An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Marcy Wheeler follows:
However, there are good reasons to doubt that this was just an email server hack. While Mossack Fonseca’s emails appear not to have been encrypted, there is far more to the leak than emails. It includes scanned passports and some database excerpts, suggesting that, however the files were obtained, it went beyond what got sent via email. Moreover, multiple outlets have identified outdated code and other configuration problems in Mossack Fonseca’s public website. So it seems probable that the firm’s trove of customer data has been exposed far more than MF wants to admit.
Which then raises the question: Do security vulnerabilities on Mossack Fonseca’s systems explain why it, and not another of the even bigger law firms serving tax haven customers, got exposed in this hack? Or is there another explanation? Did the hacker — if that is where these documents came from — single out Mossack Fonseca because it had already been exposed as a firm serving dubious clients, or did the source just target an easy mark, given MF’s security problems?
My online response to the above linked-to article follows:
Indeed. I’ve been wondering about the provenance of the leak too. And reading around. I formed a theory about the leak, or reveal. I believe it’s a black op. The most suggestive facts in that regard are the clownish attempt to smear Putin and the employment of, as Craig Murray explains, actors who are amenable to US imperial foreign policy and are directed (George Soros, USAID) to act accordingly, as the ICIJ is. But if this has been a black op, and information that I’ve picked up from other writers presents serious circumstantial evidence for that, then the goal is not just the smearing of Putin, but it is also the simple, base desire to show off. That’s because the attempt to smear Putin has actually managed to make him look good, if we’re paying attention. In other words, the powerful people – very busy hands in the Devil’s workshop – who are behind all of this don’t care all that much about making an ‘airtight’ case against Putin. They just want to show off their psyop weaponry and their power. Do they really need to? But I am glad to see that it’s not just rivers of hot blood that they want to shove God’s face into.
As Marcy notes, and others have pointed out (David Dayen at Salon and Pepe Escobar at OpEd.com), there are other companies helping tax evaders do their nasty business. Pepe clues us into the fact that Panama is actually not a place where shysters in the know would seek to hide their money and information. My theory that this reveal is a black op is one that Pepe holds strongly. He refers, correctly, to hybrid war and uses the term psyop, which is appropriate. Natylie Baldwin and Kermit Heartsong, in their recent book, “Ukraine – Zbig’s Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated” reminds us of the kind of (dishonorable) warfare that fine people like Gene Sharp and Colonel Reuven are teaching marauding imperialists, aided by orgs like the RAND Corporation, the Albert Einstein Institute, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House and the International Centre for Non-Violent Conflict. Their descrition of the tactics used by the 1%’s imperial forces and agents is chilling. There’s the hardcore propaganda targetted at regular people who then become a swarm, with key ones directed in real time by handlers and social media stitching the mob together. (pgs 154-158)
‘If’ this was a black, or psy, op, then What company would be targetted, once the play of hacking a secrecy business or enlisting an employee in one who would reveal was decided on? Wouldn’t that be one that’s known to be poorly run?
“Absolutely nothing of real substance happens in Panama without a green light by the United States government. Or, as an international tax lawyer told me, “you have to be an idiot to stash money in Panama. You cannot flush a toilet there without the Americans knowing about it.”” – Pepe Escobar (http://bit.ly/1N23Xjm)
I’ve learned that those who steal the means of survival – mainly money; money means ‘life’ in a money system – from others, like them to know it. No, They don’t want to go to jail for it and if they think that they might, then they’ll live with complete anonymity. But the powerful, as we’ve seen, can often flaunt their crimes with impunity. Remember David Petraeus? Remember Barack Obama and his murderous drone/terror operation? This dark world’s paradigm, or operating principle, is ‘riches for the strongest’. Even victims, sadly, play it, not realizing that that game, in which there has to be losers, is the problem. So the powerful, who have no principled attachment to the rule of law, steal the means of survival from others and those others can’t help but notice. That attention equals glory. Glory that is unseen isn’t glory. And that glory is something, along with security and freedom, that powerful, perverted law-breakers crave. Unfortunately. We are all living with the consequences.
Or Craig Murray could be right. He thinks that rather than this being a psyop, it’s an honest to goodness leak, but the leaker “has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results.”
“Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, because everything in the world – the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life – does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is it’s desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.” -1John 2:15-17
The desire of the flesh and the eyes can only mean a desire that does not come from a spirit influenced by God, for humans are human. We desire to feel good, physically (flesh) and mentally (eyes) and there is nothing in that itself that is wrong. It ‘can’ be wrong.
Here’s a smattering of some articles from the alternative media dealing with the Panama Papers:
“The Panama Papers Problem” by Margaret Kimberley
“Eggs Fly in Iceland as Panama Papers Spark Populist Anger in the Streets” by Lauren McCauley
“Dance to the Panama Papers “Limited Hangout” Leak” by Pepe Escobar
“‘Corruption’ as a Propaganda Weapon” by Robert Parry