5 ms·

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that are illegal together (eg it’s legal to buy alcohol, it’s legal to be 16, it’s not legal to be 16 and buy alcohol. It’s legal to drink, it’s legal to ride a motorcycle, it’s not legal to ride a motorcycle when you have been drinking etc). It’s untrue on its face given that the threat part of blackmail may well be illegal on its own and the reveal of the information may be illegal depending on what the information is and how it was obtained..

landoftheice 4y ago
[dead]
Closi 4y ago
There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now a new incentive to threaten to release the information. 2. If blackmail is illegal, it also incentivises others to go and find secrets that they can then exploit for money/sex/other. Paper even resorts to effectively calling Sam a facist at one point because he is against the free market(!). I think the below excerpt of the paper sums up the papers (radical) free-market views: > Altman asserts that "charging poison victims who face imminent death more for medication than one would charge less desperate purchasers of the same drug exploits their hardships." [however] he doesn't seem to realize that those societies which allow free enterprise [...] are far more likely to have medicines that will save lives than ones which embrace socialism, regulationism, interventionism and [which represent] the fascist model favored by Altman. I didn't know the idea that you shouldn't charge someone who is poisoned more for antidote was considered fascist or even particularly socialist!
- OscarCunningham 4y ago
  Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?
  - Closi 4y ago
    Can you give a specific example?
    - OscarCunningham 4y ago
      You gave a nice view from your house. I own the land next to your house and tell you I will build a new house blocking your view unless you pay me not to do that.
      - Closi 4y ago
        This scenario should probably be legal - the stakes aren’t there for me to consider it similar to blackmail. It depends a bit on intent though - if the purpose of building the house is just to extort the other landowner of money, and it would make a meaningful difference to their house value, it starts to get a lot more grey to me. There are a whole string of scenarios between “not blackmail”, to “probably not blackmail” to “definitely blackmail” depending on the scenario. A bit like how with assault if you poked someone that is probably fine, but that doesn’t make punching someone in the face ok (but what is a punch if not a bigger poke?).
- roenxi 4y ago
  That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful. An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at a known price. Not to mention that anyone could buy from the chemist in the good times and set up shop just outside selling at stable prices arbitraging the scheme away. A key reason of why free markets are practical is that it isn't effective to try and segment market based on consumers' raw need. The product needs to be genuinely different for that strategy to have a chance (eg, an expedited service - which is probably going to justify extra cost to someone dying of poison).
clnq 4y ago
Using 36” gas chainsaw is legal, and performing surgery is legal. Yet I am prosecuted for gross malpractice — how can this be? /s
- Closi 4y ago
  It's a very thin definition of the word "paradox". It's like saying the concept of Spaghetti Carbonara is a Paradox because I don't like eating plain spaghetti, and I don't like eating Bechamel Sauce, but I DO like eating those two things combined. Paradox!
  - clnq 4y ago
    If only the sum of components did not equal the whole thing... No, they must. Like a pile of wheels, an engine, metal, a steering wheel, some pedals and a seat naturally equals a car. The qualities of the parts are exactly the qualities of their product.
clnq 4y ago
Blackmail is one of the classic examples used to illustrate the composition fallacy. Bribery, insider trading, cartel price fixing, and many other fraud schemes are others.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  The analogy between blackmail and many other things including insider trading is noted in the paper.
cedilla 4y ago
More than that: not only is it possible to find examples of two "legal rights" making a "wrong", it's impossible to find an atomic legal wrong. Everything can be broken down so far that you are left with actions that are legal when you ignore the context.
porsager 4y ago
If it's not that hard, would you then mind setting up a case where you show who the victim is and why?
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Sure Regina vs Nigel Wright. The victim was Tesco because the blackmailer attempted to get Tesco to pay him to stop contaminating their food. They would lose money if the news got out their food was being contaminated. Like I say it’s really not hard to identify the victim if you’re not doing the straw man exercise in the paper where you define blackmail as only threatening to spread gossip. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resource/case-law-r-v-nigel-wright-no-anonymity-for-corporate-victims-in-blackmail-cases-aidan-wills/ https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resource/case-law-r-v-nigel-wrig... Edit to add: here’s the definition of blackmail in the UK for reference https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21
  - porsager 4y ago
    But the illegal act is him contaminating the food. Of course the victim is tesco and their customers, but that's not related to the blackmail in any way. What is happening in that case is extortion. Not blackmail. [1] I also don't see any difference in your linked definition to the one used in the paper. [1] https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-and-extortion/ https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-...
    - seanhunter 4y ago
      No, both the contamination and the blackmail were found by the court to be illegal. And he was convicted of blackmail so I don't think your argument of it not being blackmail makes any sense whatsoever.
      - porsager 4y ago
        You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot. So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come up with an example where it's easy to identify the victim? Even so, the matter discussed is if blackmailing should be illegal. So here's an example. I go to a doctor who advertises as a specialist in thyroid diseases. Being a doctor myself I can instantly tell he's a quack doctor. Who is the victim if I "blackmail" him by saying he has to pay me $10.000 to not tell the world about it? Is he the victim? He obviously breached contract by selling me something he was not in possession of, so in that case, I'm the victim of fraud, but is he the victim for me seeking restitution by means of blackmail? Well, maybe you could say that the other people who believe him are the victims, but they are not the victims of the blackmail, they are is I was, the victim of his fraud. Let's take another example where a previous crime was not necessarily involved. I have found you cheating on your girlfried. I tell you to pay me $10.000 not to go tell her. Should making that offer be illegal? Are you a victim when you can simply agree not to? I don't know if you read the paper, but the point made is that asking for an amount of money not to disseminate knowledge shouldn't be illegal. Would you say NDA's should be illegal?
olalonde 4y ago
The "paradox" stems from the fact that the victim is really a victim of the gossip. But gossiping is actually legal. So they are not really a victim of that. So what are they a victim of? From the offer to not gossip? But that offer is actually beneficial to them: it provides a way to prevent the gossip. So it's hard to say they are a victim of that. etc. I can't say I have thought a lot about this but I wouldn't dismiss the author's point that quickly.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Except it's frequently not "just gossip", but career- or relationship-destroying information (in the case of people) or PII data (in the case of companies). Plus, blackmail isn't usually done with just gossip, but with concrete evidence and hard data.

