Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998) | Hacker News Reader

Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

papers.ssrn.com

17 pointsnicgrev10393 comments

There's a very simple explanation:

Rules are created to optimize outcomes, not to be logically consistent.

That's it. People who think everything flows from a small set of elegant axioms are wrong. Such systems never survive contact with reality, because reality is messy and not mathematically elegant. Rules are also created by multiple parties, in multiple circumstances, and with various compromises, tradeoffs, subjectivity and intentional and accidental omissions built in, which require later inelegant patches.

The reason why blackmail is illegal though the components of it are fine is because we've seen that it leads to very suboptimal outcomes. It allows one to wield far more power than one would legitimately wield. If you reveal something embarrassing or illegal about your boss, your boss may be replaced with someone else. If you try to make an agreement with your boss without blackmail material you usually get a "fair" negotiation and outcome. The combination of both allows you to wield power you never could otherwise.

And in general a situation where people who do stuff like installing spyware or digging through somebody else's garbage manage to usurp authority isn't a good one.

> It allows one to wield far more power than one would legitimately wield.

Historically, even law could not stop this if the blackmail material was damaging enough and the targets powerful enough.

Sounds like that Simpsons episode (https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Bob_Next_Door):

Bob arrives at The Five Corners and has himself and Bart (with his hands and feet bound with duct tape) stand in two of the states at the meeting point. He then tells Bart of his plan to murder him: Bob will stand in one state; reach into a second state and shoot his gun; have the bullet travel through a third state; hit Bart in a fourth state; and Bart will fall dead in the fifth state (although this is not possible, as the bullet would have to curve around to actually hit Bart). Because all portions of the process is legal, he will have immunity from prosecution in all five states so Bob can’t be charged for Bart's murder.

I think there was a man in England insert long ago who killed someone and fled. 40 years later he was found and put on trial. In his defense he argued that he wasn't the same man of 40 years ago. And could point to many many differences to prove his point. The court was quite impressed and had him hung anyways.

Hanged.

Just a small nitpick probably unworthy of HN, but it might lead someone to see why I posted, and the difference.

I can't see; could you explain pls.

Contextually, it hardly matters. However, "hung", as described of a person (usually male), typically refers to the endowment of their genitals and "hanged" will refer to the result of "hanging" as a method of execution.

Criminal of Theseus, lol.

When Michel Ney was tried for treason (after supporting Napoleon's and subsequent second abdication), his lawyer wanted to argue that since he was born on Prussian soil, his hometown recently being annexed by Prussia, he as a Prussian could not be tried for French treason. Ney himself rejected this, saying that he was French and would always be French. He was sentenced to death.

Is this what passes for "insight" in economics nowadays?

Can't wait to hear this author use the same logic elsewhere.

"It's legal to wish for someone's death, and legal to hand over briefcases full of cash. In this paper I will demonstrate how hiring a hitman is, in fact, ..."

"It's well-known that hydrogen is an explosive gas, and oxygen is an explosive gas, Q.E.D., the author maintains that the chemical H2O should in fact, also be considered an explosive gas."

It's someone with a passing knowledge of logic and expecting justice to work like boolean logic (a && b = true but the current legal system says it's false!)

Or people expecting their field gives them infinite knowledge in another. These are both authors from a business school, and it shows.

It basically says "In this essay we will use the economic theories of Adam Smith to show why something should be ethically ok from a philosophy of law perspective".

> Can't wait to hear this author use the same logic elsewhere.

It doesn’t look pretty - he has written a book with the same logic about how discrimination based on sex, race and sexuality is totally fine.

Writing nonsense is not a crime.

Being a paid academic is not a crime.

Writing nonsense as a paid academic should be a crime.

One of the authors also wrote this book, "The Case For Discrimination" where he argues that companies and individuals should be allowed to discrimate against whoever they like.

https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Case%20for%20Discrimination%20Wa...

A few soundbites from that book which show that this guy is pretty disgusting:

> When women enter in the military in any great numbers, it will be a threat to the entire human race.

> Today, we consider the silver lining involved in term limits: it reduces the percentage of female politicians.

