13 ms·

Blackmail Should Be Illegal

92 points by apsec112 8y ago

lisper 8y ago
This is incredibly stupid. First, the title should be "Why should blackmail be illegal?" Second, the answer is: because you have the right to keep secrets, and you should not have to pay someone who happens to learn one of your secrets in order to continue to exercise that right. [EDIT] You have the right to keep certain secrets, like your bank account number or your sexual preferences, but not your criminal activity. So blackmailing someone by threatening to out them as gay or exposing an extramarital affair should be illegal on the grounds that you have the right to keep those things secret, but blackmailing someone by threatening to expose criminal activity should be illegal on the grounds that helping to keep that secret makes the blackmailer an accomplice to the crime.
- baddox 8y ago
  You say that you have a right to keep secrets. Does that means that it should also be illegal to publicize someone else’s secrets, without any threat or demand for money?
  - lisper 8y ago
    That depends on the secret. You don't have the right to keep anything a secret. For example, you don't have the right to keep your criminal activity a secret. But you do have the right to keep, say, your bank account number or your sexual preferences a secret. So yes, I think (for example) outing someone as gay should be illegal (I'd make it a civil offense, not a criminal one).
    - Retra 8y ago
      That seems overly draconian. If you call someone gay and it happens that they were without your knowledge... then they would have to out themselves in court to prove that you legitimately outed them, even on accident.
      - lisper 8y ago
        Being gay doesn't carry the stigma that it used to, so consider a more serious charge: suppose I out you, rightly or wrongly, as a pedophile. (Note that merely being a pedophile is not illegal.)
        Retra 8y ago
        I don't think it should be illegal to do that, per se. If doing so intentionally brought undue and unreasonable harm upon me, then the general act of causing that harm could be made illegal, while the specific act which happened to cause it is not. For instance, that could be slander/libel. If it were a true statement, then I certainly wouldn't have it be illegal. If your society fails to react correctly to the truth, I see no reason to believe it will be improved my making the truth illegal to speak.
        lisper 8y ago
        Only if you could prove that it wasn't true.
        Retra 8y ago
        If it were a true statement, then I certainly wouldn't have it be illegal. If your society fails to react correctly to the truth, I see no reason to believe it will be improved my making the truth illegal to speak.
    - jbarberu 8y ago
      So if your friend catches your wife cheating on you, he should be the one getting in trouble for telling you? (Assuming this is a secret she'd prefer to keep from you)
      - lisper 8y ago
        Private disclosure is different from a public one.
        jbarberu 8y ago
        Let's say you have a president, or something, who cheats on his wife, publicizing that should be illegal?
        lisper 8y ago
        Again, the rules are different for public figures than for private citizens.
  - hopler 8y ago
    In the UK it is. Truth is not a defense to libel/defamation in the UK.
- ghaff 8y ago
  However, if I (through legal means) learn one of your secrets and just go ahead and publish it, that's usually perfectly legal. For that matter, if you find out I know something and offer me a quid-pro-quo for signing an NDA and not revealing it, that's probably legal as well. IANAL.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    > For that matter, if you find out I know something and offer me a quid-pro-quo for signing an NDA and not revealing it, that's probably legal as well. This is correct. As long as the quid pro quo isn't illegal or coerced. "I won't tell your secret and you won't tell mine." - Okay "I won't tell your secret and you'll pay me a reasonable sum of money." - Okay "You won't tell my secret and you won't get murdered." - Not Okay (Coercion) "I won't tell your secret and you'll help me commit this crime." - Not Okay (Illegal)
    - akvadrako 8y ago
      > "I won't tell your secret and you'll pay me a reasonable sum of money." - Okay That's blackmail though.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        Or, it's an NDA.
      - elliekelly 8y ago
        Sometimes. But most of the time it's a non-disclosure agreement, a settlement agreement, or any number of other perfectly legal agreements between two parties.
        ghaff 8y ago
        Most of the time the illegality comes in if there’s some secret involving criminal activity. “Pay me $100K or I spill the beans about how you’re embezzling.”
- andrewla 8y ago
  You have the right not to release information unless legally compelled to. But you generally have no right to compel someone else _not_ to reveal (true) information no matter what level of secrecy you assign to it. I think the answer is that blackmail should be illegal, but it requires a deeper answer than just the "right to keep secrets". The article does a fairly good job of breaking down the problem, but it's not easy to summarize.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It's thought provoking because there really is a gray line between where payments to keep information secret is a legitimate private transaction and where they cross into criminality. And there are situations on either side of that line where I have trouble articulating why exactly one feels OK and the other doesn't.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      I agree and I think the Bezos/National Enquirer situation is a good illustration of how difficult it is to articulate where that line is. If the National Enquirer had offered to kill the story in exchange for Bezos paying them a million dollars would that have been as scandalous as their request to have the owner of a well-known newspaper make a false public statement that he disagrees with? Probably not. Along the same lines, if the National Enquirer threatened to publish your personal text messages and photos unless you paid them a million dollars that would feel infinitely more outrageous than if the exact same offer were made to Bezos. Requesting a million dollars from the richest man in the world just doesn't feel as wrong.
