10 ms·

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 ar

by jobu 10y ago

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 Deltour is presently on trial for providing journalists with information about how Luxembourg granted secret “sweetheart” tax deals to multi-national corporations, effectively stealing billions in tax revenues from its neighbour countries." Law enforcement agencies don't have the resources or knowledge to go after much of the corruption and wrongdoing inside governments and large companies. If insiders with integrity don't have a safe way of stepping forward there will never be a way to keep wealthy/powerful/connected individuals from abusing the system.

joering2 10y ago
Upvoted. Important read [1] - Antoine trial started few days ago! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks
chimeracoder 10y ago
> 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 (allegedly-)illegal behavior. With the Panama Papers, some of the information leaked is indeed evidence of actual crimes, but most of it is actually not[1]. One can make the argument that some of the behavior should be, but that's a far less compelling case for whistleblower protection than the evidence of actual crimes taken place under the law as it exists today. While I do believe that Manning deserved whistleblower protection, her case was similarly harmed (both legally and in the public's perception) by the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio in the documents she provided was very low. It's a lot harder to convince the public that you were acting as a whistleblower if large parts of the data you're leaking isn't blowing the whistle on anything, even if some of it is. [0] The government disagrees with the claim that it is illegal, but that is the premise of the leak. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Disclosures
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "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).
  - dzdt 10y ago
    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.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      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.
      - cname 10y ago
        > The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying. In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
sievebrain 10y ago
I'd think it's the least achievable thing of all. Governments will happily pass laws to {increase transparency / reduce privacy} and will happily pass laws that {add new taxes / close tax loopholes}, because these things align with their pre-existing agendas. They will not, under any circumstances, make it easier to engage in whistleblowing and especially not large data dumps, because governments absolutely do not want millions of { citizens holding them to account / vigilante info-warriors } increasing their OWN transparency! That said, whilst I agree with that part, the rest of John Doe's essay left me cold. Other than its defence of whistleblowers it reads like more or less any standard left-ish Guardian article. The cause of increasing global inequality being a handful of law firms, really? They "write the laws" themselves, really? Which laws does he have in mind? All lawyers are corrupt and unethical? The British island territories are the "cornerstone of institutional corruption worldwide" and not, say, African states where the corruption actually occurs? Billionaires own the press and serious investigative journalism is dead, except, presumably, the press and the journalists who he worked with? I was and still am a huge supporter of Snowden because he revealed behaviour that was unquestionably bad. Literally nobody tried to defend what he showed was happening, and in fact the people doing it had lied in Congress to try and cover it up. It was a classic case where whistleblowing is justified. Additionally, Snowden had a very clear and straightforward thought process justifying his actions: what was happening was unconstitutional, and his attempts to use the formal complaint paths had failed. John Doe comparing himself to Snowden rubs me up the wrong way, because although he claims the MF files are bursting with criminal evidence, so far all the stories I read about the Panama Papers were about things that are not illegal, and in fact apparently some of the papers show MF dropping clients when they started to suspect illegal activity, which implies MF was not quite the sinister conspiracy Doe makes it sound like. They clearly had legal compliance efforts and they clearly did things. And his justification is a long, rambling and rather incoherent screed that tries to claim the fault of every problem in the world lies with a kind of global conspiracy of evil and spineless people. I think Doe is walking a very thin line between whistleblowing for a cause and generic vigilante-ism with his actions.
- lolc 10y ago
  > so far all the stories I read about the Panama Papers were about things that are not illegal So the accusation of perjury left you cold? It was linked in the piece. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/03/19506/offshore-law-firm-runs-trouble-las-vegas https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/03/19506/offshore-la...
themartorana 10y ago
I was unaware of - and totally flabbergasted by - the Birkenfeld case. His boss, who did not come forward at all, served 5 months probation and paid a $100 fine. Another extradited executive was not found guilty of anything. The tax evading client Birkenfeld helped (that was the basis for Birkenfeld's prosecution) paid a fine but served no jail time. It's not that whistleblowers aren't receiving protections - it's that their prosecutions and punishments far outweigh those whose crimes are being exposed. It's absolutely mind-boggling.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Shoot the messenger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by jobu 10y ago

