9 ms·

I've got a perspective here that will likely run contrary to the dominant view, but I encourage you to think about for a moment - I'm of the belief that the ab

I've got a perspective here that will likely run contrary to the dominant view, but I encourage you to think about for a moment - I'm of the belief that the ability to keep your work, voluntary exchanges, and assets private contribute to a free society in the same way that attorney/client privilege, priest/community, and spousal privilege all exist. Now, in the United States, we don't have that and people know that and live with that. But people doing business in Switzerland are under the impression that they have a very private, safe relationship with their banker, the same way you'd have with your lawyer, psychiatrist, priest, or spouse. This man breaching that is doing a very serious thing. This goes beyond politics. When you have a private relationship with a professional, sanctioned by the local law, that says that you have private confidence and that's betrayed... that's serious. If you don't believe in the Swiss banking system, not working there is acceptable. Protesting it is acceptable. Taking on a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidence, and then breaching it... that's serious. The average American might not think this way, because they don't have a private relationship with their banker. But generalize this to all duty - this man pledged duty, people were under the impression that he had a duty of confidence to them, and he breached that. This doesn't get into right/wrong, but it's something worth thinking about.

cletus 16y ago
Actually, the fact that a disgruntled tech can who exposes secret bank accounts to governments [1] gives me a lot of faith that secrecy will inevitably be broken where it actually matters. It's this same reason that allows us to dismiss such laughable conspiracy theories as the faked Moon landings, aliens at Roswell and so on. Let's not forget that many use these Swiss bank accounts for practices that vary from the questionable (eg evading taxes illegally) to the nefarious (eg hiding assets for the Nazis and various dictators). [1]: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/t/story?id=5378080&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/t/story?id=5378080&page=1
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Or hiding money from the Nazis... secrecy is agnostic, but the ability to keep your affairs private lends protection to people who get unfairly persecuted. When a benevolent government knows everything about you, that's fine until they start acting non-benevolently...
  - cletus 16y ago
    And having the Swiss hide behind secrecy rather than give the money to the descendants of those who died because concentration camps weren't in the habit of issuing death certificates. So the net effect of that secrecy was that instead of the Nazis getting that money, the Swiss did. Secrecy isn't agnostic. The lack of scrutiny enables--even encourages--people to do things they otherwise never would. What's more the purported need for secrecy is often used to justify unethical behaviour from those providing secrecy to their clients: banks in Antigua taking 15-20% commissions on money transfers they all but know to be drug-related, keeping the assets of those that died in the Holocaust and so forth. Those people now have a profit motive for such behaviour. Now I'm not arguing there shouldn't be any secrecy but the fact that people with access to such information will feel morally compelled (or simply begrudged) to reveal information on those who are doing something shady behind the veil of secrecy gives me faith that the system will ultimately balance itself out. Secrecy doesn't (and shouldn't) mean immunity from accountability.
DevX101 16y ago
>"When you have a private relationship with a professional, sanctioned by the local law" This isn't about local Swiss law. The clients broke U.S. law.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > This isn't about local Swiss law. The clients broke U.S. law. He was a banker in Geneva. He broke Swiss law to disclose to the U.S. government. (Now the discussion becomes if it's okay to break Swiss law to protect American law, which I don't have a position on... hence, "this doesn't get into right/wrong, but is worth thinking about")
  - ankimal 16y ago
    Why is he in a US prison then?
    - mgkimsal 16y ago
      He turned the info over to the US govt. From my reading of this, either he didn't tell them everything he knew, or the US thought he was withholding info, or he's in prison because everything he was doing in Switzerland was considered withholding info in the first place. I didn't quite get that, but I think it was one of those areas that landed him in prison. EDIT: Switzerland.
      - dot 16y ago
        Switzerland.
        jimboyoungblood 16y ago
        Swaziland. Makes no difference to us americans.
      - henrikschroder 16y ago
        Nitpick: http://www.swedennotswitzerland.com/img/sweden_switzerland.png http://www.swedennotswitzerland.com/img/sweden_switzerland.p...
barrkel 16y ago