      - hopler 8y ago
        He wouldn't be the richest man in the world for long if it was legal for everyone to blackmail him.
- testvox 8y ago
  I will disagree, you have no right to both keep secrets and allow other people to know them. I think blackmail should be illegal in the case of threatening to disclose criminal activity. But that case has nothing to do with the right to keep secrets. It should be illegal because it's essentially using the threat of state violence for personal gain. Any threats of violence for personal gain should be illegal. I will note even with this limited scope it gets complicated. For example if you are being harassed and threaten to report the aggressor for criminal harassment if they do not leave you alone you might be commiting blackmail.
  - airstrike 8y ago
    > you have no right to both keep secrets and allow other people to know them. But presumably one ought to have the right to not be charged an outrageous fee for someone to keep their secret. It shouldn't be illegal to share someone else's secret. It should, however, be illegal to twist that secret to your advantage by exploiting the vulnerable state of the person to whom the secret relates.
  - hopler 8y ago
    What? Telling someone you intend to enforce the law if they continue to break it is in no way blackmail.
- ghaff 8y ago
  IANAL, but if the secret involves criminal activity that appears to be the specific case covered by US Federal law.
vorpalhex 8y ago
There's a lot of conflation here between immoral and illegal, which the article itself even raises just to ignore it's own point and I'm left very unclear what the actual message is beyond "don't be bad!"
mchannon 8y ago
The biggest problem with blackmail and extortion is no two people seem to agree on exactly what they are and are not. I use these definitions: To blackmail is to threaten to do something otherwise legal (usually divulge information) unless you are paid. To extort is to threaten to do something otherwise illegal unless you are paid. Blackmail is one of those odd two-rights-make-a-wrong matters like prostitution or insider trading, and it's tough for a lot of people to square the corresponding laws with their own morals. Having been blackmailed before (as in 18 USC §873 Blackmail) I find most people's attitudes on the matter are heavily influenced by their personal histories with blackmail (or lack of histories) and subject to change.
- ergothus 8y ago
  I once was called by a collection agent for state taxes (private company contracted by the state). While I knew my taxes had been paid, I was indeed delinquent in FILING my taxes, and apparently they hadn't connected the taxes paid on my W-2s with the income on my W-2s (?!). According to the agent if I didn't give him the info from my checking account while I was on the phone, he'd hit the button and start garnishing my wages, freezing my credit, etc. He refused my every effort to say I needed to check my balances, etc and get back to him. I was living paycheck to paycheck at the time. This was a very real threat - that it would all work out was NOT the same as not being a problem. Yet - this was entirely legal (AFAIK(. He was lying - he didn't have the authority to do those things - but he could make the threats. He put me in such a panic that I was calling the Tax agency hourly, leaving messages and faxing details. By the time I got through to a manager that could tell me my status she responded to my greeting with "Oh yes, I know who you are Mr. [REDACTED]". A terrible experience all around. It was a threat to induce action, but neither extortion nor blackmail.
  - GlenTheMachine 8y ago
    This is even worse because has the same bones as a well known telephone scam.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    > A terrible experience all around. It was a threat to induce action, but neither extortion nor blackmail. Pretty sure that would be illegal under, for example, German law (§ 240 StGB, Nötigung); delivering a threat in order to have you do something (or not do something) that, when implemented, would create an [severe] disadvantage, is punishable even if you could not actually implement the threat (like the guy in your story).
Juliate 8y ago
Well, it _is_ illegal in most of these places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail
- gnode 8y ago
  This probably reads to some like "debate over its legality is unimportant because it is illegal". I think it's not known by a lot of people that it is illegal (in many places), and not initially clear from the article, with it appearing to argue that blackmail should be made illegal.
DannyB2 8y ago
Argument 5. 5. It is especially wrong to gain money by hurting someone. As long as the blackmailed keeps paying, the blackmailer doesn't do the hurtful thing. But then I suppose the very act of blackmail is considered a harm. But if that is true, then it should be illegal. Like assaulting, raping, robing, stabbing someone.
dblotsky 8y ago
I think the author’s hypotheticals are off. In a world where blackmail is allowed, I think transparency would just be more normal, and secrets would be more rare. For example, people would be more open about cheating, sexual preferences, etc. I think in that world, along with blackmail, many taboo things would become more normalized.
- jerf 8y ago
  I think that would be true in a culture made of Homo Economicus, but I think you're going to have a rough time of that plan with Homo Sapiens. Status matters, and there's going to be some way to judge that status, and there's going to be some delta between the society's understanding of your actions and their assessment of the resulting status and your actual actions, and some way to blackmail with that. I mean, we already at least have subcultures that are fairly open about cheating and sexual preferences, but then those same cultures will nuke your social status into oblivion if you accidentally say the wrong racist word. (Let alone in a just a moment's poor judgment do it deliberately.) There's gonna be something. But I would endorse the idea that there will be second-order effects, some of which may mitigate the problem. But I think that a lot of the people inclined to propose this wouldn't particularly enjoy them, either. For an example ripped from the headlines, as it becomes increasingly acceptable to nuke someone's political career for making a woman somewhat uncomfortable forty years ago (that's a deliberate satirical exaggeration, not a characterization of any real case), I've wondered if the people making that accusation are really thinking things through; do they really want to limit all public office only to people who were so socially clumsy and awkward when young that they never made a false move because they never made a move at all? I mean, hey, suddenly that would open up rather a lot of high power careers to me, sure, so I suppose I'm self-interestedly all for it in a sarcastic sense, but I'm not sure everyone's going to be interested in that being the criteria for serving in office or for that being the cost of leading a peaceful, unblackmailed life.