panama papers – Techdirt (original) (raw)

From Sans Serif To Sans Sharif: #Fontgate Leads To Calls For Pakistan's Prime Minister To Resign

from the fun-with-fonts dept

Some people get really worked up about fonts. Here, for example, is a thread on Reddit, spotted by Leigh Beadon, about the appearance of the serif font Cambria on the show “Better Call Saul”. The problem is that the show is set in the years 2002 and 2003, while Cambria was designed in 2004. The (mock?) outrage about this slip-up is all good fun, but obviously nothing too serious. Unlike in Pakistan, where another apparent font faux pas is leading to calls for the country’s prime minister to resign.

As the Guardian explains, the daughter of Pakistan’s prime minister is being investigated by the country’s supreme court as a result of revelations in the Panama Papers that linked her to expensive properties in London. Documents produced in her defense had a slight problem, as spotted by font aficionados:

Documents claiming that Mariam Nawaz Sharif was only a trustee of the companies that bought the London flats, are dated February 2006, and appear to be typed in Microsoft Calibri.

But the font was only made commercially available in 2007, leading to suspicions that the documents are forged.

Social media users have derided Sharif for this apparent misstep, coining the hashtag #fontgate.

Such is the interest in #fontgate and the humble sans serif Calibri font, that visits to the relevant Wikipedia page have ballooned from 500 visits per day to 150,000 in just two days. As a result of the intense interest and some dubious editing attempts, Wikipedia has been forced to act:

After users seemingly tried to change the article’s content to say the font was available from 2004, Wikipedia suspended editing on its Calibri page “until July 18 2017, or until editing disputes have been resolved”.

Although you might think this is pretty much at the level of the Reddit discussion of Cambria, rival politicians in Pakistan see it as much more serious — and an opportunity they can exploit:

Opposition parties have urged prime minister Nawaz Sharif to step down after the investigation found a “significant disparity” between his family’s declared wealth and known sources of income.

However things turn out in Pakistan for the country’s prime minister and his daughter — Nawaz Sharif has denied wrongdoing — #fontgate has already had one positive outcome. It allowed the Indian newspaper Financial Express to use the memorable headline: “Awesome story of Calibri, the font that may leave Pakistan sans Sharif.”

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: calibri, corruption, fonts, mariam nawaz sharif, pakistan, panama papers

Malta's Prime Minister Sues Panama Papers Journalist For Defamation; Gets Facebook To Delete His Reporting

from the not-cool dept

You recall, of course, the Panama Papers? The massive leak of documents about offshore shell companies last year, that a large coalition of reporters worked on for many months before releasing a bunch of stories at the same time. The documents were leaked from a law firm, and highlighted more than a few cases of what appeared to be questionable activity by the rich and powerful in moving money around in offshore accounts. Apparently the subject of one such story, Malta’s Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, wasn’t happy that he and some of his colleagues were mentioned in some of the reporting on this, and filed a defamation case against Matthew Caruana Galizia, the reporter who wrote up some stories, using the Panama Papers, arguing that Muscat and his chief of staff were involved in a scheme to get kickbacks on the sale of Maltese passports.

Caruana Galizia, who is a journalist at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and who coordinated the mass reporting effort on the Panama Papers (and who won a Pulitzer Prize as part of that), had posted those stories to his Facebook page. In addition to facing this defamation lawsuit, Caruana Galizia has also noted that Facebook has deleted some of his posts and locked him out of his account temporarily. It would appear that someone has complained to Facebook about those posts, claiming they were terms of service violations. Once again, this should be a reminder of the problem of relying on someone else’s platform for posting your stories, as they get to make up the rules for what’s allowed.