Taxation is at the heart of what makes the state possible, and it's the state, as a guarantor of justice and peace, which makes creating and keeping wealth possible. The wealthy benefit more from this arrangement, and it's fair that they are taxed more as a result. I presume you're not arguing against the existence of the state, or the need for taxation for its upkeep. Given the need for taxation, making taxation fair requires information about economic transactions. But there's a balance to be struck here: having the state be informed about the details of every transaction, tied to each individual, would probably be too dangerous for liberty. But on the other hand, lack of oversight will lead to evasion and free-riding. So it seems that it's best to put effort in investigation in proportion to detecting potential free-riders. Large amounts of money held in opaque arrangements abroad would seem to me to have a high probability of abuse; and with the numbers of people involved being small, the instrumental loss of liberty in having these arrangements investigated seems to me small compared to the free-riding risk. I also object to the argument you've used; it gives me a slimy feeling reading it. You've tried to drag in this notion of privacy and respect by association with "professionals", attorneys, priests and spouses (!), to what amounts to hired thugs protecting a box of valuables. Banks spend a lot on appearances because they need to give their customers the impression that they're safe places for their customers' money, but at the end of the day, they're out to extract as much of that money as they can. Banking isn't a respectable business, particularly these days. They're a necessary part of the economic infrastructure, a bit like water supply and sewers are to cities.
- pragmatic 16y ago
  Could a system such as a national sales tax, provide privacy _and_ revenue at the same time? We need to collect data b/c the gov't has to know about your income, your investments, etc, etc. But how about a (hypothetical) system where you only pay taxes when you purchase goods. There wouldn't seem to be any fundamental reason to keep information on _who_ purchased what. Just the fact that the transaction occurred.
  - davidw 16y ago
    "Hypothetically", in Italy, lots of cash transactions with no receipts happen because of the VAT, which is something like a sales tax.
pragmatic 16y ago
This might have something to do with America's schizophrenic view of banking. The founding fathers were very suspicious of banking. Throughout American history tension existed between most of America (up until recently heavily ag and industrial) and the "New York Money Interests". The "New York Money Interests" were represented as early as pre-revolution America( see Alexander Hamilton). The anti-banking interests (epitomized by Thomas Jefferson) were mostly those indebted to the banks (like Jefferson). So I theorized that much of the lack of privacy has to do with populist concern over wealthy colluding with "big money interests" (banks). However, I'm just explaining why I think the law is like it is. I whole-heartedly support more personal privacy especially in financial matters.
_delirium 16y ago
That's a position I could see someone taking, but in this case, he's being imprisoned on exactly the opposite legal theory: the court ruled that he had a legal duty to break his secrecy sooner and more comprehensively than he did. He revealed tax fraud that was taking place, which he was partly involved in. The government alleged that he: 1) should have stepped forward sooner, and since he didn't, was guilty of willingly continuing to participate in tax fraud; and 2) had not revealed all the information in his possession, so was guilty of still partially covering up the fraud. Therefore, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Of course, that's the official story, and it's possible it's not the real reason he was prosecuted.
brown9-2 16y ago
Taking on a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidence, and then breaching it... that's serious. Even when that fiduciary responsibility entails doing things that break the law in the jurisdiction in which you operate (the US) and in which your clients live (the US)? I honestly am having a very hard time understanding your point here. You seem to be arguing that "duty" should trump legality. It does not.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Huh? I thought these were Swiss banks. As far as I know, he didn't break Swiss law. Many organizations have a fiduciary duty which may break the law in some countries. For example, Tarsnap's fiduciary duty to protect secrecy almost certainly breaks the law in China, North Korea or Iran. Do you believe their duty to protect their client's data should not trump the laws of China?
  - brown9-2 16y ago
    UBS is a Swiss bank that also operates in the United States. Birkenfeld is an American who, while in Geneva, participated in UBS activities which helped Americans hide money from the American government - which I think breaks the US law regardless of what jurisdiction the "help" happens in. Note that Birkenfeld was arrested in the US after going to the US government with information - in your Tarsnap example, it would be like a Tarsnap employee traveling to China to tell the Chinese government that he/she helped circumvent Chinese laws. I don't think anyone would be surprised if the Chinese government then chose to prosecute that person. As a business you can offer services to clients which may be illegal in some countries but fully legal in other countries - just don't go to the countries in which it is illegal and expect them to not prosecute you for helping their citizens get around their laws. Also I think the term "fiduciary duty" is being misused in your Tarsnap example - correct me if I am wrong but Tarsnap is not managing or holding their user's funds for them (the "fiduciary" part of the term), but their data.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      The broader definition of the word "fiduciary" (meaning guiding) doesn't require money to be involved, but any sort of responsibility with some expectation of duty. The root fiducial is used, for example, to refer to guide marks on a PCB design. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiduciary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiduciary (definition 3)
kenjackson 16y ago
Privacy with your banker is fine. Just pay your taxes. Just like your medical records are private, but if you are HIV+ you must disclose that to unprotected sexual partners.
rbanffy 16y ago
> Taking on a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidence, and then breaching it... that's serious. Lets imagine it's not about tax fraud, but, say, murder. You are a psychiatrist and your patient proves you he has murdered someone and states he intends to murder someone else. What is more important? Your duty towards your patient or your duty towards society?
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Three points - 1. He didn't report a specific crime, he dumped a bunch of data, some potentially criminal and some not. 2. The clients hadn't broken Swiss law, which is where he was employed and where he took his duty oaths. 3. Actually, your lawyer can't be compelled to testify against you even if you tell him you did commit murder. Swiss society believes that a man's relationship with his banker should be sacred. This guy agreed to that relationship in Switzerland. Then broke it. I'm not even saying it's wrong. Just that it's worth thinking about, because it's not clear cut at all.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > because it's not clear cut at all. Certainly not. But tax evasion is an offense more serious than people usually think.
  - infinite8s 16y ago
    Just to address point 3, your lawyer is compelled to break priveledge if you discuss a plan to commit murder (or another crime). The situation in this regard is similar, since his clients were committing on-going fraud.
xbryanx 16y ago
Your privacy ends where the IRS' authority to tax you begins. Thank goodness.
brudgers 16y ago
>"I'm of the belief that the ability to keep your work, voluntary exchanges, and assets private contribute to a free society in the same way that attorney/client privilege, priest/community, and spousal privilege all exist." The 19,000 US citizens were violating US tax law. Are you confident omerta for bankers is really a good idea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omertà http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omertà
jfager 16y ago
Do you actually know what the man's "pledged duty" was, that it was recognized by the applicable laws about privilege, and that he broke it? All of the other privileged relationships you mentioned have limits: - The attorney-client privilege does not apply to communication in pursuit of committing a new crime. - Psychiatrists are under ethical and legal obligations to break confidence when a patient reveals an intent to harm themselves or others. - The actual level of confidence communications with priests carry is variable between states.
president 16y ago
Do you think protesting would have ever gotten him anywhere? Probably not. The man was trying to do the right thing and change the world, sometimes it is necessary to go above and beyond. You're chastising him for that.
ZachPruckowski 16y ago
I agree that that's a legitimate issue, but professional confidentiality has to be suspended when you're talking about ongoing and/or future crimes. You can't use "I'm a lawyer" or "I'm a banker" as a shield to involve yourself in fraud or to help cover it up without repercussions.
mbreese 16y ago
Privilege with your attorney/doctor isn't absolute. For example, if your doctor has reason to believe that you may harm yourself or another, they have a duty to report that to the authorities for the protection of you and others. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that your lawyer would be allowed to help you actively break the law. In this case, these individuals were using their Swiss bankers to help them break US law. This is a very different thing than having confidence in the privacy of your transactions. I'd argue that his breach wasn't to his clients, but to his employer. His employer was asking him to help others break US law, so he turned them in. I see nothing wrong with that.
jbooth 16y ago
If you tell your lawyer or doctor that you're planning on committing a crime, they have to report it. Attorney-client privilege ends once you're breaking the law in the present tense with the attorney's knowledge. Similarly, here we have people who were allegedly breaking the law. Not telling the authorities would have made this guy complicit in the crime.

cletus 16y ago

Actually, the fact that a disgruntled tech can who exposes secret bank accounts to governments [1] gives me a lot of faith that secrecy will inevitably be broken where it actually matters. It's this same reason that allows us to dismiss such laughable conspiracy theories as the faked Moon landings, aliens at Roswell and so on. Let's not forget that many use these Swiss bank accounts for practices that vary from the questionable (eg evading taxes illegally) to the nefarious (eg hiding assets for the Nazis and various dictators). [1]: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/t/story?id=5378080&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/t/story?id=5378080&page=1

lionhearted 16y ago
Or hiding money from the Nazis... secrecy is agnostic, but the ability to keep your affairs private lends protection to people who get unfairly persecuted. When a benevolent government knows everything about you, that's fine until they start acting non-benevolently...
- cletus 16y ago
  And having the Swiss hide behind secrecy rather than give the money to the descendants of those who died because concentration camps weren't in the habit of issuing death certificates. So the net effect of that secrecy was that instead of the Nazis getting that money, the Swiss did. Secrecy isn't agnostic. The lack of scrutiny enables--even encourages--people to do things they otherwise never would. What's more the purported need for secrecy is often used to justify unethical behaviour from those providing secrecy to their clients: banks in Antigua taking 15-20% commissions on money transfers they all but know to be drug-related, keeping the assets of those that died in the Holocaust and so forth. Those people now have a profit motive for such behaviour. Now I'm not arguing there shouldn't be any secrecy but the fact that people with access to such information will feel morally compelled (or simply begrudged) to reveal information on those who are doing something shady behind the veil of secrecy gives me faith that the system will ultimately balance itself out. Secrecy doesn't (and shouldn't) mean immunity from accountability.

DevX101 16y ago

>"When you have a private relationship with a professional, sanctioned by the local law" This isn't about local Swiss law. The clients broke U.S. law.

lionhearted 16y ago
> This isn't about local Swiss law. The clients broke U.S. law. He was a banker in Geneva. He broke Swiss law to disclose to the U.S. government. (Now the discussion becomes if it's okay to break Swiss law to protect American law, which I don't have a position on... hence, "this doesn't get into right/wrong, but is worth thinking about")
- ankimal 16y ago
  Why is he in a US prison then?
  - mgkimsal 16y ago
    He turned the info over to the US govt. From my reading of this, either he didn't tell them everything he knew, or the US thought he was withholding info, or he's in prison because everything he was doing in Switzerland was considered withholding info in the first place. I didn't quite get that, but I think it was one of those areas that landed him in prison. EDIT: Switzerland.
    - dot 16y ago
      Switzerland.
      - jimboyoungblood 16y ago
        Swaziland. Makes no difference to us americans.
    - henrikschroder 16y ago
      Nitpick: http://www.swedennotswitzerland.com/img/sweden_switzerland.png http://www.swedennotswitzerland.com/img/sweden_switzerland.p...