> It is eminently reasonable to bet that some black kid can dunk the basketball and some Oriental kid with thick glasses can solve the quadratic equation. If this be racism, well, so much the worse for me; it is just common sense applied to a sensitive issue. Here is another example Walter Williams offers. Suppose you go into a room and you see a tiger sitting on a couch. What do you do? You have two courses of action. One, you could be prejudiced against tigers and close the door (laughter) and sort of hold the door there and call the cops or the animal control people. Or you can be unprejudiced, don’t pre-judge tigers, don’t profile this tiger on the basis of previous tiger behavior. Here, you go up to the tiger, and say “Hey, what’s happenin’ tiger?” (laughter) “How’s it shakin’?” and you try to give him a high-five. Or, you ask him “Are you vicious?” You are open-minded: just because every other tiger you’ve ever met will bite, you stay open to the possibility that maybe this tiger won’t. If this is racism (or species-ism), make the most of it. This sort of thinking is just behaving on the basis of empirical evidence. Or, to get back to what I was talking about, the same applies to making the claim that blacks have a lower productivity than whites, on average. There are various theories as to why this should be. People on the left say, This is due to racism, or a vestige of slavery. In the view of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, it is based on IQ. But I am not interested in why this is the case. I am only interested in the conclusion: on average, blacks have lower productivity. That’s why they have lower wages, not because of prejudice and discrimination

Yeah, I think I will get my ethical views from someone else.

Wow. What a dishonest way of pulling things out of context to paint a false picture!

> "When women..." - This was in the context of describing how precious women are because they are the ones who bear our future children. Not because they are lesser people in any way. [Chapter 11 - page 32]

> "Today, we..." - Again, if you actually read the thing, here's the point from that section: "Second, apart from considerations of this sort, there is no intrinsic reason to favor male over female politicians.". The silver lining point was made in relation to a description of females leaning towards social welfare schemes, which of course is the opposite, of the goal of the author, in his cause for a stateless society.

> "It is eminently..." I think it's your own wishes coloring this section, so there's no point in going through it. Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist?

> Try to read it again - where is he saying something you find racist?

The whole thing in my view, along with other chapters - his argument is essentially that discrimination laws should be removed because the stereotype that ‘blacks are less productive’ is true according to his findings, so people should be allowed to discriminate on a racial basis and as long as we trust the free market and remove regulation everyone will be treated as they should be.

And the part where he decides to indirectly compare not-stereotyping black people to not-stereotyping tigers, with the underlying implication of ‘your nature is your nature’. It’s a small extract from a book that continuously demonstrates a worldview that is racist in my view.

The tiger example is not his, but that of Walter E Williams https://fee.org/articles/racial-profiling/

It's also nonsense that blacks are intrinsically less productive. Nowhere does he say that. Quite the contrary, he is of the belief that blacks would face less discrimination in a stateless society with a free market, which he is certainly in favor of.

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribery.

The illegal thing about bribery is that you give money to an individual for them to do something on behalf of an organisation. Paying someone to do something isn't illegal, but you're harming the organisation by encouraging the individual to act differently than in the best interests of the organisation.

Is bribery legal when the two parties are entirely private entities (not law enforcement, not publicly listed, etc)? Is it still illegal if you own the entity?

Presumably it would often be tax fraud, but an intangible assets maybe not so much?

Aren’t intangible assets and ‘horse trading’ the fundamental underpinnings of politics?

As far as I know, the word 'bribery' is defined by the fact that the person you're paying has some duty to someone else. Otherwise it's just normal paying someone for something.

In this analogy, it is the official demanding the bribe who corresponds to a blackmailer, and that is generally a crime. In many cases, a bribe is demanded in order to have done what should be done anyway.

More generally, one cannot, in practice, blackmail someone over a harmless fact. This is so even if no one but the victim regards the fact as having any importance.

For example a border officer could demand a bribe to let you into the country. In that case they are threatening not to let you in unless you pay them. But not letting you in is in fact illegal, since they have an obligation to their employer (the government) to let people in or not based on whatever criteria the government set, rather than their own interest.

So they are in fact threatening you with something illegal, unlike blackmail where they have the legal right to reveal embarrassing information about you.

Point taken; your have improved your argument by basing it on the illegality of the bribe-taker's acts of omission or commission - though there is a third class of bribery (perhaps the most common of all), where the bribe-taker is legally allowed to exercise their own discretion, and in such cases, the bribe acceptance itself is the only illegal act by the bribe-taker.† This brings us right back to the central fallacy (the composition fallacy - thanks, cinq!) of the paper we are discussing.

†Such as the recent college-admissions scandal in the US. That it is illegal, in some jurisdictions, to pay a bribe, is a point in your favor against the bribery analogy.

I'm sure you're very busy, but I'd be willing to compensate your expedited consideration in this matter. Blah blah.

Now it's a facilitating payment ;-)

Good point.

It both cases the existence of a crime depends on how closely the two actions are related. If you literally gift something to someone with zero expectation of getting anything in return and later that other person happens to do something which benefits you. It's impossible to prove that is bribery. There has to be a strong connection the money and the action.

There is a similar principle with blackmail. There has to be a strong connection between the money and the inaction.

It's interesting to note that in both cases, a transfer of money usually causes harm to external third parties who are not aware of the transaction. It would be better for society if people did not accept bribes and if people did not yield to blackmail (e.g. if they just went to jail instead of continuing whatever they were doing which made them the target of blackmail in the first place).

This just seems fallacious. It's not illegal to pick up an item in the store, and it's not illegal to walk out of a store, therefore shoplifting is a victimless crime and should be allowed?

It reminds me of "Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise" (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_...) or an inverse "two wrongs don't make a right" (two rights do not make a wrong?)

> Blackmail consists of two things, each indisputably legal on their own; yet, when combined in a single act, the result is considered a crime.

A stabbing consists of someone's torso and someone's knife occupying the same space at the same time. Each is fine on its own, though!

I believe it is the transfer of the knife into the space occupied by the torso and the intent to do so that is illegal. If the torso moves into the space occupied by the knife on its own, it’s an unfortunate accident. If the torso moves into the space intentionally, it is self-harm or suicide depending on outcome and where the knofe intersects the torso.

Abstract

The legal theory of blackmail is the veritable puzzle surrounded by a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Consider. Blackmail consists of two things, each indisputably legal on their own; yet, when combined in a single act, the result is considered a crime. What are the two things? First, there is either a threat or an offer. In the former case, it is, typically, to publicize an embarrassing secret; in the latter, it is to remain silent about this information. Second, there is a demand or a request for funds or other valuable considerations. When put together, there is a threat that unless paid off, the secret will be told.

Either of these things, standing alone, is perfectly legal. To tell an embarrassing secret is to do no more than gossip; no one has ever been incarcerated for that. To ask for money is likewise a legitimate activity, as everyone from Bill Clinton to the beggar to the fund raiser for the local charity can attest. Yet when combined, the result is called blackmail and it is widely seen as a crime.

But that is just the puzzle. The mystery is that over a dozen attempts to account for this puzzle have been written, and not a one of them agrees to any great extent with any other. It is as if there are a plethora of witnesses to a motor vehicle accident, each not only disagreeing with all the others, but each telling a completely different story. The enigma is that with the exception of a corporal's guard of commentators, no one has seen fit to assert the contrary: that two legal "whites" cannot make an illegal "black."

This is precisely the point of the present paper. The authors maintain that since it is legal to gossip, it should therefore not be against the law to threaten to gossip, unless paid off not to do so. In a word, blackmail is a victimless crime, and must be legalized, if justice is to be attained. The authors also reply to a paper written by Scott Altman, who takes a different position.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/98032702.pdf?abstr...

Should add 1998 to the title.

Blackmail is a stupid crime, because you could basically always do it in a way that doesn’t fit the definition of the crime. The threat never has to be directly made, and the offer never has to be directly associated with it. Only the clumsiest blackmail practitioner would ever find themselves creating evidence of a blackmail crime.

Basic evidence is that the victim makes a connection between the threat and the offer. It is illegal to cause this connection. One can try plausible deniability but it's a gamble. Very smart people get convicted on circumstational evidence.

The threat is a necessary element of the crime. To convict somebody of extortion or blackmail you have to prove that the threat occurred, and that the accused intended to make the threat (which is slightly different in the case of extortion via intimidation rather than threat). Extortion is not a strict liability crime, and the interpretation you've provided doesn't account for the mens rea requirement. If your interpretation was true, then extortion or blackmail would just be a feeling that anybody could have at any time.

Yes my wording was incomplete. It requires intent, just causing the connection is not enough. What I wanted to say is that it's hard not to leave evidence of one's intent. And be it circumstantial. So while I'm sure a lot of blackmail happens with most cases never reaching the courts, I'm also sure that even people who are smart about it run the risk of a conviction.

But you still need an actual threat, not just a theory that a person intended for a threat to be implied. If everybody understands the potential consequences of not complying, then a threat isn’t necessarily required.

