Re: 'responsible' handling of the Panama Papers
Excellent, Ted. I think what the "responsible" journalists don't get is that this isn't about criminal wrong-doing (well some of it is). The problem at its base isn't about whether folks did or did not break the law but rather that the law itself is wrong (most certainly the result of effective lobbying by the 1% and others) allowing for folks to get out of paying what they should be paying in tax. (The folks demonstrating in Iceland seem to have got this right.) So the objective here is not to save the innocent, in this circumstance there may be relatively few or even no innocents, rather it is how to contribute to a global campaign to put laws on the books to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share. So as you most effectively argue, the more information the better, and the journo's involved need a lot wider input into the filters that they are using for saving us from ourselves. And we all should be remembering that the biggest and most egregious tax dodgers aren't the Messi's and Cameron's of the world rather they are Google, and Facebook, and the big drug companies. M -Original Message- From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of t byfield Sent: April 7, 2016 8:08 AM To: nettim...@kein.org Subject: 'responsible' handling of the Panama Papers Here's a mail I just sent to a list devoted to discussion of 'responsible data.' Cheers, T - - - - - - - 8< SNIP! 8< - - - - - - - Hi, all -- I appreciate that a forum devoted to responsible data is what it says on the tin, but I want to question the reflexive assumption that journalists' gatekeeping role is the most responsible course of action in the case of the Panama Papers. It may be the most *defensible* and it may be the most *professional*, but a lot of other freight can be smuggled in under labels like that. That's basically what Mossack Fonseca did: use anodyne language to mask activities that -- to put it charitably -- benefited the few at the expense of the many. And while it would be grossly unfair to lump the investigative journalists working on the papers together with MF's staff, it is a *fact* that, for the purposes of public access to the vast majority of the documents, the actions of both groups will have the same outcome. And that's a material fact, because it is how many powerful forces will exploit this leak to prevent another like it from happening again -- for example, by intimidating journalists into acting 'professionally.' <...> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: 'responsible' handling of the Panama Papers
So far Panama Papers have been infinitesimal, ldespite the humongous bloviation: 184 files, 651 pages, about .0015% of the unsubstantiated mad-dog frothing 11.5 Million. Papers hosts claim all froth will not be released, to not madden the public, not like an unspeakable gutter cur WL, but have not yelped how many will be frothcoming nor when the residue will be disappeared by computer error handover to government bounty rewarders (at 30% of the taxes recovered - whistleblowing is top route to top and confidential). 400 shit and shinola Panama Paper withholderss could become Silicon Alley millionaires by complying with an IRS-NGO secrecy agreement like Greenwald, Taibbi and Cie by diverting attention from Omidyar-Bezos-Slim bribing press hallelujah of wealth for fearless journalism and offshore Tor's faux anonymity Panamanian sting. Enlarged narrative confections of the itty-bitty evidence, lately jumped on board by the New York Times by hyperbolized quoting the hosts in lieu of demanding extensive proof and by sidebarring reports on a Nazi (HT Mike Godwin) and a Latinista fabulist novelist for jesus-sakes, is quite Roberto Bola?o, as if that is the last-call Magarita of sclerotic press losing its rocks over big barrels of tequila. "Panama Papers" must have been voted in over "Panama Channel" by rigging the Big Box cash registers to exaggerate the value of faux verstand. Cheers to your pooch, Ted At 11:08 AM 4/7/2016, you wrote: >Here's a mail I just sent to a list devoted to discussion of 'responsible >data.' > >Cheers, >T > >- - - - - - - 8< SNIP! 8< - - - - - - - > >Hi, all -- > >I appreciate that a forum devoted to responsible >data is what it says on the tin, but I want to >question the reflexive assumption that >journalists' gatekeeping role is the most >responsible course of action in the case of the >Panama Papers. It may be the most *defensible* >and it may be the most *professional*, but a lot >of other freight can be smuggled in under labels >like that. That's basically what Mossack Fonseca >did: use anodyne language to mask activities >that -- to put it charitably -- benefited the >few at the expense of the many. And while it >would be grossly unfair to lump the >investigative journalists working on the papers >together with MF's staff, it is a *fact* that, >for the purposes of public access to the vast >majority of the documents, the actions of both >groups will have the same outcome. And that's a >material fact, because it is how many powerful >forces will exploit this leak to prevent another >like it from happening again -- for example, by >intimidating journalists into acting 'professionally.' <...> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
'responsible' handling of the Panama Papers
Here's a mail I just sent to a list devoted to discussion of
'responsible data.'