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    There is a difference between “making a move” and “harassment”. It doesn’t take much intelligence or confidence to have sex with a child, too.
Joe-Z 8y ago
Can someone help me understand the context of this? Is this just some philosophical thought-experiment, or is there a real problem to be solved? Also: If blackmailing becomes legal before soft drugs do I'm gonna be SO pissed :D
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jondubois 8y ago
>> It is especially wrong to gain money by hurting someone. No so. With blackmail, you identify a problem that someone else has and you explain it to them (for free) and then you sell them the solution for a price. It's not so different from what big corporations are doing these days. >> Saying embarrassing things about someone hurts them. No, it makes them stronger and more authentic. >> Blackmail discourages embarrassing activities, but some things just can’t be changed. But they can be destroyed.
goldcd 8y ago
I thought the answer was obvious - then realized blackmail is seemingly a more vague term than I'd previous thought. My previous understanding was that blackmail was ~"a threat to reveal illegal activity unless you were compensated" The reason this is pretty obviously illegal is that it's what builds up pyramids of corruption. Alice skims some cash, Bob demands cash or he'll turn in Alice. Alice skims more cash to pay Bob. Charles discovers Bob is blackmailing Alice and demands money from Alice and Bob etc etc. Pay-offs/golden-handcuffs CEOs on one side and short-selling and all manner of other mechanisms that have sprung up, are to skirt the rules of directly demanding money in return for silence.
TimTheTinker 8y ago
There is a strong urge in democratic society, which I believe isn't wrong or incorrect in itself, to legislate the shared ethics of that society -- that is, to outlaw that which is commonly believed to be morally wrong. There are two problems that are encountered in this pursuit: 1) Not everyone shares the same philosophy, thus not everyone shares the same ethics. Where philosophical beliefs differ, there will be clashes over what ethics ought to govern legislation. 2) When writing law, what is being outlawed has to (a) not contradict the constitution(s) governing the land, and (b) be well-defined enough to be enforced. A lot of the discussion around outlawing blackmail centers on (2)(b) - defining terms. It's surprisingly difficult to do, to the point that a lot of things that are commonly believed to be morally wrong can't be legislated. (2)(a) is why personal freedoms/liberties, and to what extent government should be limited, must both be written into a constitution if they are to exist and be respected by the government/courts for a very long time to come. Regarding (1), in a democratic nation, the prevailing worldview/philosophy is ultimately what determines what the moral fabric, and consequently the legal climate, of a country will be like. Of course religion (or lack thereof) will factor into this, since it strongly informs ethics -- there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows the legislation -> ethics -> philosophy causal chain to arise out of any worldview, when it states that there cannot be a "religious test" for elected officials.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only because of ethics. To discuss legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all. If you want to write a full ethics-agnostic law system, I think you'll find it won't actually help solve the problems of a society that exists in the real world. Edit: For example, try to explain why "killing" is illegal in most countries, when some people believe that humans are just electro-chemical computers inside a meat-and-water-sack. Is a human really different than an ant, at the end of the day? If only we had a system to guide our laws that would help us function as a society... Maybe with some shared guidelines about why things are done... we could call it "ethics" perhaps.
  - btrask 8y ago
landryraccoon 8y ago
The argument against blackmail that rings most true for me is that if you want transparency and accountability for politicians, blackmail should remain illegal. In a society where blackmail is fully legal, the incentive for journalists, politicians and corporations align fully against the public. Consider: A politician is corrupt. He's shady and gaining huge personal wealth through corruption. Or a corporation is doing business practices in secret that would probably cause widespread concern among the public. In a society where blackmail is illegal, a journalist that discovers this is fully incentivized to publish the information. If he tries to blackmail the politician or corporation, then he will if be prosecuted if it's discovered. OTOH, lets say blackmail is legal. Now the journalist has to balance serving the public interest through publishing with the now fully safe and legal option of simply threatening the politician or corporation to cut them in if they keep quiet, knowing also that since this is legal even if it's discovered they are off scott free. In other words, legal blackmail means it's fully legal to "cut in" someone who discovers a shady practice on part of the proceeds. I don't see any way in which legal blackmail doesn't keep the public less informed and more in the dark. The incentives for keeping secrets from the public are far higher in a world where blackmail is legal.
- skybrian 8y ago
  This is a good argument, but isn't privacy all about keeping secrets from the public? Incentives are tricky and I'm not sure we can clearly distinguish between "good" privacy and "bad" privacy. There are clear-cut cases but also a lot of grey. But I guess that's why it's better to avoid incentives and hope for good judgement.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > But I guess that's why it's better to avoid incentives and hope for good judgement. You don’t like incentives because they’re too grey, yet relying on “good judgement” is clear cut? I have to disagree. Even if incentives are murky, untangling them is way easier to get consensus on than “good judgement”.
    - 8y ago
coldtea 8y ago
>Economists have long faced an embarrassing question: If it helps deter undesirable actions, what exactly is wrong with blackmail? First, what are those "undesirable actions"? Can they be derived from first principles? If not, why can't blackmail simply be added to those (and that be enough justification that it's illegal)? In this case, it doesn't matter if blackmail "helps deter undesirable actions", since it's an undesirable action itself. In the end, what a society finds an "undesirable action" (including things like murder or incest) is a decision. Some societies are OK with ritual murder, others allowed incest. Some tribal societies under study even allowed theft. (And of course the US e.g. allows judicial executions, which are still a kind of murder). In which case, there's no reason why blackmail can't just be added to the "undesirable actions" list ad hoc -- all the items are there in an ad hoc way anyway. Second, blackmail implies a covert monetary transaction (to shush the blackmailer). As such, shouldn't it be in the open, with e.g. IRS knowing? Isn't it illegal as a blackmarket activity? Third, isn't blackmail an invasion of privacy? If someone keeps secret that they're gay, and someone blackmails them for that, aren't they threatening with an invasion of privacy, which should be illegal? Individuals should be able to control their private information. In which case, I'm arguing that even publicizing the fact that X is e.g. into BDSM or whatever without their consent should be punishable (and in some jurisdictions such actions are iirc, regardless if the accusation is true).
iandanforth 8y ago
For the uninitiated this is "rationalist" writing and makes numerous references to a Harry Potter fan-fiction written by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Some of the phrases and mannerisms might be confusing if you don't know about him and his following. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
supermatt 8y ago
I prefer the definition as described in UK Law under the Theft Act 1968: Blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss. This article seems to focus on ANY demand - your credit card 'threatening' to release information about your non-payment, for example. That is part of your agreement. That is not unwarranted. That is not blackmail. Heres some clarification with case law (again, this is UK): http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php
- aidenn0 8y ago
  My understanding was different: in a "legal blackmail" world debt collectors would try to dig up dirt on you to aid in the collection process: > Credit cards charge unreasonable rates because there is no collateral. If you don’t pay, they can harass you, and damage your reputation via credit reports, but mostly, as long as you don’t mind losing access to credit, you can run the no-pay strategy and it will work. > In a legal blackmail world, that credit card company would then seek out damaging information about you, to try and get you to pay. Since you would often be unable to pay, that information would often get released. Other times, you would end up lying or stealing to get the money.
  - supermatt 8y ago
    From the link: Unwarranted demand: A demand is unwarranted unless: (a) that they had reasonable grounds for making the demand AND (b) that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. i.e. the use of "menaces" needs to be proper. In this case, their contract is the proper means of enforcement. Digging up additional "dirt" not covered/mentioned in the relationship would be considered improper, and is therefore blackmail.
ccnafr 8y ago
Spoiler alert: it already is!
kazinator 8y ago
If blackmail should be illegal, it should be on the grounds that it is a form of harassment, like stalking. Basically, the content of the harassment is immaterial.
nvahalik 8y ago
While RTA, I was reminded of this from a few months ago: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/chinese-millennials-secured-loans-nude-photos https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/chinese-millennial... > ... [the victim] reportedly sent several nude pictures to the lender to receive a 4,000 yuan loan ($800) ...
taeric 8y ago
This seems like it is hard to justify as illegal only because the view is restricted to just two parties. Blackmail is illegal because it leads to societal harm. Not because it leads to individual harm. That is hopefully a happy coincidence.
mamon 8y ago
The worst form of blackmail in the US is probably the plea bargain. I guess there are literally thousands of innocent people serving jail time because they did not have a decent legal counsel to stop them from signing a bad deal.
jmull 8y ago
It seems like there is a lot of overthinking. Generally, we don’t want people doing serious harm to other people for personal gain. This covers muggings, murder, blackmail, other forms of extortion, etc.
- hopler 8y ago
  It's amazing how this comment thread is full of people who do they comprehend the reasonable person standard of law, and think law is invalid because they can invent some pathological corner case.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
Blackmail is the contagion of corruption. It stretches the corruption like a fungi web through society- until it becomes to large to maintain or gets cut off from its food supply. Its corruption growth that reveals most corruption. Thats why the sums usually grow so fast. Because the silence of the many, in this graph is so costly.
hamilyon2 8y ago
Spillover effects and game theory all along. Sure, it is those who are interested to know the information are victims, but they do not even know and are not in position to defend themselves. So, law steps in and declares that (only) way to profit from embarrassing true information is to release it.