Now I wonder how common cases are where the threat is made in such an abstract way that it wouldn't qualify for a court. Because from the victims perspective, just acting on a highly abstract threat is difficult. You'd expect some bartering and a deal, no? The victim will need some kind of trust that their action will cause inaction on the perpetrators part.

You're still alluding to the use of a threat, which isn't necessary. If somebody knows that another person "has some dirt on them", then any demands that person makes are going to be evaluated in that context, especially if those demands are plainly unreasonable.

As I said, I wonder whether victims acting on such abstract threats is common.

> Only the clumsiest blackmail practitioner would ever find themselves creating evidence of a blackmail crime.

Unless they are deliberately creating environments where multiple people would be susceptible to being blackmailed. Jeffrey had plenty of security cameras.

Literally none of this matters by the way. Within the next 10 years, any form of blackmail is going to be falsifiable due to generative AI. Anyone who has been blackmailed will have plausible deniability if their blackmailer decides to release the blackmail material itself.

Having read through it I was disappointed in their decision to barely to engage with the potential solution to the paradox that would result from the development of a legal construct of “criminal coercion”, they touch on coercion a few times but don’t dig in as they’re not focused on suggesting such a thing (it’s certainly not their job to as the authors they are free to decide the remit of their paper after all)

… but I feel the concept of “criminal coercion” is a powerful potential fix to a lot of modern problems. If one party has sufficient power via any means that they can coerce and control their other party, at some point (the hard part is deciding where this point is) the coercive nature switches from being “normal life in a capitalist society under the rule of law” (a phrase I’m using to try and cover all the forms of coercion that we kind of have to live with, eg cops and the law) to being “criminal coercion”.

There’s obviously a massive argument as to what the cut off should be, but the concept is simple and feels morally justified which is a good start. It’s not perfect but it’s a good start at least, unlike the “let’s just make blackmail legal because… etc..” attitude that keeps coming up in the paper.

I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall under defamation, which is illegal. At least in my country.

Defamation requires making false statements about someone. It's not defamation to reveal true embarrassing information.

In the US, publishing true information generally cannot be defamation.

I think that you may even be legally bound to reveal certain true information that you've come across, regardless of whether that would be humiliating for someone (say, information about a corrupt politician taking bribes).

I don't think that's the case, outside of some very specific crimes and roles (for instance, mandatory reporters of indicators of child abuse).

If you're a politician and I find out you're taking bribes, I don't have a legal obligation to tell anybody. I just can't blackmail you about it.

Though not stated in the abstract, I assume that the information to be published is true. In the US, truth of a statement is an absolute defense against defamation. That is, regardless of how humiliating the information is, no matter the personal embarrassment from its release, no matter my intentions in releasing it, it cannot be defamation if the information is true.

Interesting. In Sweden it's illegal even if it's true unless you can argue that it was "justifiable".

Drinking is legal, driving is legal, so it should be legal to combine them. trabant00, professor emeritus of mental gymnastics. Plz give money for study and paper.

There's plenty of things that are legal except if done in a certain way, at a certain time, with certain persons, circumstances, etc. In fact I would argue most things are legal in a limited scope than things that are legal in any circumstance.

And in the case of blackmail there's not just the two, unless you ignore the mother freaking THREAT. You are threatening somebody, that alone makes them a victim.

The thing is that in other cases you are allowed to threaten with legal actions. For example if I have permission to build on some land that would block your view, then I can ask you to pay to prevent me from doing this.

You missed the entire part about context. Threatening with legal action does not make a victim, while threatening with something illegal like blackmail does.

In your example you aren't asking for money not to hurt them, like with blackmail. You are asking for money to give up your legal right to do something. Intent also counts in law.

Blackmail isn't threatening with something illegal. You have a legal right to reveal embarrassing information about someone.

> You have a legal right to reveal embarrassing information about someone

Yes, but you don't have the right to threaten to do it for extortion. Again, context matters. If you still don't get it I give up.

Deliberately setting up an environment to blackmail people in is definitely not a victimless crime.

There’s obviously a massive argument as to what the cut off should be, but the concept is simple and feels morally justified which is a good start.

Can two rights make a wrong?

Sure: make two right-turns and now you're facing left (which is "sinister" in Latin, coincidence? I think not).

Wouldn't you just be facing backwards?

I'll bite. Was canceling celebrities throughout the 2010s victimless?

I'm curious as to why you think this particular question is relevant to this particular discussion. I hope there is more to it than the presence of 'victimless' in the title.