barrkel 16y ago

Taxation is at the heart of what makes the state possible, and it's the state, as a guarantor of justice and peace, which makes creating and keeping wealth possible. The wealthy benefit more from this arrangement, and it's fair that they are taxed more as a result. I presume you're not arguing against the existence of the state, or the need for taxation for its upkeep. Given the need for taxation, making taxation fair requires information about economic transactions. But there's a balance to be struck here: having the state be informed about the details of every transaction, tied to each individual, would probably be too dangerous for liberty. But on the other hand, lack of oversight will lead to evasion and free-riding. So it seems that it's best to put effort in investigation in proportion to detecting potential free-riders. Large amounts of money held in opaque arrangements abroad would seem to me to have a high probability of abuse; and with the numbers of people involved being small, the instrumental loss of liberty in having these arrangements investigated seems to me small compared to the free-riding risk. I also object to the argument you've used; it gives me a slimy feeling reading it. You've tried to drag in this notion of privacy and respect by association with "professionals", attorneys, priests and spouses (!), to what amounts to hired thugs protecting a box of valuables. Banks spend a lot on appearances because they need to give their customers the impression that they're safe places for their customers' money, but at the end of the day, they're out to extract as much of that money as they can. Banking isn't a respectable business, particularly these days. They're a necessary part of the economic infrastructure, a bit like water supply and sewers are to cities.

pragmatic 16y ago
Could a system such as a national sales tax, provide privacy _and_ revenue at the same time? We need to collect data b/c the gov't has to know about your income, your investments, etc, etc. But how about a (hypothetical) system where you only pay taxes when you purchase goods. There wouldn't seem to be any fundamental reason to keep information on _who_ purchased what. Just the fact that the transaction occurred.
- davidw 16y ago
  "Hypothetically", in Italy, lots of cash transactions with no receipts happen because of the VAT, which is something like a sales tax.

pragmatic 16y ago

This might have something to do with America's schizophrenic view of banking. The founding fathers were very suspicious of banking. Throughout American history tension existed between most of America (up until recently heavily ag and industrial) and the "New York Money Interests". The "New York Money Interests" were represented as early as pre-revolution America( see Alexander Hamilton). The anti-banking interests (epitomized by Thomas Jefferson) were mostly those indebted to the banks (like Jefferson). So I theorized that much of the lack of privacy has to do with populist concern over wealthy colluding with "big money interests" (banks). However, I'm just explaining why I think the law is like it is. I whole-heartedly support more personal privacy especially in financial matters.

_delirium 16y ago

That's a position I could see someone taking, but in this case, he's being imprisoned on exactly the opposite legal theory: the court ruled that he had a legal duty to break his secrecy sooner and more comprehensively than he did. He revealed tax fraud that was taking place, which he was partly involved in. The government alleged that he: 1) should have stepped forward sooner, and since he didn't, was guilty of willingly continuing to participate in tax fraud; and 2) had not revealed all the information in his possession, so was guilty of still partially covering up the fraud. Therefore, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Of course, that's the official story, and it's possible it's not the real reason he was prosecuted.

brown9-2 16y ago

Taking on a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidence, and then breaching it... that's serious. Even when that fiduciary responsibility entails doing things that break the law in the jurisdiction in which you operate (the US) and in which your clients live (the US)? I honestly am having a very hard time understanding your point here. You seem to be arguing that "duty" should trump legality. It does not.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Huh? I thought these were Swiss banks. As far as I know, he didn't break Swiss law. Many organizations have a fiduciary duty which may break the law in some countries. For example, Tarsnap's fiduciary duty to protect secrecy almost certainly breaks the law in China, North Korea or Iran. Do you believe their duty to protect their client's data should not trump the laws of China?
- brown9-2 16y ago
  UBS is a Swiss bank that also operates in the United States. Birkenfeld is an American who, while in Geneva, participated in UBS activities which helped Americans hide money from the American government - which I think breaks the US law regardless of what jurisdiction the "help" happens in. Note that Birkenfeld was arrested in the US after going to the US government with information - in your Tarsnap example, it would be like a Tarsnap employee traveling to China to tell the Chinese government that he/she helped circumvent Chinese laws. I don't think anyone would be surprised if the Chinese government then chose to prosecute that person. As a business you can offer services to clients which may be illegal in some countries but fully legal in other countries - just don't go to the countries in which it is illegal and expect them to not prosecute you for helping their citizens get around their laws. Also I think the term "fiduciary duty" is being misused in your Tarsnap example - correct me if I am wrong but Tarsnap is not managing or holding their user's funds for them (the "fiduciary" part of the term), but their data.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    The broader definition of the word "fiduciary" (meaning guiding) doesn't require money to be involved, but any sort of responsibility with some expectation of duty. The root fiducial is used, for example, to refer to guide marks on a PCB design. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiduciary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiduciary (definition 3)

