IRS doesn't really recognize personal holding companies as legitimate businesses for tax purposes. You are liable to pay tax on any investment income as though it were personal income even if you leave it in the company name. Again, it doesn't matter where in the world the holding company is.
blueprint 10y ago
It's quite simple. It's never wrong to reveal facts. It's always right to reveal facts. It's always wrong to hide facts.
- deong 10y ago
  I don't believe it is quite that simple. Suppose you're a gay man living in Yemen. I do not accept any definition of "right" or morality that would compel me to disclose that information.
  - blueprint 10y ago
    I didn't stipulate how to disclose it, only that the right thing is to disclose it. I doubt you'd suggest the person should live in denial and/or not fight for his rights in some manner. Disclosing things doesn't necessarily include stupidly getting oneself killed by revealing them in a poor manner, i.e. inappropriately or unskillfully. After all, that would hardly do a good job of revealing the fact it's his right to have his own sexual preference, wouldn't you say? The important question is how to do things, not what to do. Given this, would you agree now?
ianbicking 10y ago
How many of us would approve of that behavior? Keep in mind the hacker is spreading the information not only to prosecutors but to the entire world, and outside of any process sanctioned by the rule of law. The Panama Papers didn't get uploaded to the internet, it was distributed to journalists. The person who leaked the information was deferring to the judgement of journalists to publish information in a responsible way. It's entirely possible that there is material in the Panama Papers that is exactly what he describes, but we haven't seen it because it's not being published. The journalists have come up with some criteria about what's responsible here. It might be not be the right criteria, but it does exist.
deong 10y ago
I think the flaw in the analogy is that we as a society have had the chance to openly debate things like attorney-client privilege. We understand that we have a legal system in which guilty people may enjoy protection, and we understand the reasons for it. At the very least, the fact of the matter is public knowledge. That's not the case for kinds of tax-avoidance and general shadiness being revealed in the Panama Papers.
ttctciyf 10y ago
An article by Tyler Cowen of the Mercatus Center - "the most important think tank you've never heard of." [1] If you're interested in the background of this interesting organization, there's some funding information at [2]. It's maybe not that surprising that a board member of an economics outreach effort heavily funded by Koch Industries would argue for the freedom of the very rich to "to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations," especially considering that the Kochs were exposed doing just this by a previous round of ICIJ published leaks. [3] But maybe it's worth asking why such a reasonable practice, totally within the law, would be so secret in the first place that it takes leaks like these to make it known. 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20070824203256/http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/index.php?id=5895 http://web.archive.org/web/20070824203256/http://gazette.gmu... 2: http://www.desmogblog.com/mercatus-center http://www.desmogblog.com/mercatus-center 3: https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-revea...

36 points by rgarcia 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
My first thought as well.
arkem 10y ago
This is one of the least appropriate use of Betteridge's Law of Headlines. The article starts with 'yes' and waters it down to 'maybe' and a real discussion could be had about whether or not the ends justifies the means, especially when it comes to criminal acts revealing dubious but legal acts.
- aethertron 10y ago
  Agreed on the appropriateness of using Betteridge's law. MR's headline could have instead been 'Was it RIGHT to hack and leak the Panama Papers?'
  - pyrale 10y ago
    Betteridge's law is totally appropriate : His point was that people heading an article with a question intend to defend a position while not immediately associating with it. And that's totally what this article does.
    - bryanlarsen 10y ago
      This article discusses both sides of the issue, doesn't come to a firm conclusion, and leads the reader to consider the question in their own mind. IMO, this is one of the few articles where I believe that a rhetorical question as a title is appropriate.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  No, it is entirely appropriate to invoke Betteridge to illustrate how TFA is contradicted by its own headline. This is a common use of Betteridge, and is indeed the only interesting way to use it.

Zikes 10y ago

That comparison makes no sense to me. There's a world of difference between blowing the whistle and subverting due process.

blainesch 10y ago

> probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal Mostly legal and nothing illegal are contradicting.

ominous 10y ago
"The internet is used for (mostly) legal purposes"
pbreit 10y ago
Not when there's as much gray as exists in international tax law.
Karunamon 10y ago
Our law is not logically consistent - the same action can be legal in some instances yet illegal in others.

adriand 10y ago

The difference between sharing information about ordinary people charged with crimes and about the rich and powerful, is that the rich and powerful people are rich and powerful. These are people who exert power over the rest of society and therefore their business dealings - especially shady, quasi-legal or outright illegal business dealings - are in the public interest. The fact some random person has been charged with a DUI is not comparable with the fact the Icelandic prime minister engaged in questionable business practices and possibly a conflict of interest, especially from the perspective of Iceland's citizens.

