
Blackmail Should Be Illegal - apsec112
https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/blackmail/
======
landryraccoon
The argument against blackmail that rings most true for me is that if you want
transparency and accountability for politicians, blackmail should remain
illegal.

In a society where blackmail is fully legal, the incentive for journalists,
politicians and corporations align fully _against the public_.

Consider: A politician is corrupt. He's shady and gaining huge personal wealth
through corruption. Or a corporation is doing business practices in secret
that would probably cause widespread concern among the public. In a society
where blackmail is illegal, a journalist that discovers this is fully
incentivized to publish the information. If he tries to blackmail the
politician or corporation, then he will if be prosecuted if it's discovered.

OTOH, lets say blackmail is legal. Now the journalist has to balance serving
the public interest through publishing with the now fully safe and legal
option of simply threatening the politician or corporation to cut them in if
they keep quiet, knowing also that since this is legal even if it's discovered
they are off scott free.

In other words, legal blackmail means it's fully legal to "cut in" someone who
discovers a shady practice on part of the proceeds.

I don't see any way in which legal blackmail doesn't keep the public less
informed and more in the dark. The incentives for keeping secrets from the
public are far higher in a world where blackmail is legal.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> In other words, legal blackmail means it's fully legal to "cut in" someone
> who discovers a shady practice on part of the proceeds.

This isn't true. Cutting someone in is something that the hypothetical corrupt
politician does. Blackmail is something the hypothetical journalist does.
Either can be criminalized without regard to the legal treatment of the other.

And in fact, blackmail is a crime right now, and paying blackmail isn't a
crime right now. There's no reason you couldn't reverse those two statuses.

> I don't see any way in which legal blackmail doesn't keep the public less
> informed and more in the dark.

Scott Sumner has been writing recently about how the criminalization of
blackmail is good because, if blackmail were legal, the public would be kept
more informed and less in the dark. (And blackmail usually involves things
like homosexual or adulterous behavior that he feels the public shouldn't know
about.) I tend to agree with you on this point; blackmail is an act of
concealment and legalizing it should produce more, not less, concealment.

~~~
Bjartr
> blackmail is an act of concealment and legalizing it should produce more,
> not less, concealment.

And therein lies the debate, some view instead view blackmail as an act of
coercion and legalizing it should produce more, not less, coercion.

After all, you can blackmail someone to take an action when they otherwise
wouldn't.

~~~
thaumasiotes
What do you mean "instead"? More concealment (via blackmail) obviously means
more coercion (in the sense relevant to blackmail), because the concealment
only occurs if the coercion is acceded to. They can only go up or down
together. But I was commenting on an implicit debate between someone who
believes that legal blackmail will lead to _more concealment_ , and someone
else who believes blackmail will lead to _less concealment_.

------
TimTheTinker
There is a strong urge in democratic society, which I believe isn't wrong or
incorrect in itself, to legislate the shared ethics of that society -- that
is, to outlaw that which is commonly believed to be morally wrong. There are
two problems that are encountered in this pursuit:

1) Not everyone shares the same philosophy, thus not everyone shares the same
ethics. Where philosophical beliefs differ, there will be clashes over what
ethics ought to govern legislation.

2) When writing law, what is being outlawed has to (a) not contradict the
constitution(s) governing the land, and (b) be well-defined enough to be
enforced.

A lot of the discussion around outlawing blackmail centers on (2)(b) -
defining terms. It's surprisingly difficult to do, to the point that a lot of
things that are commonly believed to be morally wrong can't be legislated.
(2)(a) is why personal freedoms/liberties, and to what extent government
should be limited, _must_ both be written into a constitution if they are to
exist and be respected by the government/courts for a very long time to come.