But there are two larger issues here: First, this appears to be a classic SLAPP-style lawsuit, in which reporters are being sued as an attempt to chill free speech on reporting that the subject doesn’t like. I’m no expert in Maltese defamation law, but it does appear that there has been a lot of concern about abuse of Maltese defamation law to intimidate reporters and chill speech (amusingly, that article focuses on Daphne Caruana Galizia who has been sued a few times for defamation, and who appears to be Matthew’s very proud mother). There have also been attempts to update defamation law in Malta, but there appears to be nothing akin to a an anti-SLAPP provision. Indeed, it’s not even clear if there’s a “truth” defense.

The interview with Daphne Caruana Galizia is quite detailed in how officials in Malta use defamation laws to chill the free speech of journalists:

The fees and court expenses for filing a civil suit for libel are low and therefore not a bar to frivolous cases. There is no penalty to be paid by those who file cases unnecessarily, even if they eventually lose the case. Meanwhile, the journalist who has been sued has to pay a lawyer to defend him/her, pay fees to file a formal response to the suit, and go to many court hearings over the course of several years. Even if the journalist is cleared of libel, he or she has still paid a heavy price in terms of stress, time wasted and money spent.

Criminal defamation cases are even worse. In this case, there is really no bar. The politician or other public person who feels himself to have been libelled will file a formal request for the police to prosecute the journalist, and the police are obliged to comply as they cannot ignore a formal request. The complainant pays nothing, as this is a police prosecution and not a civil suit. Meanwhile, the journalist must pay lawyers to defend him/herself and be present at every single court hearing as required under Maltese law. The stress is great. Though the government has pledged itself to repeal the criminal defamation law, it has not.

And now her son gets to experience that terrible process as well.

The other issue is Facebook’s decision to take down the posts and lock Matthew out of his account. That’s… bad. Yes, it’s a private platform and has the right to make these kinds of decisions, but if Facebook wants to position itself as a platform for free speech and communication around the globe, it needs to stand up for the rights of the people using the platform, especially when they’re doing investigative reporting, backed up by evidence, and speaking truth to power. Unfortunately, in this instance, it failed to do that, and is, instead, punishing the journalist. That’s a shame.

Filed Under: corruption, daphne caruana galizia, defamation, free speech, joseph muscat, malta, matthew caruana galizia, panama papers
Companies: facebook

'The Revolution Will Be Digitized': Panama Papers Leaker Speaks Out

from the another-voice-joins-the-conversation dept

We’ve just written about a call from the Greens in the European Parliament for new laws to protect whistleblowers. Given that people who leak confidential information currently enjoy very little protection, it’s remarkable that we have any whistleblowers at all. One of the biggest recent leaks came in the form of the Panama Papers. Although we still don’t know who the whistleblower might be, he or she has just released a very interesting statement entitled “The Revolution Will Be Digitized“, which contains important new information. For example, we learn a little about who the whistleblower is — or isn’t:

> For the record, I do not work for any government or intelligence agency, directly or as a contractor, and I never have.

We also learn that the leaked documents were offered to many media organizations — and to Wikileaks — most of whom turned them down:

> in addition to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, and despite explicit claims to the contrary, several major media outlets did have editors review documents from the Panama Papers. They chose not to cover them. The sad truth is that among the most prominent and capable media organizations in the world there was not a single one interested in reporting on the story. Even Wikileaks didn?t answer its tip line repeatedly.

Most of the document is a denunciation of a failure by governments, the media and the legal profession to tackle what the author calls “one of the defining issues of our time” — income inequality. Frustrated by the lack of action by all those groups, he or she makes an interesting offer:

> In the end, thousands of prosecutions could stem from the Panama Papers, if only law enforcement could access and evaluate the actual documents. ICIJ and its partner publications have rightly stated that they will not provide them to law enforcement agencies. I, however, would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement to the extent that I am able.