kra34 10y ago
So privacy protection isn't an absolute right, more of a relative / subjective one and the deciding authority on the subject should be the internet at large. Weird to hear that kind of thinking on hacker news...
- circlefavshape 10y ago
  Not unusual to hear "absolute" anything being questioned on HN

jacalata 10y ago

I like how his comparison implies that of course everyone exposed by the Panama papers is already under criminal investigation.

jessaustin 10y ago

Slowly but surely, I'm coming to the position that "hacking and leaking" is never "wrong". It's a form of speech, and I'm a free speech absolutist. Let's stipulate that some things are illegal and not "wrong", just as others are legal and "wrong". It's not clear to me, however, that this case actually is a hack, in the sense that whoever released this material might have had legitimate access to it as a part of doing business. In that case this is certainly an unethical failure to uphold terms of contract. Who's going to enforce that contract, however? Certainly not IRS or any other USA agency. [EDIT:] In case it's not clear, I don't think that society in general is ethically limited by any "poison tree" doctrine in situations like this. Once this information is public, however it came to be so, we are free to use it as we see fit.

dogma1138 10y ago
So should the police do the same? No need for search warrants anymore...
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Of course not. Police are employed by society. Unfettered police will destroy society. We would never choose to fund our own destruction, so police have to follow rules. Are there really educated adults who think that we should accept any behavior whatsoever from our police?
  - krapp 10y ago
    If you believe "hacking and leaking is never wrong" because they're forms of speech, except when the state does it, you're not really a free speech absolutist.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Because we live in a civil society, if the police can't break into your house and take what evidence they want, and they won't accept evidence from anyone else who broken into you house what exactly does this serve? If the only thing that is ok here is to leak stuff to the media stuff that usually cannot be collaborated, and often might actually be intentionally if not completely fabricated than at least edited to some extent you are advocating for mob rule and trial by public opinion.

slg 10y ago

>Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. This is a scary thing that has been building over the last 10 years. Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they play by the rules. You saw this a lot with Occupy Wall Street and you hear similar rhetoric from Bernie Sanders supporters condemning the "donor class" and being angry at banks for being big regardless of anything else. But these people do exactly the same thing you and I do. I take advantage of the tax system when I deduct education expenses. I lobby the government when I contribute to the EFF. I want the companies I invest in to be as big and as profitable as possible. If I had more money, those things would simply be in higher quantities. That is the only thing most of these people are guilty of, doing the same thing we all do but at a much higher magnitude. We can recognize that magnitude difference is a problem and want to shrink it without resorting to vilifying people who simply play the hand they are dealt.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>Wealthy people are vilified for being wealthy even when they play by the rules. Playing within the rules is irrelevant when you're the one who gets to write the rules.
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  As if there existed some impartial authority to make rules.
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    "Everyone else", is the idea. For example, if you wrote the tax law, you could say "let's tax everyone but me" But if everyone writes the tax law together, nobody will let you exempt yourself, and you won't let them exempt themselves. Like some kind of law-making standoff.

cmdrfred 10y ago

If the net effect was good then the action was good.

shitgoose 10y ago
Crime and Punishment is a thick book, there must be a Reader's Digest version somewhere. Try it.
- HelloRipley 10y ago
  The poster you are responding to is making a utilitarian moral argument. You are referencing a novel that explores the a common source of crime (poverty) and the chain of events that follows. I don't see the connection. :-S
  - awinter-py 10y ago
    argument, meet counterexample
  - shitgoose 10y ago
    The novel that I am referencing explores the possibility of justifying the crime by good intentions. I think there is a bit of connection there. (spoiler alert - this utilitarian moral argument didn't work too well for Rodion)
chopin 10y ago
The ends justify the means? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Platitudes like that are how intelligent people trick themselves out of doing what is necessary.

darkhorn 10y ago

The writer assumes that the laws work and asks "Is it ethic leak this illegal activities?". And he says that in this condition, proper way would be the legal ways. No! The laws and legal ways do not work always, in such cases people themselves will be the law and the prosecuters. It is like asking to catch all ISIS members without killing them, that would be the proper law! Not bombarding them! Don't kill ISIS, catch them and prosecute them, oh yeah what lawfull legal world! Would you expect justige from corrupt countries and corrupt procecuters? Revealing these corruptins is proper act and I support these hackers.

awinter-py 10y ago

These authors are confounding malum in se / malum prohibitum. Common error when the law legislates the boundaries of social / economic class. Was it wrong for rosa parks to hack the segregated bus system in montgomery?