Regarding (1), in a democratic nation, the prevailing worldview/philosophy is
ultimately what determines what the moral fabric, and consequently the legal
climate, of a country will be like. Of course religion (or lack thereof) will
factor into this, since it strongly informs ethics -- there's nothing wrong
with that. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows the legislation ->
ethics -> philosophy causal chain to arise out of any worldview, when it
states that there cannot be a "religious test" for elected officials.

~~~
ggggtez
I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only _because_ of ethics. To discuss
legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all.

If you want to write a full ethics-agnostic law system, I think you'll find it
won't actually help solve the problems of a society that exists in the real
world.

Edit: For example, try to explain _why_ "killing" is illegal in most
countries, when some people believe that humans are just electro-chemical
computers inside a meat-and-water-sack. Is a human really different than an
ant, at the end of the day? If only we had a system to guide our laws that
would help us function as a society... Maybe with some shared guidelines about
_why_ things are done... we could call it "ethics" perhaps.

~~~
btrask
Killing people is illegal because it reduces the number of taxpayers. If ants
paid taxes they'd be protected too. Killing people who don't pay taxes isn't
okay because we'd rather make them pay than put them to death.

I'm joking, obviously, but I think there needs to be a separation between law
and ethics because they serve different purposes. For example, I think all
personal drug use is ethical, but some drugs become a problem when used on a
societal scale.

Edit: And conversely, I think being pointlessly mean to people is unethical,
but it's not something that can or should be legislated.

~~~
pretendscholar
>Killing people is illegal because it reduces the number of taxpayers.

Hacker News intellectuals. Despite old people being a net drain on the system
we don't kill them.

~~~
btrask
I didn't downvote you, but you clearly didn't make it to the second paragraph.
I was (partially) trying to poke fun at those people.

~~~
pretendscholar
Oops, your impression was pretty good because I swear I've seen people say
that on HN before and rage quit after the first paragraph.

------
mchannon
The biggest problem with blackmail and extortion is no two people seem to
agree on exactly what they are and are not.

I use these definitions:

To blackmail is to threaten to do something otherwise legal (usually divulge
information) unless you are paid.

To extort is to threaten to do something otherwise illegal unless you are
paid.

Blackmail is one of those odd two-rights-make-a-wrong matters like
prostitution or insider trading, and it's tough for a lot of people to square
the corresponding laws with their own morals.

Having been blackmailed before (as in 18 USC §873 Blackmail) I find most
people's attitudes on the matter are heavily influenced by their personal
histories with blackmail (or lack of histories) and subject to change.

~~~
airstrike
> To blackmail is to threaten to do something otherwise legal (usually divulge
> information) unless you are paid.

I would slightly edit that to:

> To blackmail is to threaten to do something otherwise legal (usually divulge
> information) with the intent of forcing someone to perform a certain action
> that they would otherwise not want to perform

For instance, you can threaten to spill the beans on a perfectly benign secret
about your coworker unless they pass on a great promotion they were given and
that you coveted

~~~
MR4D
"I'm going to quit unless you pay me more."

Why doesn't that meet your definition? I'm threatening to do something legal
(quit) unless you do something you don't want to (pay more money).

I'm confused.

~~~
virgilp
What's wrong with the Wikipedia definition?

> Blackmail is an act of coercion using the threat of revealing or publicizing
> either substantially true or false, and often damaging, information about a
> person, to the public, family members, or associates unless certain demands
> are met. It may involve using threats of physical, mental or emotional harm,
> or of criminal prosecution, against the victim or someone close to the
> victim

~~~
magduf
Ok, but then how is it not extortion to demand a raise or else you'll quit?

~~~
virgilp
It’s quite simple, really: since you’re not a slave owner, i don’t belong to
you, so the “threat” to quit can’t possibly be legally qualified as a threat
(you never had the right to assume that I will continue to work for you beyond
my notice period). It’s a contract negotiation, not a threat, so not
extortion. The same way that “we will cut off the internet access if you don’t
pay the internet bill” is not extortion from comcast, it’s just a statement of
fact.

~~~
hopler
You don't have a right to prevent someone from telling secrets they know
either.

