On a Tuesday in august, 2005, 17.000 people received, unasked, a text message from the police. The reason they received this text message was the nearness of their mobile phones to the football station ‘de Kuip’ in april, 2005, during some uproars. The day after 12 hooligans reported themselves to the police and the bulk of the Dutch people were enthusiastic about this new way of crime control. Not only the Dutch police is using this system, also in Belgium, and outside Europe, people with a mobile phone are texted if they were within a 10 km radius of the crime [Expactica, 2006].
After WO II International laws on human rights were developed which state that humans have the right of freedom, without being constantly watched by the government. 50 Years later, however, many people seem to have forgotten these laws and say things like ‘someone who has nothing to hide, has nothing to fear of’. But is this correct? If the police can trace your mobile phone and can locate every place were you have been and based on this information sends you text messages and can even treat you as a suspect, do you still have nothing to fear of? More important for this course is, however, the question if it is not immoral to desecrate your privacy, even if it can help crime control?
Personally, I think it is immoral for the police to save 4 years of internet and telephone data of innocent European Citizens, including data about the locations of your mobile phone, for crime control. It is against your privacy rights and in this case illegal is also immoral.
http://www.bof.nl/docs/opiniesmsactie.pdf
http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/police-seek-belgians-after-child-abduction-bids-31196.html
24 February, 2010
German Government buys stolen data from Swiss bank
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in a newspaper interview that the German government will buy stolen information on Swiss bank accounts, backed by a poll showing voter support for the purchase if it helps fight tax fraud.
The Swiss case is similar legally to the case that begun two years ago, when German authorities bought client data in Liechtenstein for five million euro’s and used the information to pursue tax evaders. “For this reason we could hardly decide otherwise,” Schaeuble was cited as saying. The decision has already been taken “in principle.” A bulk of Germans, 57 percent, said they support using information on tax violations even if it was illegally obtained, a poll of 1000 people for Stern magazine showed. 43 percent said they oppose such a move according to the same poll. How come 57 percent of the people agree with steeling?
Should the German government buy stolen goods? The moral questions raised have prompted a debate across the political spectrum, with Switzerland warning that buying the CD would be illegal. "Generally speaking we believe that it is difficult for states to use illegal data," said Swiss President Doris Leuthard. "This would mean doing business with criminals, which is against the law." Members of opposition parties in Germany have encouraged the government to buy the data on behalf of "honest taxpayers." Others argued that the tax revenue that could be recovered was worth the price. Is financial gain an adequate reason?
In my opinion the German government should not purchase the stolen information. They have a role function and should give out a good example that stealing is not appropriate. This especially because in this situation it is not a matter of life and death but about financial gain. It even can be seen as an encouragement from the German Government if they do buy the data. An encouragement to steal sensitive information, because even if it is illegal a financial reward awaits.
http://nos.nl/artikel/133583-fiscus-benieuwd-naar-gestolen-cd.html
The Swiss case is similar legally to the case that begun two years ago, when German authorities bought client data in Liechtenstein for five million euro’s and used the information to pursue tax evaders. “For this reason we could hardly decide otherwise,” Schaeuble was cited as saying. The decision has already been taken “in principle.” A bulk of Germans, 57 percent, said they support using information on tax violations even if it was illegally obtained, a poll of 1000 people for Stern magazine showed. 43 percent said they oppose such a move according to the same poll. How come 57 percent of the people agree with steeling?
Should the German government buy stolen goods? The moral questions raised have prompted a debate across the political spectrum, with Switzerland warning that buying the CD would be illegal. "Generally speaking we believe that it is difficult for states to use illegal data," said Swiss President Doris Leuthard. "This would mean doing business with criminals, which is against the law." Members of opposition parties in Germany have encouraged the government to buy the data on behalf of "honest taxpayers." Others argued that the tax revenue that could be recovered was worth the price. Is financial gain an adequate reason?
In my opinion the German government should not purchase the stolen information. They have a role function and should give out a good example that stealing is not appropriate. This especially because in this situation it is not a matter of life and death but about financial gain. It even can be seen as an encouragement from the German Government if they do buy the data. An encouragement to steal sensitive information, because even if it is illegal a financial reward awaits.
http://nos.nl/artikel/133583-fiscus-benieuwd-naar-gestolen-cd.html
Tropical Tax Evasion
Many businesses minimize their U.S. tax bills by sending credit-card receipts to Aruba, the Cayman Islands, and other business-friendly havens. For several years the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is investigating how $100 billion a year in credit-card receipts are escaping U.S. sales and income taxes and whether the spreading credit-card practice amounts to illegal behaviour. According Daniel Reeves, the IRS special agent leading the probe, "a number of U.S. taxpayers may be under-reporting income, evading taxes, and breaking the law" by sending card receipts offshore.
Companies that route card revenue offshore say what they do is entirely lawful and appropriate. They typically note that they do not have to charge their customers any American sales tax because they have incorporated overseas. The companies say that they notify the IRS of this arrangement. They also maintain that eventually they pay income tax on any money they bring back to the U.S. Tax experts say that if businesses take all of these steps, they are indeed operating within the law. However the IRS suspects that a lot of the offshore credit-card activity isn't, in fact, reported and that repatriated funds frequently escape income taxation.
The businesses that indeed are escaping taxes by not accurately reporting the amount of money stashed in foreign bank accounts face a moral dilemma. Because on the one hand the purpose of a business is to maximize profit, which is enhanced by paying the least amount of tax. On the other hand it is not ethical to profit from the benefits of a country while not paying the appropriate amount of taxes. The question whether these actions are permitted by law or not is not important in this ethical dilemma, the most important factor is whether the gained benefits a company received from activities in a country are in proportion to (or at least close to) the taxes paid to this country. So when these companies are taking large benefits from the U.S. while paying minimal taxes (by loopholes, tropical accounts etc.) these activities are morally wrong.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_08/b4167046022885.htm
Companies that route card revenue offshore say what they do is entirely lawful and appropriate. They typically note that they do not have to charge their customers any American sales tax because they have incorporated overseas. The companies say that they notify the IRS of this arrangement. They also maintain that eventually they pay income tax on any money they bring back to the U.S. Tax experts say that if businesses take all of these steps, they are indeed operating within the law. However the IRS suspects that a lot of the offshore credit-card activity isn't, in fact, reported and that repatriated funds frequently escape income taxation.
The businesses that indeed are escaping taxes by not accurately reporting the amount of money stashed in foreign bank accounts face a moral dilemma. Because on the one hand the purpose of a business is to maximize profit, which is enhanced by paying the least amount of tax. On the other hand it is not ethical to profit from the benefits of a country while not paying the appropriate amount of taxes. The question whether these actions are permitted by law or not is not important in this ethical dilemma, the most important factor is whether the gained benefits a company received from activities in a country are in proportion to (or at least close to) the taxes paid to this country. So when these companies are taking large benefits from the U.S. while paying minimal taxes (by loopholes, tropical accounts etc.) these activities are morally wrong.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_08/b4167046022885.htm
Should the European Union be allowed to export subsidized sugar?
In 2005, the World Trade Organization (WTO) set a limit to the EU`s yearly export of subsidized sugar of 1.37 million tonnes. Last week, five years later, the EU announced plans to export an extra 500.000 tonnes because of the extraordinarily high world sugar prices. Brazil, Australia and Thailand, respectively the worlds largest, 3rd and 4th largest sugar producers, have urged the bloc to respect the WTO quota, but Michael Mann, agriculture spokesman of the European Commission, stated that "the export limit doesn't apply" because the extra 500.000 tonnes are not subsidized. On the other hand it might be argued that the surplus sugar would not exist were it not for the EU subsidies.
But even assuming the sugar does indeed profit from EU subsidies, it might be morally right for the EU to breach the WTO agreement. As the commission stated: "With production below consumption and diminishing sugar stocks, sugar prices have risen to unprecedented levels, to the detriment of consumers in poorer countries”. Providing these poorer countries with cheaper sugar seems morally right. Then again, the limit to the export of subsidized sugar is aimed at protecting farmers in other poorer countries, such as Brazil and Thailand.
The motives of the EU are in this case questionable. Brazil`s sugarcane group Unica accuses the EU of "trying to externalize its surplus problems on world markets". If this is indeed the case, we are no longer dealing with a moral dilemma, but with a problem of moral motivation. Even if we assume that the EU is in fact exporting extra subsidized sugar to lower the price for the “poorer countries”, the question remains: What is more important; the income of Brazilian sugar farmers, or the purchasing power of consumers in poor countries?
I think the difficulty of this case stems from its different layers. The question is whether or not the EU should export the sugar. However, the question that lies underneath is whether the subsidies should have been there in the first place. The latter, as tempting as it is, is a different story; the sugar has already been produced; should it be sold? I believe that in this singular case, the sugar should be sold. The protection of Brazilian farmers should not limit the market to such a degree that the poorest countries suffer.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8484826.stm)
But even assuming the sugar does indeed profit from EU subsidies, it might be morally right for the EU to breach the WTO agreement. As the commission stated: "With production below consumption and diminishing sugar stocks, sugar prices have risen to unprecedented levels, to the detriment of consumers in poorer countries”. Providing these poorer countries with cheaper sugar seems morally right. Then again, the limit to the export of subsidized sugar is aimed at protecting farmers in other poorer countries, such as Brazil and Thailand.
The motives of the EU are in this case questionable. Brazil`s sugarcane group Unica accuses the EU of "trying to externalize its surplus problems on world markets". If this is indeed the case, we are no longer dealing with a moral dilemma, but with a problem of moral motivation. Even if we assume that the EU is in fact exporting extra subsidized sugar to lower the price for the “poorer countries”, the question remains: What is more important; the income of Brazilian sugar farmers, or the purchasing power of consumers in poor countries?
I think the difficulty of this case stems from its different layers. The question is whether or not the EU should export the sugar. However, the question that lies underneath is whether the subsidies should have been there in the first place. The latter, as tempting as it is, is a different story; the sugar has already been produced; should it be sold? I believe that in this singular case, the sugar should be sold. The protection of Brazilian farmers should not limit the market to such a degree that the poorest countries suffer.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8484826.stm)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)