The Panama Papers whistleblower is well aware of the fate of his or her predecessors, particularly in the financial sector. Like Snowden, he or she seems to have studied and learnt from their experiences:

> I have watched as one after another, whistleblowers and activists in the United States and Europe have had their lives destroyed by the circumstances they find themselves in after shining a light on obvious wrongdoing. Edward Snowden is stranded in Moscow, exiled due to the Obama administration?s decision to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. For his revelations about the NSA, he deserves a hero’s welcome and a substantial prize, not banishment. Bradley Birkenfeld was awarded millions for his information concerning Swiss bank UBS — and was still given a prison sentence by the Justice Department. Antoine Deltour is presently on trial for providing journalists with information about how Luxembourg granted secret “sweetheart” tax deals to multi-national corporations, effectively stealing billions in tax revenues from its neighbour countries. And there are plenty more examples.

No surprise, then, that the Panama Papers whistleblower would really like more legal protection for those who leak information in the public interest. What is more surprising is the anger that permeates this statement, and how well it is articulated. A striking recent development in the world of whistleblowing is the way in which Edward Snowden has become one of the most acute commentators on the digital sphere, as his extended essay “Whistleblowing Is Not Just Leaking — It’s an Act of Political Resistance” underlines. What’s most remarkable — and encouraging — about the Panama Papers whistleblower’s essay is that it indicates we may be about to gain another valuable voice in the same way. The conclusion of the statement gives a hint of the kind of impassioned writing we could enjoy in the future:

> The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system — our system — the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake. But when it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy?s checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner. So now is the time for real action, and that starts with asking questions. > > Historians can easily recount how issues involving taxation and imbalances of power have led to revolutions in ages past. Then, military might was necessary to subjugate peoples, whereas now, curtailing information access is just as effective or more so, since the act is often invisible. Yet we live in a time of inexpensive, limitless digital storage and fast internet connections that transcend national boundaries. It doesn?t take much to connect the dots: from start to finish, inception to global media distribution, the next revolution will be digitized. > > Or perhaps it has already begun.

Perhaps it has: the Panama Papers site has just launched a public search engine for its database of documents. Start connecting those dots…

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: leaks, panama papers, shell corporations, transparency, whistleblowing

Menace To Tax Dodgers David Cameron Has His Own Tax Dodging Exposed By The Panama Leaks

from the set-the-world-to-PANIC-MODE dept

One of the more darkly entertaining aspects of the massive Panama Leaks has been watching exposed politicians attempting to reconcile past promises to get tougher on financial wrongdoers with their own tax-dodging efforts.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has spent several years in crackdown mode, as the New York Times notes. Going all the way back to 2012, Cameron has made a habit of promising better regulation, stricter enforcement and harsher penalties for tax-dodging corporations while selling himself to voters and small businesses. He also singled out individuals, like comedian Jimmy Carr, for his use of “dodgy tax-avoiding schemes.” He also promised to close a loophole that allowed wealthy UK residents to avoid paying taxes and suggested those that did should face prison time.

He capped it all off with this 2015 election pledge:

“Tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance and tax planning is an important part of our long-term economic plan,” Mr. Cameron said ahead of his Conservative Party’s electoral victory.

He has repeatedly said that “no government has done more than this one to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.”

Obviously, things are different when it’s the Prime Minister doing the tax dodging. His first reaction, when asked about holdings he inherited from his late father, was to develop a sudden interest in privacy.

Asked on Monday whether she could confirm that no family money was still invested in the fund, Mr Cameron’s spokeswoman said: “That is a private matter”.

To his credit, Cameron swiftly walked back that defensive statement. He pointed out that, yes, he did own some shares in an offshore holding scheme as the result of an inheritance, but sold them off in 2010. His wife still owns shares in an offshore trust, but those are declared yearly on her tax returns. Better yet, he has acknowledged that his first response was the wrong response.

Addressing the Tories’ spring forum, he said he was to blame for the handling of revelations about his holding in his late father’s offshore fund.

Days after questions were first raised, the PM admitted this week he had owned and later sold units in the fund.