~~~
virgilp
Actually, in some cases you do. But anyway, blackmail is not about telling
secrets, it's about coercion under the threat of telling secrets. You know,
kinda like how rape is about consent, not about preventing people from having
sex.

------
supermatt
I prefer the definition as described in UK Law under the Theft Act 1968:

Blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to
making a gain or causing a loss.

This article seems to focus on ANY demand - your credit card 'threatening' to
release information about your non-payment, for example. That is part of your
agreement. That is not unwarranted. That is not blackmail.

Heres some clarification with case law (again, this is UK):
[http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php](http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Blackmail.php)

~~~
aidenn0
My understanding was different: in a "legal blackmail" world debt collectors
would try to dig up dirt on you to aid in the collection process:

> Credit cards charge unreasonable rates because there is no collateral. If
> you don’t pay, they can harass you, and damage your reputation via credit
> reports, but mostly, as long as you don’t mind losing access to credit, you
> can run the no-pay strategy and it will work.

> In a legal blackmail world, that credit card company would then seek out
> damaging information about you, to try and get you to pay. Since you would
> often be unable to pay, that information would often get released. Other
> times, you would end up lying or stealing to get the money.

~~~
supermatt
From the link:

Unwarranted demand: A demand is unwarranted unless: (a) that they had
reasonable grounds for making the demand AND (b) that the use of menaces is a
proper means of reinforcing the demand.

i.e. the use of "menaces" needs to be proper. In this case, their contract is
the proper means of enforcement. Digging up additional "dirt" not
covered/mentioned in the relationship would be considered improper, and is
therefore blackmail.

------
lisper
This is incredibly stupid.

First, the title should be "Why should blackmail be illegal?"

Second, the answer is: because you have the right to keep secrets, and you
should not have to pay someone who happens to learn one of your secrets in
order to continue to exercise that right.

[EDIT] You have the right to keep _certain_ secrets, like your bank account
number or your sexual preferences, but not your criminal activity. So
blackmailing someone by threatening to out them as gay or exposing an
extramarital affair should be illegal on the grounds that you have the right
to keep those things secret, but blackmailing someone by threatening to expose
criminal activity should be illegal on the grounds that helping to keep that
secret makes the blackmailer an accomplice to the crime.

~~~
baddox
You say that you have a right to keep secrets. Does that means that it should
also be illegal to publicize someone else’s secrets, _without_ any threat or
demand for money?

~~~
lisper
That depends on the secret. You don't have the right to keep _anything_ a
secret. For example, you don't have the right to keep your criminal activity a
secret. But you do have the right to keep, say, your bank account number or
your sexual preferences a secret. So yes, I think (for example) outing someone
as gay should be illegal (I'd make it a civil offense, not a criminal one).

~~~
jbarberu
So if your friend catches your wife cheating on you, he should be the one
getting in trouble for telling you? (Assuming this is a secret she'd prefer to
keep from you)

~~~
lisper
Private disclosure is different from a public one.

~~~
jbarberu
Let's say you have a president, or something, who cheats on his wife,
publicizing that should be illegal?

~~~
lisper
Again, the rules are different for public figures than for private citizens.

------
goldcd
I thought the answer was obvious - then realized blackmail is seemingly a more
vague term than I'd previous thought. My previous understanding was that
blackmail was ~"a threat to reveal illegal activity unless you were
compensated" The reason this is pretty obviously illegal is that it's what
builds up pyramids of corruption. Alice skims some cash, Bob demands cash or
he'll turn in Alice. Alice skims more cash to pay Bob. Charles discovers Bob
is blackmailing Alice and demands money from Alice and Bob etc etc. Pay-
offs/golden-handcuffs CEOs on one side and short-selling and all manner of
other mechanisms that have sprung up, are to skirt the rules of directly
demanding money in return for silence.