landoftheice 4y ago

[dead]

Closi 4y ago

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties. This is wrong for at least two reasons: 1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now a new incentive to threaten to release the information. 2. If blackmail is illegal, it also incentivises others to go and find secrets that they can then exploit for money/sex/other. Paper even resorts to effectively calling Sam a facist at one point because he is against the free market(!). I think the below excerpt of the paper sums up the papers (radical) free-market views: > Altman asserts that "charging poison victims who face imminent death more for medication than one would charge less desperate purchasers of the same drug exploits their hardships." [however] he doesn't seem to realize that those societies which allow free enterprise [...] are far more likely to have medicines that will save lives than ones which embrace socialism, regulationism, interventionism and [which represent] the fascist model favored by Altman. I didn't know the idea that you shouldn't charge someone who is poisoned more for antidote was considered fascist or even particularly socialist!

OscarCunningham 4y ago
Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?
- Closi 4y ago
  Can you give a specific example?
  - OscarCunningham 4y ago
    You gave a nice view from your house. I own the land next to your house and tell you I will build a new house blocking your view unless you pay me not to do that.
    - Closi 4y ago
      This scenario should probably be legal - the stakes aren’t there for me to consider it similar to blackmail. It depends a bit on intent though - if the purpose of building the house is just to extort the other landowner of money, and it would make a meaningful difference to their house value, it starts to get a lot more grey to me. There are a whole string of scenarios between “not blackmail”, to “probably not blackmail” to “definitely blackmail” depending on the scenario. A bit like how with assault if you poked someone that is probably fine, but that doesn’t make punching someone in the face ok (but what is a punch if not a bigger poke?).
roenxi 4y ago
That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful. An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at a known price. Not to mention that anyone could buy from the chemist in the good times and set up shop just outside selling at stable prices arbitraging the scheme away. A key reason of why free markets are practical is that it isn't effective to try and segment market based on consumers' raw need. The product needs to be genuinely different for that strategy to have a chance (eg, an expedited service - which is probably going to justify extra cost to someone dying of poison).