Yes, celebrities don't count as human

Blackmail is often restricted to publishing information regarding an illegel activity, not just an embarrassing one, in which case the public is the victim of both the potential coverup and the discriminatory enforcement of the law.

What a pathetic straw man of a paper.

It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that are illegal together (eg it’s legal to buy alcohol, it’s legal to be 16, it’s not legal to be 16 and buy alcohol. It’s legal to drink, it’s legal to ride a motorcycle, it’s not legal to ride a motorcycle when you have been drinking etc).

It’s untrue on its face given that the threat part of blackmail may well be illegal on its own and the reveal of the information may be illegal depending on what the information is and how it was obtained..

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties.

This is wrong for at least two reasons:

1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now a new incentive to threaten to release the information.

2. If blackmail is illegal, it also incentivises others to go and find secrets that they can then exploit for money/sex/other.

Paper even resorts to effectively calling Sam a facist at one point because he is against the free market(!). I think the below excerpt of the paper sums up the papers (radical) free-market views:

> Altman asserts that "charging poison victims who face imminent death more for medication than one would charge less desperate purchasers of the same drug exploits their hardships." [however] he doesn't seem to realize that those societies which allow free enterprise [...] are far more likely to have medicines that will save lives than ones which embrace socialism, regulationism, interventionism and [which represent] the fascist model favored by Altman.

I didn't know the idea that you shouldn't charge someone who is poisoned more for antidote was considered fascist or even particularly socialist!

Do you think that for the same reasons 1 and 2 it should also be illegal in other cases to offer not to do something in exchange for money?

Can you give a specific example?

You gave a nice view from your house. I own the land next to your house and tell you I will build a new house blocking your view unless you pay me not to do that.

This scenario should probably be legal - the stakes aren’t there for me to consider it similar to blackmail.

It depends a bit on intent though - if the purpose of building the house is just to extort the other landowner of money, and it would make a meaningful difference to their house value, it starts to get a lot more grey to me.

There are a whole string of scenarios between “not blackmail”, to “probably not blackmail” to “definitely blackmail” depending on the scenario. A bit like how with assault if you poked someone that is probably fine, but that doesn’t make punching someone in the face ok (but what is a punch if not a bigger poke?).

That is weird. Also, the hypothetical doesn't really make economic sense. We're all around 24-48 hours from death if we don't eat and drink, and yet the market has no ability whatsoever to exploit that fact because competition is too powerful.

An antidote-seller (chemist) who was known for charging more when you needed medicine would get wrecked in the market competing with a chemist who just sold stuff to whoever at a known price. Not to mention that anyone could buy from the chemist in the good times and set up shop just outside selling at stable prices arbitraging the scheme away.

A key reason of why free markets are practical is that it isn't effective to try and segment market based on consumers' raw need. The product needs to be genuinely different for that strategy to have a chance (eg, an expedited service - which is probably going to justify extra cost to someone dying of poison).

Well, I guess two things:

1. Sam's point is that if you are going for a poison-antidote, you probably don't have time to shop around and will go anywhere because you are price inelastic at that point. It's not a real scenario, but in that situation of course we shouldn't allow pharmacists to just charge whatever they think they can get away with to extort the most money from someone who is dying of a poison. Is this point really up for debate, or are we really saying that should be allowed behaviour?

2. It wouldn't be facism regardless.

Using 36” gas chainsaw is legal, and performing surgery is legal. Yet I am prosecuted for gross malpractice — how can this be? /s

It's a very thin definition of the word "paradox".

It's like saying the concept of Spaghetti Carbonara is a Paradox because I don't like eating plain spaghetti, and I don't like eating Bechamel Sauce, but I DO like eating those two things combined. Paradox!

If only the sum of components did not equal the whole thing... No, they must. Like a pile of wheels, an engine, metal, a steering wheel, some pedals and a seat naturally equals a car. The qualities of the parts are exactly the qualities of their product.

Blackmail is one of the classic examples used to illustrate the composition fallacy. Bribery, insider trading, cartel price fixing, and many other fraud schemes are others.

The analogy between blackmail and many other things including insider trading is noted in the paper.

More than that: not only is it possible to find examples of two "legal rights" making a "wrong", it's impossible to find an atomic legal wrong. Everything can be broken down so far that you are left with actions that are legal when you ignore the context.

If it's not that hard, would you then mind setting up a case where you show who the victim is and why?

