I don't see any law don't allowing me leaking information about the NSA.Originally Posted by Loki
I don't see any law don't allowing me leaking information about the NSA.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
And whistle blowing could begin by congress doing their job of oversight properly. That doesn't have to be limited to special committees on Intelligence or National Security. None of this stuff could happen without funding, budgeting, Ways and Means 'congressional critters', or even CBO analysis. All it takes is turning a blind eye, either by purpose, or incompetence.
Seems too few people were following the money trail or demanding budget specifics. Perhaps some of them knew budgets were escalating (exponentially) for agencies like the CIA, 'secret programs', data mining, out-sourcing to private cyber contractors etc., but wanted to keep those things secret from other congress-critters, and the general public. That would explain the purposeful part, which would be extremely disturbing. But it would also be disturbing if it's due to incompetence, laziness, political partisanship, or trusting without verifying.
No wonder the public has a terrible view of congress.
And I don't see any American law not allowing me to kill a Swiss person in Switzerland.
Hope is the denial of reality
Is it allowed to kill a Swiss person in the US?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Is it allowed to leak information from Swiss intelligence?
Hope is the denial of reality
If the information gathered is illegal, yes. What the NSA did is illegal in most European countries and outright unconstitutional in Germany. Actually the NSA would have a very hard stance not being treated as illegal foreign organisation on courts if any of the leaked information is true.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Well, the NSA couldn't have done much of anything without funding from congress first.
Wikifist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_I...tion_Awareness
Following public criticism that the development and deployment of this technology could potentially lead to a mass surveillance system, the IAO was defunded by Congressin 2003. However, several IAO projects continued to be funded, and merely run under different names.[3][4][5][6]
I don't thing Karlsruhe cares a lot about the congress, they don't even care about the Bundestag.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Interestingly Snowden seeks asylum in Switzerland too. In fact he could probably have to go in front of a Swiss court because of his activities for the CIA in Geneva (that he already admitted).
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Might be preferable to an American court, and giving him a trial themselves is a reason not to extradite, maybe? Plus the Swiss never extradited Polanski, if memory serves.
Did detain him though for some time, although recently Switzerland is finding some backbone in the face of both EU and US, although it may be too little too late to undo the damage.
None of which is relevant. What matters is whether the activities were illegal in the US. Even then, Fuzzy has pointed out that there are mechanisms for exposing this information.
Incidentally, wasn't Switzerland up in terms when some guy sold information about illegal Swiss banking to Germany?
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, and the consequences where about the same as I expect for Snowden. None. Germany didn't even reacted to the Swiss inquiry to get the guy cough who sold the information.
It is funny that you point out that example, as it shows very well that one country (Germany) doesn't care at all if the information of another country (Switzerland) is leaked.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Because the guy sold the information to Germany. Of course Germany wasn't going to arrest him. And nice of you to miss the point. Why was Switzerland even trying to arrest him? All he did was expose illegal behavior.
Hope is the denial of reality
He did not expose illegal behavior he transmitted names of clients of a Swiss bank, to Germany. The Swiss bank was not doing anything illegal whatsoever. Swiss banks have no obligation to transmit information on their German clients to Germany, in fact it is a legal for them to do so. Tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland. The German clients may or may not be guilty of tax evasion under German laws, it is not the responsibility of the Swiss banks to report them. The guy was not reporting a crime he merely was breaking a law to get paid, same as if a pharmaceuticals employee were to run to another company and transmit stolen research data.
Where is Snowden case is more like the same pharmaceuticals employee were to announce that his company was doing illegal human testing to obtain its research.
The bank was helping the individuals hide their assets from their governments, contrary to international agreements...
Hope is the denial of reality
Please refer the international agreement signed by Switzerland that say we can not help hide clients assets from their governments whatever that means. Switzerland as a member of GAFI has engaged to combat money laundering, i.e. Swiss banks are not supposed facilitate money laundering and to report any assets they believe to be proceeds of a crime under Swiss Law to the Swiss authorities, who in turn analyze the date and either begin prosecution or transmit the information to the foreign authorities or dismiss the report (% of reports Swiss authorities follow through on is higher then in any other country according to the last meeting of compliance officers). There is nothing there to say we should inform foreign governments of deposits of their residents. Again tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland so the accounts will not fall under money laundering.