Cheers,
T
- - - - - - - 8< SNIP! 8< - - - - - - -
Hi, all --
I appreciate that a forum devoted to responsible data is what it says on
the tin, but I want to question the reflexive assumption that
journalists' gatekeeping role is the most responsible course of action
in the case of the Panama Papers. It may be the most *defensible* and it
may be the most *professional*, but a lot of other freight can be
smuggled in under labels like that. That's basically what Mossack
Fonseca did: use anodyne language to mask activities that -- to put it
charitably -- benefited the few at the expense of the many. And while it
would be grossly unfair to lump the investigative journalists working on
the papers together with MF's staff, it is a *fact* that, for the
purposes of public access to the vast majority of the documents, the
actions of both groups will have the same outcome. And that's a material
fact, because it is how many powerful forces will exploit this leak to
prevent another like it from happening again -- for example, by
intimidating journalists into acting 'professionally.'
That's not to say that a precautionary principle shouldn't be considered
-- of course it should, but only as one factor among many. The challenge
in a case like this isn't to say, look, we're being responsible -- which
is unfortunately one of the things the ICIJ's Gerard Ryle did when he
took that swipe at Wikileaks ("We're not Wikileaks. We're trying to show
that journalism can be done responsibly"). Instead, the challenge is to
define responsibility *outside* of 'professional' frameworks.
Here are a few rough perspectives:
(1) Ethical: Sean's points are right on, but no matter how well-designed
and -implemented the governance structure is, publics (plural) are being
told, basically, what you don't know won't hurt you. I don't think
that's a safe assumption in the case of a tax-haven data. On the
contrary, we could equally to assume the opposite, that the burden
should fall on the stakeholders to prove that their activities are
benign. Either way, people will get hurt; who gets hurt will change
based on how much is revealed. But we shouldn't naively assume that a
handful of journalists operating under tremendous time constraints --
individual, professional, and cyclical -- will be able to perform an
adequate triage forty years of documents.
(2) Historical: The Panama Papers will have an immense blowback.
Governments will crack down quickly, in some cases brutally, and
private-sector entities (law firms, accountants, shippers, etc) will
clamp down to make sure this kind of fiasco never happens to them. And,
crucially, I'm pretty certain we'll start seeing provisions that address
leaks like this in bilateral and multilateral treaties like TPP and TTIP
-- provisions ensuring that 'violators' can be pursued in jurisdictions
with the most draconian civil and criminal codes. While I wouldn't say
this is a one-time chance, you can be sure that the 'professional'
considerations that many journalists around the world will be weighing
next time around will be very different -- and much more fearful. I
don't think a hyper-cautious approach to what is released will mitigate
that any more than the hyper-cautious approach in the case of the
Snowden files mitigated the US intelligence establishment's response.
But I *do* think that a much more open approach to the Panama Papers
could fuel substantive changes that would protect leakers,
whistleblowers, journalists, and the specialists they rely on.
(3) Discursive: In many countries there are laws and regulations that,
however poorly, define how 'public' documents actually become publicly
accessible. But in the case of large-scale leaks, the laws will be
murky, speculative, or negative (for example, statutes of limitations).
The data is in a legal limbo not unlike the situations that Assange and
Snowden face -- a sort of abandoned endgame with just a few moves left.
What should happen to it? Who decides? On what basis? Using what
procedure? On what schedule? How can the answers be reviewed, validated,
refined? Again, 'professional' frameworks for answering those questions
are problematic. If the decisions are too provocative, the profession
itself will come under attack -- for example, by means of changes to
media laws, licensing, accreditation, and so on (and those are just the
'legal' means). But if the decisions are too opaque, the public will --
rightly -- get tired of these spectacular leaks. But that kind of
disciplinary hand-wringing is a poor substitute for justice.
Only a tiny fraction of the Snowden documents were ever released, and
over time the criticisms of the Snowden recipients (made by Cryptome's
John Young, for example) will gain legitimacy. Ask yourself: Are you
*absolutely* confident that the people with access to the Snowden