joering2 10y ago

Upvoted. Important read [1] - Antoine trial started few days ago! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks

chimeracoder 10y ago

> 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 (allegedly-)illegal behavior. With the Panama Papers, some of the information leaked is indeed evidence of actual crimes, but most of it is actually not[1]. One can make the argument that some of the behavior should be, but that's a far less compelling case for whistleblower protection than the evidence of actual crimes taken place under the law as it exists today. While I do believe that Manning deserved whistleblower protection, her case was similarly harmed (both legally and in the public's perception) by the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio in the documents she provided was very low. It's a lot harder to convince the public that you were acting as a whistleblower if large parts of the data you're leaking isn't blowing the whistle on anything, even if some of it is. [0] The government disagrees with the claim that it is illegal, but that is the premise of the leak. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Disclosures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Disclosures

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"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).
- dzdt 10y ago
  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.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    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.
    - cname 10y ago
      > The nation as a whole determined spying for averting war, competing, and so on is morally acceptable. They've kept it legal for decades. I'm sure you have a source for this assertion, but I don't recall ever having voted on or having any say at all in anything related to spying. In addition to that, I don't know anyone who agrees with the idea that spying for competitive reasons is okay. I'm sure there are plenty of people that do, but I don't think I've ever met someone who's stated as much.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago

sievebrain 10y ago

I'd think it's the least achievable thing of all. Governments will happily pass laws to {increase transparency / reduce privacy} and will happily pass laws that {add new taxes / close tax loopholes}, because these things align with their pre-existing agendas. They will not, under any circumstances, make it easier to engage in whistleblowing and especially not large data dumps, because governments absolutely do not want millions of { citizens holding them to account / vigilante info-warriors } increasing their OWN transparency! That said, whilst I agree with that part, the rest of John Doe's essay left me cold. Other than its defence of whistleblowers it reads like more or less any standard left-ish Guardian article. The cause of increasing global inequality being a handful of law firms, really? They "write the laws" themselves, really? Which laws does he have in mind? All lawyers are corrupt and unethical? The British island territories are the "cornerstone of institutional corruption worldwide" and not, say, African states where the corruption actually occurs? Billionaires own the press and serious investigative journalism is dead, except, presumably, the press and the journalists who he worked with? I was and still am a huge supporter of Snowden because he revealed behaviour that was unquestionably bad. Literally nobody tried to defend what he showed was happening, and in fact the people doing it had lied in Congress to try and cover it up. It was a classic case where whistleblowing is justified. Additionally, Snowden had a very clear and straightforward thought process justifying his actions: what was happening was unconstitutional, and his attempts to use the formal complaint paths had failed. John Doe comparing himself to Snowden rubs me up the wrong way, because although he claims the MF files are bursting with criminal evidence, so far all the stories I read about the Panama Papers were about things that are not illegal, and in fact apparently some of the papers show MF dropping clients when they started to suspect illegal activity, which implies MF was not quite the sinister conspiracy Doe makes it sound like. They clearly had legal compliance efforts and they clearly did things. And his justification is a long, rambling and rather incoherent screed that tries to claim the fault of every problem in the world lies with a kind of global conspiracy of evil and spineless people. I think Doe is walking a very thin line between whistleblowing for a cause and generic vigilante-ism with his actions.

lolc 10y ago
> so far all the stories I read about the Panama Papers were about things that are not illegal So the accusation of perjury left you cold? It was linked in the piece. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/03/19506/offshore-law-firm-runs-trouble-las-vegas https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/03/19506/offshore-la...

themartorana 10y ago

I was unaware of - and totally flabbergasted by - the Birkenfeld case. His boss, who did not come forward at all, served 5 months probation and paid a $100 fine. Another extradited executive was not found guilty of anything. The tax evading client Birkenfeld helped (that was the basis for Birkenfeld's prosecution) paid a fine but served no jail time. It's not that whistleblowers aren't receiving protections - it's that their prosecutions and punishments far outweigh those whose crimes are being exposed. It's absolutely mind-boggling.

jacquesm 10y ago
Shoot the messenger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]