Hi

Well, now, the NYT recommends some American states for addresses of shell
companies
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/business/need-to-hide-some-income-you-dont-have-to-go-to-panama.html?_r=0&referer=http

Also another hashtag #MossackFonseca or #MossackFonsecaPapers brings other
sides to the story (Pro and Against the association to Panama)

Indeed some interesting points in these debates:

* The idea of privacy only for some (i.e. those who can afford emails such
as @tradedirect.biz ) or for everyone.

* The debate about education on cryptography, cybersecurity etc. which
should be responsiblity for companies but, somehow, also for govts who
should have laws in data protection and the provisions on when this data
can an can not be shared (something Brazil is also struggling) - and the
role of media in sharing this data

* The notions of democracy, citizen participation and data protection - how
these intertwine

* How can international data protection laws coexist and how to act
internationally with them

Best,

Renata


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 2:00 PM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hmm I don’t know if I agree with this as it seems to make the assumption
> that forming a shell company in Panama can only be for nefarious or corrupt
> reasons which is just not the facts of the matter. And its very unforuntate
> that the two classes of companies or uses are bunched togher in any debate
> that I’ve seen around the Panama Papers releases.
>
> Plenty of genuine reasons for doing so that are not for illegal reasons or
> reasons to undermine public goods.
>
> -James
>
> From: Ncuc-discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sunday 10 April 2016 at 5:48 p.m.
> To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
> NCUC-discuss <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Panama Papers - privacy, data and media
> manipulation - Re: Information Internet
>
> Hi,
>
> Re: debate on privacy (though I prefer the term 'secrecy')
>
> The fundamental *human* right to privacy is not the same as the 'right'
> to keep your crimes secret. I would also argue that 1) shell companies
> aren't humans (though they might be persons in some territories), and 2)
> corruption thrives on secrecy. And because even a broken clock is right
> twice day, I will quote Michael Moore... “Openness, transparency — these
> are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the
> powerful and the corrupt”.
>
> Ayden
>