------
Juliate
Well, it _is_ illegal in most of these places:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail)

~~~
gnode
This probably reads to some like "debate over its legality is unimportant
because it is illegal". I think it's not known by a lot of people that it is
illegal (in many places), and not initially clear from the article, with it
appearing to argue that blackmail should be made illegal.

------
coldtea
> _Economists have long faced an embarrassing question: If it helps deter
> undesirable actions, what exactly is wrong with blackmail?_

First, what are those "undesirable actions"? Can they be derived from first
principles?

If not, why can't blackmail simply be added to those (and that be enough
justification that it's illegal)? In this case, it doesn't matter if blackmail
"helps deter undesirable actions", since it's an undesirable action itself.

In the end, what a society finds an "undesirable action" (including things
like murder or incest) is a decision. Some societies are OK with ritual
murder, others allowed incest. Some tribal societies under study even allowed
theft. (And of course the US e.g. allows judicial executions, which are still
a kind of murder). In which case, there's no reason why blackmail can't just
be added to the "undesirable actions" list ad hoc -- all the items are there
in an ad hoc way anyway.

Second, blackmail implies a covert monetary transaction (to shush the
blackmailer). As such, shouldn't it be in the open, with e.g. IRS knowing?
Isn't it illegal as a blackmarket activity?

Third, isn't blackmail an invasion of privacy? If someone keeps secret that
they're gay, and someone blackmails them for that, aren't they threatening
with an invasion of privacy, which should be illegal? Individuals should be
able to control their private information. In which case, I'm arguing that
even publicizing the fact that X is e.g. into BDSM or whatever without their
consent should be punishable (and in some jurisdictions such actions are iirc,
regardless if the accusation is true).

------
Joe-Z
Can someone help me understand the context of this? Is this just some
philosophical thought-experiment, or is there a real problem to be solved?

Also: If blackmailing becomes legal before soft drugs do I'm gonna be SO
pissed :D

------
DannyB2
Argument 5.

5\. It is especially wrong to gain money by hurting someone.

As long as the blackmailed keeps paying, the blackmailer doesn't do the
hurtful thing.

But then I suppose the very act of blackmail is considered a harm. But if that
is true, then it should be illegal. Like assaulting, raping, robing, stabbing
someone.

------
kazinator
If blackmail should be illegal, it should be on the grounds that it is a form
of harassment, like stalking.

Basically, the content of the harassment is immaterial.

------
mamon
The worst form of blackmail in the US is probably the plea bargain. I guess
there are literally thousands of innocent people serving jail time because
they did not have a decent legal counsel to stop them from signing a bad deal.

------
nvahalik
While RTA, I was reminded of this from a few months ago:

[https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/chinese-
millennial...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/chinese-millennials-
secured-loans-nude-photos)

> ... [the victim] reportedly sent several nude pictures to the lender to
> receive a 4,000 yuan loan ($800) ...

------
dblotsky
I think the author’s hypotheticals are off. In a world where blackmail is
allowed, I think transparency would just be more normal, and secrets would be
more rare. For example, people would be more open about cheating, sexual
preferences, etc. I think in that world, along with blackmail, many taboo
things would become more normalized.

~~~
jerf
I think that would be true in a culture made of Homo Economicus, but I think
you're going to have a rough time of that plan with Homo Sapiens. Status
matters, and there's going to be some way to judge that status, and there's
going to be some delta between the society's understanding of your actions and
their assessment of the resulting status and your actual actions, and some way
to blackmail with that.

I mean, we already at least have _subcultures_ that are fairly open about
cheating and sexual preferences, but then those same cultures will nuke your
social status into oblivion if you accidentally say the wrong racist word.
(Let alone in a just a moment's poor judgment do it deliberately.) There's
gonna be _something_.