Now helping the client i.e. actively participating in Tax Fraud rather than Tax Evasion, for example providing the client with false or incomplete statements to be transmitted to the fiscal authorities would be a problem but as far as I know this was not the case. Simply accepting an offshore company account that declares the beneficial owner behind and provides a plausible explanation of how the funds were accumulated, depending on amount may need to be backed up by evidence is perfectly fine. We have no obligation to even ask ourselves the question whether the client paid taxes or not.
There are some new "Rubik" accords between Switzerland and UK and Austria, where residents of these countries opening an account in Switzerland must make a choice that either the bank communicates their name and account balance to Swiss authorities who then communicate it to relevant authorities of their country or they choose an anonymous withholding tax wherein based on a rather stupid formula the bank calculates and charges a tax on various types of income (I am guessing these amounts end up in the coffers of either Austria or UK). Germany opted out of these accords at the last second and pushed for automatic exchange of information instead and was told to fuck off in a diplomatic way.
Also if for example Germany is looking for funds of a criminal it can transmit an aid request to the Swiss Authorities who will study it and if they believe it has merit they will transmit it to the banks and Germany will end up with the info they need the assets will normally also be frozen pending result of legal procedure. What we do not allow is fishing expeditions where Country transmits lists of people without clear justification.
Last edited by Asmodian; 07-02-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Tax evasion by definition is a crime. Tax avoidance is not a crime.
Tax evasion = Evading taxes illegally.
Tax avoidance = Avoiding taxes legally.
I think he meant evading German taxes is not a Swiss crime.
No, I meant exactly what I said tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland it is classed misdemeanor punishable by a fine thus not subject to anti money laundering measures which target only the crimes punishable by over 3 years in prison.
It might not be a felony, but being classed a misdemeanor surely makes it a crime, no?
The banks haven't made anything that is illegal in Switzerland. Again you are proving my point. The US is pretty much in the same situation as Switzerland is with the bank data. The US can't force Germany to hand them over a guy that has done nothing that is illegal in Germany and that revealed things that are illegal in Germany. The problem for Snowden is, he wont make it to Germany.
The Swiss law has three cases.
Tax fraud = Illegal, official delic
Tax evasion = Illegal, only fined (like a speed ticked on the road)
Tax avoidance = legal
So far the Swiss courts only tax fraud as an international delict. With the pressure of the OECD tax avasion will probably have the same status.
The question is, if the tax law will be changed for Swiss residents too. So far you are not seen as "criminal" if you forgot to declare all your assets. Only willingly wrong numbert where sean as fraud.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Swiss law separates crimes and misdemeanor so no would not make it a crime, might be the translation issue in any case it would not fall under something banks would need to report either for a Swiss resident or a Foreign one.It might not be a felony, but being classed a misdemeanor surely makes it a crime, no?
Not a sure thing, I expect them to drag the debate for several years and then many things may change, as we saw with the recent vote on US disclosure Switzerland is finding its backbone.With the pressure of the OECD tax avasion will probably have the same status.
The banks have not done anything illegal according to any law as as far as I know the country can not project its laws on another countries territory. If Swiss bar sells a beer to 16 year old US tourist it is not breaking any laws despite the fact that the tourist is not of legal age in US to buy a beer. German customers may have broken a German law but frankly that's between them and the German authorities.The banks haven't made anything that is illegal in Switzerland.
Last edited by Asmodian; 07-02-2013 at 04:28 PM.
What the Swiss bank did, they broke the law in the USA with their subsidiaries on US soil. That's an entire different story. As soon as they are on US soil it the US rules, and I don't pity any bank that got into trouble because of that.
Evading Swiss taxes is not a Swiss public crime. That's the point, if it was it would only be fair to tread German taxes the same way.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
so a democratic population shouldn't have the right to know how their elected officials and those they appoint treat their allies and supposed enemies? Or how such a program is so wide in its scope its pretty much a guilty until proven American when it comes to data collection?
cause from what I've seen so far across the tv, net, and print... Americans are, at the very least, interested.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
What you're saying is that democracies shouldn't engage in espionage or engage in any non-public agreements.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well over here all agreements need to be ratified by the people, I think it's the same for Ireland.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Right, so Swiss intelligence doesn't have any projects whose exact details are unknown to the public?
Hope is the denial of reality
It does, I didn't left out the espionage part by accident. But the public opinion about it is quite different than in the US. We had our PRISM already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_files_scandal
So yes the information gathered are still not openly accessed. But I don't see how a the government could engage in a non public agreement with another legal body outside of Switzerland without breaking the constitution.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote