The below has been adapted from the original blogpost (with very extensive
links/referencing) at:
https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/the-a4ai-discussion-a-summation/
As some of you will know I recently published a blogpost which presents a
detailed critique of the A4AI (the Alliance for
On 04/06/2016 07:17 AM, Florian Cramer wrote:
The Cold War has taught us to be suspicious about NGO activity and
possible governmental agendas behind them.
But Florian, don't you think we're at antipodes from the Cold War? And
how much suspicion is really needed to understand those
On 5 Apr 2016, at 9:17, Patrice Riemens wrote:
7. Leaks have become unquestionable.
With earlier disclosures, the authenticity of documents leaked could
always be credibly disputed. Nowadays the authenticity of materials
obtained thru electronic leaks, due to its sheer magnitude and the one
to
On 04/06/2016 02:17 PM, Florian Cramer wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Felix Stalder wrote:
>
>> > Some crucial questions remain unanswered: Why is there no notable US
>> > American citizen among the "accused"?
>>
>> But not for this reason.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Felix Stalder wrote:
> > Some crucial questions remain unanswered: Why is there no notable US
> > American citizen among the "accused"?
>
> But not for this reason. Much more important, as Brian pointed out,
> is at the US
On 2016-04-05 23:01, Geert Lovink wrote:
> Thanks, Florian. Very interesting. What’s confusing is that the
> mainstream media (radio, TV, newspaper) that report about the Panama
This is interesting, even crucial, because now other tax authorities may
obtain the data from the Australian Taxation
§I like these points (yours I guess? As you could have got them form
someone-else by a simple cut & paste)
On 5 Apr 2016, at 15:17, Patrice Riemens wrote:
7. Leaks have become unquestionable.
With earlier disclosures, the authenticity of documents leaked could
always be credibly disputed.
On 2016-04-05 20:42, Florian Cramer wrote:
> So what the Panama Papers really are is a warning to whisteblowers
> not to "exclusively" give sensitive data to media companies, but to
> use whisteblower platforms like Wikileaks instead.
Agreed.
> Some crucial questions remain unanswered: Why is