supercanuck 10y ago

When is vigilantism morally justified? I'd argue when people need a reminder not to take living in a civilized society for granted.

l34ch 10y ago

godgod 10y ago

As George Soros. I'm sure he'll give you a NO.

goodcanadian 10y ago

Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. I've looked into offshore banking and shell companies and the like a bit over the years. I'm not sure why; I guess I just have a fascination with business and finance. My conclusion has long been that, for an individual who intends to comply with the law, there is very little benefit to these structures. Generally, an individual can't legally lower their tax burden through the mechanism of an offshore shell company. The legal versions of this involve genuine corporations headquartering in a business friendly location. They don't do it secretly, however. It is done in the open, and the corporation's owners (the shareholders) still have to pay their taxes on any dividends or capital gains in whatever jurisdiction they live in. You can argue whether or not Google should be legally allowed to move most of their income to Ireland, but that is a totally different scenario to a single person starting a company in Panama to hold his investments. In the United States, at least, a single shareholder company that does nothing other than hold investments is treated as a pass through for income tax purposes. I.e. you can't avoid taxes simply by keeping the money in the company. Moreover, even if you could avoid the tax on the company profits, you would still have to pay tax when your wanted to take the money out to actually spend it.

circlefavshape 10y ago
Don't you only become liable to pay the tax when you repatriate the money? So perhaps you can spend it outside the US with impunity?
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  You are correct that a legitimate corporation will not be taxed on the money unless and until it is repatriated, but that doesn't help an (honest) individual; it only helps multinational corporations. For every country (3) where I have filed taxes, you are liable for individual taxes as soon as you earn the income. So, in the case of a legitimate business, as soon as you pay yourself a salary or other benefit (perhaps, buy yourself a yacht; really, anything that is not a clear business expense). It doesn't matter where in the world you earn the income or spend it; you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, to take it a step further, the IRS doesn't really recognize personal holding companies as legitimate businesses for tax purposes. You are liable to pay tax on any investment income as though it were personal income even if you leave it in the company name. Again, it doesn't matter where in the world the holding company is.

blueprint 10y ago

It's quite simple. It's never wrong to reveal facts. It's always right to reveal facts. It's always wrong to hide facts.

deong 10y ago
I don't believe it is quite that simple. Suppose you're a gay man living in Yemen. I do not accept any definition of "right" or morality that would compel me to disclose that information.
- blueprint 10y ago
  I didn't stipulate how to disclose it, only that the right thing is to disclose it. I doubt you'd suggest the person should live in denial and/or not fight for his rights in some manner. Disclosing things doesn't necessarily include stupidly getting oneself killed by revealing them in a poor manner, i.e. inappropriately or unskillfully. After all, that would hardly do a good job of revealing the fact it's his right to have his own sexual preference, wouldn't you say? The important question is how to do things, not what to do. Given this, would you agree now?

ianbicking 10y ago

How many of us would approve of that behavior? Keep in mind the hacker is spreading the information not only to prosecutors but to the entire world, and outside of any process sanctioned by the rule of law. The Panama Papers didn't get uploaded to the internet, it was distributed to journalists. The person who leaked the information was deferring to the judgement of journalists to publish information in a responsible way. It's entirely possible that there is material in the Panama Papers that is exactly what he describes, but we haven't seen it because it's not being published. The journalists have come up with some criteria about what's responsible here. It might be not be the right criteria, but it does exist.

deong 10y ago

I think the flaw in the analogy is that we as a society have had the chance to openly debate things like attorney-client privilege. We understand that we have a legal system in which guilty people may enjoy protection, and we understand the reasons for it. At the very least, the fact of the matter is public knowledge. That's not the case for kinds of tax-avoidance and general shadiness being revealed in the Panama Papers.

ttctciyf 10y ago

An article by Tyler Cowen of the Mercatus Center - "the most important think tank you've never heard of." [1] If you're interested in the background of this interesting organization, there's some funding information at [2]. It's maybe not that surprising that a board member of an economics outreach effort heavily funded by Koch Industries would argue for the freedom of the very rich to "to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations," especially considering that the Kochs were exposed doing just this by a previous round of ICIJ published leaks. [3] But maybe it's worth asking why such a reasonable practice, totally within the law, would be so secret in the first place that it takes leaks like these to make it known. 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20070824203256/http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/index.php?id=5895 http://web.archive.org/web/20070824203256/http://gazette.gmu... 2: http://www.desmogblog.com/mercatus-center http://www.desmogblog.com/mercatus-center 3: https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-revea...