Cameron has followed through on his promise to release his tax returns so they can be examined for any other irregularities. However, Cameron’s openness is not wholehearted. What has been released only shows his tax payments since selling off his shares in the offshore holding company. Pre-2010 documents — when he still may have benefitted from the tax shelter — have not been released.

He also hasn’t extended his transparency to cover his advisors or members of his party, so the party’s tough stance on tax dodging still may only mostly extend outward.

Filed Under: david cameron, hypocrisy, offshore entities, panama papers, tax dodging, uk

Terabyte-Sized 'Panama Papers' Leak Confirms The Continuing Rise Of The Super-Whistleblowers

from the who's-next? dept

As you may have noticed on Twitter and across social media, a big leak of documents from Mossack Fonseca, a global law firm based in Panama, took place over the weekend. Actually, to call the Panama Papers leak “big” is something of an understatement:

> 11.5 million records, dating back nearly 40 years — making it the largest leak in offshore history. Contains details on more than 214,000 offshore entities connected to people in more than 200 countries and territories. Company owners in billionaires, sports stars, drug smugglers and fraudsters.

The main Panama Papers site run by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists notes this bounty has provoked the “largest cross-border collaboration ever”; dozens of media sites are involved, although curiously few from the US. That means in-depth analysis of the implications of these documents for the rich, the powerful, the criminals and the companies they created will be appearing for many weeks, if not months. So there’s little point trying to second-guess what will emerge, not least because there is no public access to the documents involved, making deeper analysis impossible.

Fortunately, here on Techdirt we’re interested in a few specialized angles. For example, the tech side. The Guardian states that the the Panama Papers total 2.6 terabytes of data, which dwarfs earlier leaks of financial documents: the HSBC files are 3.3 gigabytes, the Luxembourg tax files 4.4 gigabytes, and the so-called “offshore secrets” files total 260 gigabytes, while Wikileaks is a mere 1.7 gigabytes.

A few years ago, it would have been inconceivable to “exfiltrate” terabytes of data like this. That in itself was a powerful brake on massive leaks. But today you can buy a portable, pocket-sized USB hard disk drive with a capacity of several terabytes for tens of dollars, with prices continuing to fall — thanks to Kryder’s Law and other factors. As a result, we are seeing leak inflation: where whistleblowers first grabbed megabytes and then gigabytes, but they now take terabytes, simply because they can. Why settle for a partial set, and risk leaving behind the juicy stuff, when you can simply “collect it all” (now, where have we heard that before?)

So leaks are likely to get bigger. They may also become more common. The more high-profile whistleblowers there are, the more others are likely to be inspired to do the same. That fact has not gone unnoticed in the corporate world. In an evident attempt to stem the flow of embarrassing leaks, companies have been pushing for more laws to protect their “trade secrets.” For example, as Techdirt noted last year, TPP includes stronger protection, and TAFTA/TTIP will have it too. Even before TTIP is likely to require it, the EU is proposing to bring in new laws to beef up protection for corporate trade secrets:

> A small group of lobbyists working for large multinational companies (Dupont, General Electric, Intel, Nestl?, Michelin, Safran, Alstom?) convinced the European Commission to draft such a legislation, and helped it all along the way. The problem is that they were too successful in their lobbying: they transformed a legislation which should have regulated fair competition between companies into something resembling a blanket right to corporate secrecy, which now threatens anyone in society who sometimes needs access to companies’ internal information without their consent: consumers, employees, journalists, scientists…

As that post from Corporate Europe Observatory puts it, we are witnessing attempts to enshrine a new “right to corporate secrecy” around the world. That’s the bad news; the good news is that it’s getting easier for anyone to be a super-whistleblower on a massive scale. Recognizing the value of such leaks, the Greens in the European Parliament hope to present a proposal for laws protecting whistleblowers across Europe. There’s not much hope it will be adopted at this stage, but it’s a further sign of how important this whole area has become.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: leak, panama, panama papers, whistleblower
Companies: mossack fonseca