But I would endorse the idea that there will be second-order effects, some of
which may mitigate the problem. But I think that a lot of the people inclined
to propose this wouldn't particularly enjoy them, either. For an example
ripped from the headlines, as it becomes increasingly acceptable to nuke
someone's political career for making a woman somewhat uncomfortable forty
years ago (that's a deliberate satirical exaggeration, not a characterization
of any real case), I've wondered if the people making that accusation are
really thinking things through; do they _really_ want to limit all public
office only to people who were _so_ socially clumsy and awkward when young
that they never made a false move because they never made a move at all? I
mean, hey, suddenly that would open up rather a lot of high power careers to
me, sure, so I suppose I'm self-interestedly all for it in a sarcastic sense,
but I'm not sure everyone's going to be interested in that being the criteria
for serving in office or for that being the cost of leading a peaceful,
unblackmailed life.

~~~
heavenlyblue
There is a difference between “making a move” and “harassment”.

It doesn’t take much intelligence or confidence to have sex with a child, too.

~~~
jerf
'There is a difference between “making a move” and “harassment”.'

Along with the fact that I suspect you _are_ trying to refer to a specific
incident, I'd point out that in a world where everything is subjective and in
the eye of the beholder/victim, no, actually, there isn't. This is relevant in
the context of discussion of "blackmail", if your definition of "make a move"
happens to be their definition of "harassment". Even if "heavenlyblue" thinks
it's the former, it's not going to help.

~~~
heavenlyblue
No, there is: if the victim told you it’s harassment, you immediately stop.
You jail those who don’t stop after being asked to stop.

Legally speaking you don’t need to define the ways in which the law allows you
to unconditionally communicate (verbally, physcally or non-verbally) with me.
If I told you to stay back - then you should stay back and I don’t owe you an
apology.

You’re trying to reduce everything to relativism. I think the real world is
quite a bit more black and white in such cases. And we have jury for the cases
that are gray areas.

~~~
jerf
Your definition does not correspond to the one being used "in the wild", and I
think it's a motte and bailey argument.

------
jmull
It seems like there is a lot of overthinking.

Generally, we don’t want people doing serious harm to other people for
personal gain.

This covers muggings, murder, blackmail, other forms of extortion, etc.

~~~
hopler
It's amazing how this comment thread is full of people who do they comprehend
the reasonable person standard of law, and think law is invalid because they
can invent some pathological corner case.

------
LifeLiverTransp
Blackmail is the contagion of corruption. It stretches the corruption like a
fungi web through society- until it becomes to large to maintain or gets cut
off from its food supply.

Its corruption growth that reveals most corruption. Thats why the sums usually
grow so fast. Because the silence of the many, in this graph is so costly.

------
hamilyon2
Spillover effects and game theory all along. Sure, it is those who are
interested to know the information are victims, but they do not even know and
are not in position to defend themselves.

So, law steps in and declares that (only) way to profit from embarrassing true
information is to release it.

------
taeric
This seems like it is hard to justify as illegal only because the view is
restricted to just two parties.

Blackmail is illegal because it leads to societal harm. Not because it leads
to individual harm. That is hopefully a happy coincidence.

------
iandanforth
For the uninitiated this is "rationalist" writing and makes numerous
references to a Harry Potter fan-fiction written by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Some of
the phrases and mannerisms might be confusing if you don't know about him and
his following.

[http://yudkowsky.net/rational/](http://yudkowsky.net/rational/)

------
ccnafr
Spoiler alert: it already is!

------
vorpalhex
There's a lot of conflation here between immoral and illegal, which the
article itself even raises just to ignore it's own point and I'm left very
unclear what the actual message is beyond "don't be bad!"

------
jondubois
>> It is especially wrong to gain money by hurting someone.

No so.

With blackmail, you identify a problem that someone else has and you explain
it to them (for free) and then you sell them the solution for a price. It's
not so different from what big corporations are doing these days.

>> Saying embarrassing things about someone hurts them.

No, it makes them stronger and more authentic.

>> Blackmail discourages embarrassing activities, but some things just can’t
be changed.

But they can be destroyed.

