Panama Papers

[crazy canuck]

Another example of the law breaking with morality.

How so?

I find your position not only immoral but odious.  Think about the ramifications of a blanket protection for all secrets.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm trying to imagine some terrible consequences that might come of that, but I'm not coming up with anything.

Maybe you can help me.

Edit: How do you practice law if you don't believe in protecting peoples' private information anyway? 

[crazy canuck]

I'm trying to imagine some terrible consequences that might come of that, but I'm not coming up with anything.

Maybe you can help me.

Sure.  You propose a blanket protection for all secrets in general.  So lets say there is a citizen who wants to know something about the operation of their government; a shareholder who wants to find out something about the decisions made by a Board of Directors or the executives of a corporation; a tax collector who wants to assess whether proper taxes have been paid; a parent who wants to find out what actions a teacher took against their children in a residential school.  There are many other examples but I am sure you can see the mischief that is created by what you propose.

[MadImmortalMan]

Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.

[Iormlund]

Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.

A warrant? So during tax season you'd need warrants for everyone that earns income in the state? Doesn't sound very practical.

[MadImmortalMan]

Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.

A warrant? So during tax season you'd need warrants for everyone that earns income in the state? Doesn't sound very practical.

Nah. He was talking about audits.

[Martinus]

Uhm, no. The Panama Papers are largely about private individuals and their wholly owned company vehicles, not about corporations.

So companies have a right to privacy?  I don't think so.  I don't see why it would matter who owns the company, the company isn't a person and doesn't get rights.

I would think there is a qualitative difference between an actual corporation (especially a public one) and simply a corporate vehicle of a private individual. The legal form in which one holds his or her assets should not have an influence on his or her rights.

Besides, again, the Panama Papers are not really about what the corporate vehicle owns, but who are the private individuals owning the corporate vehicle. The distinction may be lost on you, as you seem fairly ignorant on these matters, but this is exactly about the question whether an individual has a right not to disclose which assets he or she owns - whether these are shares in a company or other types of assets.

[Martinus]

I'm trying to imagine some terrible consequences that might come of that, but I'm not coming up with anything.

Maybe you can help me.

Sure.  You propose a blanket protection for all secrets in general.

All of these are examples of exceptions to the general rule that yes, people and organisations have a right to keep their affairs secret and you need a special cause to overcome that right. For example:

So lets say there is a citizen who wants to know something about the operation of their government;

That right is far from absolute and is very often (perhaps too often) trumped by some sort of state secrecy. And, of course, unlike the affairs of another private individual, you have an actual legitimate interest in finding out about the affairs of the government of the country you are a citizen of.

a shareholder who wants to find out something about the decisions made by a Board of Directors or the executives of a corporation;

Same thing. As a shareholder, you own a part of the company and have a legitimate interest to do so (and that interest can still be limited or curtailed, especially if your stake is minimal). No such right exists for a competitor or a third party.

a tax collector who wants to assess whether proper taxes have been paid;

That's, as MIM points out, like any power of a public authority investigating a breach of law. Hopefully, you live in a country where such power can only be exercised with a court warrant and not based on an arbitrary decision of an unelected authority.

a parent who wants to find out what actions a teacher took against their children in a residential school.

Likewise, there is a contractual relationship between the parent and the school, and furthermore a right arising out of the parental authority (similarly, the parent has a right to find out about the medical condition of a child and it does not violate the doctor's secrecy). The parent has no right to find out those things about someone else's kid, though.

There are many other examples but I am sure you can see the mischief that is created by what you propose.

Sure. Only those who have something to hide should be afraid. We should, generally, do away with snooping warrants or any restrictions on the government reading our mail and emails. After all, it creates too much mischief.

[Martinus]

No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. 

If you prick us, do we not bleed?

And sue? 

I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.

It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.

Never had you for a socialist. But I guess you can take Berkut out of a ghetto but you can't take ghetto out of Berkut.

[Jaron]

No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. 

If you prick us, do we not bleed?

And sue? 

I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.

It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.

Never had you for a socialist. But I guess you can take Berkut out of a ghetto but you can't take ghetto out of Berkut.

[Eddie Teach]

Why do you think Berkut's Jewish? 

[Martinus]

Jewish? I thought he was black.

[DGuller]

I thought he was Ukrainian? 

[crazy canuck]

Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.

A warrant? So during tax season you'd need warrants for everyone that earns income in the state? Doesn't sound very practical.

Nah. He was talking about audits.

No, he was talking about the routine checking of taxpayer documents that are required to be filed along with a return.   Your notion of blanket secrecy does away with that.

Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.

I see, so just one question into the discussion and your theory of blanket privacy rights isnt so absolute after all.

But there are further problems with your theory.  I am not sure what you mean by a "public corporation".   Do you mean a publicly traded company?  In that case how do you get out of the problem of a shareholder being faced with a wall of secrecy?  What about a minority shareholder in a non listed company?  Do you just leave them with no recourse because of your blanket rule? 

I am not sure what you mean by "residential schools don't have rights".  The entities that run those schools (which are typically privately run institutions) certainly do.

Go back and think about this a bit more.

[crazy canuck]

No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. 

If you prick us, do we not bleed?

And sue? 

I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.

It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.

Never had you for a socialist. But I guess you can take Berkut out of a ghetto but you can't take ghetto out of Berkut.

You understand there is a difference between advocating against crony capitalism and being a communist right?