Sure Regina vs Nigel Wright. The victim was Tesco because the blackmailer attempted to get Tesco to pay him to stop contaminating their food. They would lose money if the news got out their food was being contaminated. Like I say it’s really not hard to identify the victim if you’re not doing the straw man exercise in the paper where you define blackmail as only threatening to spread gossip. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/resource/case-law-r-v-nigel-wrig...

Edit to add: here’s the definition of blackmail in the UK for reference https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

But the illegal act is him contaminating the food. Of course the victim is tesco and their customers, but that's not related to the blackmail in any way. What is happening in that case is extortion. Not blackmail. [1]

I also don't see any difference in your linked definition to the one used in the paper.

[1] https://www.dpp-law.com/services/criminal-defence/blackmail-...

No, both the contamination and the blackmail were found by the court to be illegal. And he was convicted of blackmail so I don't think your argument of it not being blackmail makes any sense whatsoever.

You're arguing about what happened in a case the paper clearly doesn't argue against - I was asking for an example of "blackmail" by the papers definition, where it was easy to identify the witness. You provided an example of extortion and definitely not an example of the definition of blackmail provided in the paper, so the whole point is kind of moot.

So instead, going by what the paper talks about, could you come up with an example where it's easy to identify the victim?

Even so, the matter discussed is if blackmailing should be illegal. So here's an example. I go to a doctor who advertises as a specialist in thyroid diseases. Being a doctor myself I can instantly tell he's a quack doctor. Who is the victim if I "blackmail" him by saying he has to pay me $10.000 to not tell the world about it? Is he the victim? He obviously breached contract by selling me something he was not in possession of, so in that case, I'm the victim of fraud, but is he the victim for me seeking restitution by means of blackmail? Well, maybe you could say that the other people who believe him are the victims, but they are not the victims of the blackmail, they are is I was, the victim of his fraud.

Let's take another example where a previous crime was not necessarily involved. I have found you cheating on your girlfried. I tell you to pay me $10.000 not to go tell her. Should making that offer be illegal? Are you a victim when you can simply agree not to? I don't know if you read the paper, but the point made is that asking for an amount of money not to disseminate knowledge shouldn't be illegal. Would you say NDA's should be illegal?

You asked for an example I gave you one. You tried to claim (in spite of the source I provided showing the contrary) that the actions weren’t blackmail and weren’t illegal. Now you’re trying to reframe to get me to provide another example for some reason.

Pretty clear you’re not even attempting a good faith argument at this point.

That's quite the cop out. I just gave you an example - to not put the burden on you again, while still being open to you providing one that's relevant if you wanted to.

You're arguing blackmail should be illegal because of the status quo, which isn't all that interesting of an argument, so if that's good faith, in your opinion, then I don't mind ending it here.

The "paradox" stems from the fact that the victim is really a victim of the gossip. But gossiping is actually legal. So they are not really a victim of that. So what are they a victim of? From the offer to not gossip? But that offer is actually beneficial to them: it provides a way to prevent the gossip. So it's hard to say they are a victim of that. etc.

I can't say I have thought a lot about this but I wouldn't dismiss the author's point that quickly.

Except it's frequently not "just gossip", but career- or relationship-destroying information (in the case of people) or PII data (in the case of companies).

Plus, blackmail isn't usually done with just gossip, but with concrete evidence and hard data.

This paper seems to have too much 'whataboutism'. Sam says that we shouldn't exploit poisoned people by charging lots of money for an antitode, and the paper literally responds by calling him in favour of a 'fascist model' of society rather than being for free-enterprise.

Talk about being a straw man!

>> calling him in favour of a 'fascist model' of society rather than being for free-enterprise.

So they think free enterprise includes unchecked exploitation of vulnerable people. That sounds like a lot of tech companies, from raising drug prices 20x, to Uber and DoorDash, data collection, right to repair issues, most SaaS, centralized "pricing software", DRM, heated seats as a service, etc...

They should keep writing this stuff and get the message out to the public. People will start voting in favor of "free enterprise" for sure.

Freedom to exploit others is a perversion of the word freedom.

insider trading, a victimless crime

How are you not a victim if the secret is a compromising photograph?

Surely, everyone is naked at times, still when secretly captured on camera, you can become a victim.

(Edit: this was supposed to be a root comment)

Blackmail doesn't always only involve the blackmail target. There can be other victims as a result of collateral damage from the blackmailing process.

Insider trading, a victimless crime

Reply on news.ycombinator.com