92 points by apsec112 8y ago

This is incredibly stupid. First, the title should be "Why should blackmail be illegal?" Second, the answer is: because you have the right to keep secrets, and you should not have to pay someone who happens to learn one of your secrets in order to continue to exercise that right. [EDIT] You have the right to keep certain secrets, like your bank account number or your sexual preferences, but not your criminal activity. So blackmailing someone by threatening to out them as gay or exposing an extramarital affair should be illegal on the grounds that you have the right to keep those things secret, but blackmailing someone by threatening to expose criminal activity should be illegal on the grounds that helping to keep that secret makes the blackmailer an accomplice to the crime.

baddox 8y ago
You say that you have a right to keep secrets. Does that means that it should also be illegal to publicize someone else’s secrets, without any threat or demand for money?
- lisper 8y ago
  That depends on the secret. You don't have the right to keep anything a secret. For example, you don't have the right to keep your criminal activity a secret. But you do have the right to keep, say, your bank account number or your sexual preferences a secret. So yes, I think (for example) outing someone as gay should be illegal (I'd make it a civil offense, not a criminal one).
  - Retra 8y ago
    That seems overly draconian. If you call someone gay and it happens that they were without your knowledge... then they would have to out themselves in court to prove that you legitimately outed them, even on accident.
    - lisper 8y ago
      Being gay doesn't carry the stigma that it used to, so consider a more serious charge: suppose I out you, rightly or wrongly, as a pedophile. (Note that merely being a pedophile is not illegal.)
      - Retra 8y ago
        I don't think it should be illegal to do that, per se. If doing so intentionally brought undue and unreasonable harm upon me, then the general act of causing that harm could be made illegal, while the specific act which happened to cause it is not. For instance, that could be slander/libel. If it were a true statement, then I certainly wouldn't have it be illegal. If your society fails to react correctly to the truth, I see no reason to believe it will be improved my making the truth illegal to speak.
        lisper 8y ago
        Only if you could prove that it wasn't true.
        Retra 8y ago
        If it were a true statement, then I certainly wouldn't have it be illegal. If your society fails to react correctly to the truth, I see no reason to believe it will be improved my making the truth illegal to speak.
  - jbarberu 8y ago
    So if your friend catches your wife cheating on you, he should be the one getting in trouble for telling you? (Assuming this is a secret she'd prefer to keep from you)
    - lisper 8y ago
      Private disclosure is different from a public one.
      - jbarberu 8y ago
        Let's say you have a president, or something, who cheats on his wife, publicizing that should be illegal?
        lisper 8y ago
        Again, the rules are different for public figures than for private citizens.
- hopler 8y ago
  In the UK it is. Truth is not a defense to libel/defamation in the UK.
ghaff 8y ago
However, if I (through legal means) learn one of your secrets and just go ahead and publish it, that's usually perfectly legal. For that matter, if you find out I know something and offer me a quid-pro-quo for signing an NDA and not revealing it, that's probably legal as well. IANAL.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  > For that matter, if you find out I know something and offer me a quid-pro-quo for signing an NDA and not revealing it, that's probably legal as well. This is correct. As long as the quid pro quo isn't illegal or coerced. "I won't tell your secret and you won't tell mine." - Okay "I won't tell your secret and you'll pay me a reasonable sum of money." - Okay "You won't tell my secret and you won't get murdered." - Not Okay (Coercion) "I won't tell your secret and you'll help me commit this crime." - Not Okay (Illegal)
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    > "I won't tell your secret and you'll pay me a reasonable sum of money." - Okay That's blackmail though.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Or, it's an NDA.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      Sometimes. But most of the time it's a non-disclosure agreement, a settlement agreement, or any number of other perfectly legal agreements between two parties.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        Most of the time the illegality comes in if there’s some secret involving criminal activity. “Pay me $100K or I spill the beans about how you’re embezzling.”
andrewla 8y ago
You have the right not to release information unless legally compelled to. But you generally have no right to compel someone else _not_ to reveal (true) information no matter what level of secrecy you assign to it. I think the answer is that blackmail should be illegal, but it requires a deeper answer than just the "right to keep secrets". The article does a fairly good job of breaking down the problem, but it's not easy to summarize.
- ghaff 8y ago
  It's thought provoking because there really is a gray line between where payments to keep information secret is a legitimate private transaction and where they cross into criminality. And there are situations on either side of that line where I have trouble articulating why exactly one feels OK and the other doesn't.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I agree and I think the Bezos/National Enquirer situation is a good illustration of how difficult it is to articulate where that line is. If the National Enquirer had offered to kill the story in exchange for Bezos paying them a million dollars would that have been as scandalous as their request to have the owner of a well-known newspaper make a false public statement that he disagrees with? Probably not. Along the same lines, if the National Enquirer threatened to publish your personal text messages and photos unless you paid them a million dollars that would feel infinitely more outrageous than if the exact same offer were made to Bezos. Requesting a million dollars from the richest man in the world just doesn't feel as wrong.
    - hopler 8y ago
      He wouldn't be the richest man in the world for long if it was legal for everyone to blackmail him.
testvox 8y ago
I will disagree, you have no right to both keep secrets and allow other people to know them. I think blackmail should be illegal in the case of threatening to disclose criminal activity. But that case has nothing to do with the right to keep secrets. It should be illegal because it's essentially using the threat of state violence for personal gain. Any threats of violence for personal gain should be illegal. I will note even with this limited scope it gets complicated. For example if you are being harassed and threaten to report the aggressor for criminal harassment if they do not leave you alone you might be commiting blackmail.
- airstrike 8y ago
  > you have no right to both keep secrets and allow other people to know them. But presumably one ought to have the right to not be charged an outrageous fee for someone to keep their secret. It shouldn't be illegal to share someone else's secret. It should, however, be illegal to twist that secret to your advantage by exploiting the vulnerable state of the person to whom the secret relates.
- hopler 8y ago
  What? Telling someone you intend to enforce the law if they continue to break it is in no way blackmail.
ghaff 8y ago
IANAL, but if the secret involves criminal activity that appears to be the specific case covered by US Federal law.

vorpalhex 8y ago

There's a lot of conflation here between immoral and illegal, which the article itself even raises just to ignore it's own point and I'm left very unclear what the actual message is beyond "don't be bad!"

mchannon 8y ago

The biggest problem with blackmail and extortion is no two people seem to agree on exactly what they are and are not. I use these definitions: To blackmail is to threaten to do something otherwise legal (usually divulge information) unless you are paid. To extort is to threaten to do something otherwise illegal unless you are paid. Blackmail is one of those odd two-rights-make-a-wrong matters like prostitution or insider trading, and it's tough for a lot of people to square the corresponding laws with their own morals. Having been blackmailed before (as in 18 USC §873 Blackmail) I find most people's attitudes on the matter are heavily influenced by their personal histories with blackmail (or lack of histories) and subject to change.

ergothus 8y ago
I once was called by a collection agent for state taxes (private company contracted by the state). While I knew my taxes had been paid, I was indeed delinquent in FILING my taxes, and apparently they hadn't connected the taxes paid on my W-2s with the income on my W-2s (?!). According to the agent if I didn't give him the info from my checking account while I was on the phone, he'd hit the button and start garnishing my wages, freezing my credit, etc. He refused my every effort to say I needed to check my balances, etc and get back to him. I was living paycheck to paycheck at the time. This was a very real threat - that it would all work out was NOT the same as not being a problem. Yet - this was entirely legal (AFAIK(. He was lying - he didn't have the authority to do those things - but he could make the threats. He put me in such a panic that I was calling the Tax agency hourly, leaving messages and faxing details. By the time I got through to a manager that could tell me my status she responded to my greeting with "Oh yes, I know who you are Mr. [REDACTED]". A terrible experience all around. It was a threat to induce action, but neither extortion nor blackmail.
- GlenTheMachine 8y ago
  This is even worse because has the same bones as a well known telephone scam.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > A terrible experience all around. It was a threat to induce action, but neither extortion nor blackmail. Pretty sure that would be illegal under, for example, German law (§ 240 StGB, Nötigung); delivering a threat in order to have you do something (or not do something) that, when implemented, would create an [severe] disadvantage, is punishable even if you could not actually implement the threat (like the guy in your story).

Juliate 8y ago

Well, it _is_ illegal in most of these places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

gnode 8y ago
This probably reads to some like "debate over its legality is unimportant because it is illegal". I think it's not known by a lot of people that it is illegal (in many places), and not initially clear from the article, with it appearing to argue that blackmail should be made illegal.

DannyB2 8y ago

Argument 5. 5. It is especially wrong to gain money by hurting someone. As long as the blackmailed keeps paying, the blackmailer doesn't do the hurtful thing. But then I suppose the very act of blackmail is considered a harm. But if that is true, then it should be illegal. Like assaulting, raping, robing, stabbing someone.

dblotsky 8y ago

I think the author’s hypotheticals are off. In a world where blackmail is allowed, I think transparency would just be more normal, and secrets would be more rare. For example, people would be more open about cheating, sexual preferences, etc. I think in that world, along with blackmail, many taboo things would become more normalized.