kenjackson 16y ago

Privacy with your banker is fine. Just pay your taxes. Just like your medical records are private, but if you are HIV+ you must disclose that to unprotected sexual partners.

rbanffy 16y ago

> Taking on a fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidence, and then breaching it... that's serious. Lets imagine it's not about tax fraud, but, say, murder. You are a psychiatrist and your patient proves you he has murdered someone and states he intends to murder someone else. What is more important? Your duty towards your patient or your duty towards society?

lionhearted 16y ago
Three points - 1. He didn't report a specific crime, he dumped a bunch of data, some potentially criminal and some not. 2. The clients hadn't broken Swiss law, which is where he was employed and where he took his duty oaths. 3. Actually, your lawyer can't be compelled to testify against you even if you tell him you did commit murder. Swiss society believes that a man's relationship with his banker should be sacred. This guy agreed to that relationship in Switzerland. Then broke it. I'm not even saying it's wrong. Just that it's worth thinking about, because it's not clear cut at all.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > because it's not clear cut at all. Certainly not. But tax evasion is an offense more serious than people usually think.
- infinite8s 16y ago
  Just to address point 3, your lawyer is compelled to break priveledge if you discuss a plan to commit murder (or another crime). The situation in this regard is similar, since his clients were committing on-going fraud.

xbryanx 16y ago

Your privacy ends where the IRS' authority to tax you begins. Thank goodness.

brudgers 16y ago

>"I'm of the belief that the ability to keep your work, voluntary exchanges, and assets private contribute to a free society in the same way that attorney/client privilege, priest/community, and spousal privilege all exist." The 19,000 US citizens were violating US tax law. Are you confident omerta for bankers is really a good idea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omertà http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omertà

jfager 16y ago

Do you actually know what the man's "pledged duty" was, that it was recognized by the applicable laws about privilege, and that he broke it? All of the other privileged relationships you mentioned have limits: - The attorney-client privilege does not apply to communication in pursuit of committing a new crime. - Psychiatrists are under ethical and legal obligations to break confidence when a patient reveals an intent to harm themselves or others. - The actual level of confidence communications with priests carry is variable between states.

president 16y ago

Do you think protesting would have ever gotten him anywhere? Probably not. The man was trying to do the right thing and change the world, sometimes it is necessary to go above and beyond. You're chastising him for that.

ZachPruckowski 16y ago

I agree that that's a legitimate issue, but professional confidentiality has to be suspended when you're talking about ongoing and/or future crimes. You can't use "I'm a lawyer" or "I'm a banker" as a shield to involve yourself in fraud or to help cover it up without repercussions.

mbreese 16y ago

Privilege with your attorney/doctor isn't absolute. For example, if your doctor has reason to believe that you may harm yourself or another, they have a duty to report that to the authorities for the protection of you and others. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that your lawyer would be allowed to help you actively break the law. In this case, these individuals were using their Swiss bankers to help them break US law. This is a very different thing than having confidence in the privacy of your transactions. I'd argue that his breach wasn't to his clients, but to his employer. His employer was asking him to help others break US law, so he turned them in. I see nothing wrong with that.

jbooth 16y ago

If you tell your lawyer or doctor that you're planning on committing a crime, they have to report it. Attorney-client privilege ends once you're breaking the law in the present tense with the attorney's knowledge. Similarly, here we have people who were allegedly breaking the law. Not telling the authorities would have made this guy complicit in the crime.