clnq 4y ago

Using 36” gas chainsaw is legal, and performing surgery is legal. Yet I am prosecuted for gross malpractice — how can this be? /s

Closi 4y ago
It's a very thin definition of the word "paradox". It's like saying the concept of Spaghetti Carbonara is a Paradox because I don't like eating plain spaghetti, and I don't like eating Bechamel Sauce, but I DO like eating those two things combined. Paradox!
- clnq 4y ago
  If only the sum of components did not equal the whole thing... No, they must. Like a pile of wheels, an engine, metal, a steering wheel, some pedals and a seat naturally equals a car. The qualities of the parts are exactly the qualities of their product.

clnq 4y ago

Blackmail is one of the classic examples used to illustrate the composition fallacy. Bribery, insider trading, cartel price fixing, and many other fraud schemes are others.

amadeuspagel 4y ago
The analogy between blackmail and many other things including insider trading is noted in the paper.

cedilla 4y ago

More than that: not only is it possible to find examples of two "legal rights" making a "wrong", it's impossible to find an atomic legal wrong. Everything can be broken down so far that you are left with actions that are legal when you ignore the context.

porsager 4y ago

If it's not that hard, would you then mind setting up a case where you show who the victim is and why?

seanhunter 4y ago
Sure Regina vs Nigel Wright. The victim was Tesco because the blackmailer attempted to get Tesco to pay him to stop contaminating their food. They would lose money if the news got out their food was being contaminated. Like I say it’s really not hard to identify the victim if you’re not doing the straw man exercise in the paper where you define blackmail as only threatening to spread gossip. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resource/case-law-r-v-nigel-wright-no-anonymity-for-corporate-victims-in-blackmail-cases-aidan-wills/ https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resource/case-law-r-v-nigel-wrig... Edit to add: here’s the definition of blackmail in the UK for reference https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21
- porsager 4y ago
  But the illegal act is him contaminating the food. Of course the victim is tesco and their customers, but that's not related to the blackmail in any way. What is happening in that case is extortion. Not blackmail. [1] I also don't see any difference in your linked definition to the one used in the paper. [1] https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-and-extortion/ https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-...
  - seanhunter 4y ago
    No, both the contamination and the blackmail were found by the court to be illegal. And he was convicted of blackmail so I don't think your argument of it not being blackmail makes any sense whatsoever.
    - porsager 4y ago
      You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot. So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come up with an example where it's easy to identify the victim? Even so, the matter discussed is if blackmailing should be illegal. So here's an example. I go to a doctor who advertises as a specialist in thyroid diseases. Being a doctor myself I can instantly tell he's a quack doctor. Who is the victim if I "blackmail" him by saying he has to pay me $10.000 to not tell the world about it? Is he the victim? He obviously breached contract by selling me something he was not in possession of, so in that case, I'm the victim of fraud, but is he the victim for me seeking restitution by means of blackmail? Well, maybe you could say that the other people who believe him are the victims, but they are not the victims of the blackmail, they are is I was, the victim of his fraud. Let's take another example where a previous crime was not necessarily involved. I have found you cheating on your girlfried. I tell you to pay me $10.000 not to go tell her. Should making that offer be illegal? Are you a victim when you can simply agree not to? I don't know if you read the paper, but the point made is that asking for an amount of money not to disseminate knowledge shouldn't be illegal. Would you say NDA's should be illegal?

olalonde 4y ago

The "paradox" stems from the fact that the victim is really a victim of the gossip. But gossiping is actually legal. So they are not really a victim of that. So what are they a victim of? From the offer to not gossip? But that offer is actually beneficial to them: it provides a way to prevent the gossip. So it's hard to say they are a victim of that. etc. I can't say I have thought a lot about this but I wouldn't dismiss the author's point that quickly.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Except it's frequently not "just gossip", but career- or relationship-destroying information (in the case of people) or PII data (in the case of companies). Plus, blackmail isn't usually done with just gossip, but with concrete evidence and hard data.