jerf 8y ago
I think that would be true in a culture made of Homo Economicus, but I think you're going to have a rough time of that plan with Homo Sapiens. Status matters, and there's going to be some way to judge that status, and there's going to be some delta between the society's understanding of your actions and their assessment of the resulting status and your actual actions, and some way to blackmail with that. I mean, we already at least have subcultures that are fairly open about cheating and sexual preferences, but then those same cultures will nuke your social status into oblivion if you accidentally say the wrong racist word. (Let alone in a just a moment's poor judgment do it deliberately.) There's gonna be something. But I would endorse the idea that there will be second-order effects, some of which may mitigate the problem. But I think that a lot of the people inclined to propose this wouldn't particularly enjoy them, either. For an example ripped from the headlines, as it becomes increasingly acceptable to nuke someone's political career for making a woman somewhat uncomfortable forty years ago (that's a deliberate satirical exaggeration, not a characterization of any real case), I've wondered if the people making that accusation are really thinking things through; do they really want to limit all public office only to people who were so socially clumsy and awkward when young that they never made a false move because they never made a move at all? I mean, hey, suddenly that would open up rather a lot of high power careers to me, sure, so I suppose I'm self-interestedly all for it in a sarcastic sense, but I'm not sure everyone's going to be interested in that being the criteria for serving in office or for that being the cost of leading a peaceful, unblackmailed life.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  There is a difference between “making a move” and “harassment”. It doesn’t take much intelligence or confidence to have sex with a child, too.

Joe-Z 8y ago

Can someone help me understand the context of this? Is this just some philosophical thought-experiment, or is there a real problem to be solved? Also: If blackmailing becomes legal before soft drugs do I'm gonna be SO pissed :D

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jondubois 8y ago

>> It is especially wrong to gain money by hurting someone. No so. With blackmail, you identify a problem that someone else has and you explain it to them (for free) and then you sell them the solution for a price. It's not so different from what big corporations are doing these days. >> Saying embarrassing things about someone hurts them. No, it makes them stronger and more authentic. >> Blackmail discourages embarrassing activities, but some things just can’t be changed. But they can be destroyed.

goldcd 8y ago

I thought the answer was obvious - then realized blackmail is seemingly a more vague term than I'd previous thought. My previous understanding was that blackmail was ~"a threat to reveal illegal activity unless you were compensated" The reason this is pretty obviously illegal is that it's what builds up pyramids of corruption. Alice skims some cash, Bob demands cash or he'll turn in Alice. Alice skims more cash to pay Bob. Charles discovers Bob is blackmailing Alice and demands money from Alice and Bob etc etc. Pay-offs/golden-handcuffs CEOs on one side and short-selling and all manner of other mechanisms that have sprung up, are to skirt the rules of directly demanding money in return for silence.

TimTheTinker 8y ago

There is a strong urge in democratic society, which I believe isn't wrong or incorrect in itself, to legislate the shared ethics of that society -- that is, to outlaw that which is commonly believed to be morally wrong. There are two problems that are encountered in this pursuit: 1) Not everyone shares the same philosophy, thus not everyone shares the same ethics. Where philosophical beliefs differ, there will be clashes over what ethics ought to govern legislation. 2) When writing law, what is being outlawed has to (a) not contradict the constitution(s) governing the land, and (b) be well-defined enough to be enforced. A lot of the discussion around outlawing blackmail centers on (2)(b) - defining terms. It's surprisingly difficult to do, to the point that a lot of things that are commonly believed to be morally wrong can't be legislated. (2)(a) is why personal freedoms/liberties, and to what extent government should be limited, must both be written into a constitution if they are to exist and be respected by the government/courts for a very long time to come. Regarding (1), in a democratic nation, the prevailing worldview/philosophy is ultimately what determines what the moral fabric, and consequently the legal climate, of a country will be like. Of course religion (or lack thereof) will factor into this, since it strongly informs ethics -- there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows the legislation -> ethics -> philosophy causal chain to arise out of any worldview, when it states that there cannot be a "religious test" for elected officials.

ggggtez 8y ago
I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only because of ethics. To discuss legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all. If you want to write a full ethics-agnostic law system, I think you'll find it won't actually help solve the problems of a society that exists in the real world. Edit: For example, try to explain why "killing" is illegal in most countries, when some people believe that humans are just electro-chemical computers inside a meat-and-water-sack. Is a human really different than an ant, at the end of the day? If only we had a system to guide our laws that would help us function as a society... Maybe with some shared guidelines about why things are done... we could call it "ethics" perhaps.
- btrask 8y ago

landryraccoon 8y ago

The argument against blackmail that rings most true for me is that if you want transparency and accountability for politicians, blackmail should remain illegal. In a society where blackmail is fully legal, the incentive for journalists, politicians and corporations align fully against the public. Consider: A politician is corrupt. He's shady and gaining huge personal wealth through corruption. Or a corporation is doing business practices in secret that would probably cause widespread concern among the public. In a society where blackmail is illegal, a journalist that discovers this is fully incentivized to publish the information. If he tries to blackmail the politician or corporation, then he will if be prosecuted if it's discovered. OTOH, lets say blackmail is legal. Now the journalist has to balance serving the public interest through publishing with the now fully safe and legal option of simply threatening the politician or corporation to cut them in if they keep quiet, knowing also that since this is legal even if it's discovered they are off scott free. In other words, legal blackmail means it's fully legal to "cut in" someone who discovers a shady practice on part of the proceeds. I don't see any way in which legal blackmail doesn't keep the public less informed and more in the dark. The incentives for keeping secrets from the public are far higher in a world where blackmail is legal.

skybrian 8y ago
This is a good argument, but isn't privacy all about keeping secrets from the public? Incentives are tricky and I'm not sure we can clearly distinguish between "good" privacy and "bad" privacy. There are clear-cut cases but also a lot of grey. But I guess that's why it's better to avoid incentives and hope for good judgement.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > But I guess that's why it's better to avoid incentives and hope for good judgement. You don’t like incentives because they’re too grey, yet relying on “good judgement” is clear cut? I have to disagree. Even if incentives are murky, untangling them is way easier to get consensus on than “good judgement”.
  - 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago

>Economists have long faced an embarrassing question: If it helps deter undesirable actions, what exactly is wrong with blackmail? First, what are those "undesirable actions"? Can they be derived from first principles? If not, why can't blackmail simply be added to those (and that be enough justification that it's illegal)? In this case, it doesn't matter if blackmail "helps deter undesirable actions", since it's an undesirable action itself. In the end, what a society finds an "undesirable action" (including things like murder or incest) is a decision. Some societies are OK with ritual murder, others allowed incest. Some tribal societies under study even allowed theft. (And of course the US e.g. allows judicial executions, which are still a kind of murder). In which case, there's no reason why blackmail can't just be added to the "undesirable actions" list ad hoc -- all the items are there in an ad hoc way anyway. Second, blackmail implies a covert monetary transaction (to shush the blackmailer). As such, shouldn't it be in the open, with e.g. IRS knowing? Isn't it illegal as a blackmarket activity? Third, isn't blackmail an invasion of privacy? If someone keeps secret that they're gay, and someone blackmails them for that, aren't they threatening with an invasion of privacy, which should be illegal? Individuals should be able to control their private information. In which case, I'm arguing that even publicizing the fact that X is e.g. into BDSM or whatever without their consent should be punishable (and in some jurisdictions such actions are iirc, regardless if the accusation is true).

iandanforth 8y ago

For the uninitiated this is "rationalist" writing and makes numerous references to a Harry Potter fan-fiction written by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Some of the phrases and mannerisms might be confusing if you don't know about him and his following. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

supermatt 8y ago

I prefer the definition as described in UK Law under the Theft Act 1968: Blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss. This article seems to focus on ANY demand - your credit card 'threatening' to release information about your non-payment, for example. That is part of your agreement. That is not unwarranted. That is not blackmail. Heres some clarification with case law (again, this is UK): http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php

aidenn0 8y ago
My understanding was different: in a "legal blackmail" world debt collectors would try to dig up dirt on you to aid in the collection process: > Credit cards charge unreasonable rates because there is no collateral. If you don’t pay, they can harass you, and damage your reputation via credit reports, but mostly, as long as you don’t mind losing access to credit, you can run the no-pay strategy and it will work. > In a legal blackmail world, that credit card company would then seek out damaging information about you, to try and get you to pay. Since you would often be unable to pay, that information would often get released. Other times, you would end up lying or stealing to get the money.
- supermatt 8y ago
  From the link: Unwarranted demand: A demand is unwarranted unless: (a) that they had reasonable grounds for making the demand AND (b) that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. i.e. the use of "menaces" needs to be proper. In this case, their contract is the proper means of enforcement. Digging up additional "dirt" not covered/mentioned in the relationship would be considered improper, and is therefore blackmail.

ccnafr 8y ago

Spoiler alert: it already is!

kazinator 8y ago

If blackmail should be illegal, it should be on the grounds that it is a form of harassment, like stalking. Basically, the content of the harassment is immaterial.

nvahalik 8y ago

While RTA, I was reminded of this from a few months ago: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/chinese-millennials-secured-loans-nude-photos https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/chinese-millennial... > ... [the victim] reportedly sent several nude pictures to the lender to receive a 4,000 yuan loan ($800) ...

taeric 8y ago

This seems like it is hard to justify as illegal only because the view is restricted to just two parties. Blackmail is illegal because it leads to societal harm. Not because it leads to individual harm. That is hopefully a happy coincidence.

mamon 8y ago

The worst form of blackmail in the US is probably the plea bargain. I guess there are literally thousands of innocent people serving jail time because they did not have a decent legal counsel to stop them from signing a bad deal.

jmull 8y ago

It seems like there is a lot of overthinking. Generally, we don’t want people doing serious harm to other people for personal gain. This covers muggings, murder, blackmail, other forms of extortion, etc.

hopler 8y ago
It's amazing how this comment thread is full of people who do they comprehend the reasonable person standard of law, and think law is invalid because they can invent some pathological corner case.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

Blackmail is the contagion of corruption. It stretches the corruption like a fungi web through society- until it becomes to large to maintain or gets cut off from its food supply. Its corruption growth that reveals most corruption. Thats why the sums usually grow so fast. Because the silence of the many, in this graph is so costly.

hamilyon2 8y ago

Spillover effects and game theory all along. Sure, it is those who are interested to know the information are victims, but they do not even know and are not in position to defend themselves. So, law steps in and declares that (only) way to profit from embarrassing true information is to release it.