Australian Federal MPs' computer network hacked

[TechyBen]

On 2/17/2019 at 8:57 AM, mr moose said:

 

 

Seriously, read it before continuing this conversation.  Your understanding of corruption (or the definition you accept as being the only one), is way too limited for the scope of this discussion.

No probs. Moving goalposts. Who said I would not accept a given definition? Still no answer on if it would affect you personally, if you would take the same standpoint as now. I gave one, can you answer? After, I'm happy to hear your definition. [Edit] My bad here! Seems I lost your post in amongst a lot of others coming in. have posted a reply below [/edit]

 

On 2/17/2019 at 8:02 AM, leadeater said:

But what if they don't take your money or have anything to do with you at all? What about the contract example of corruption which is the most common corruption in developed nations? Is it ok for a company to be awarded a contract through a corrupted tender process, of course not but that does not mean it leads to a negative economic impact to the populous at large.

 

No one is excusing anything, again pointing to examples where there has not been a negative impact is not excusing nor supporting said action. The outcome doesn't change whether you support it or not, if it was corrupt or not, the outcome is the outcome. Should it have happened the way it did, no if corruption was involved but that is not the same thing as a negative effect from it.

 

Philosophically and morally you can say corruption is bad but that is only a social norm or personally held opinion, one that most people have hence it being a social norm. Opinions on matters doesn't equate to outcomes and effects, my opinion of something doesn't make something happen.

 

"But what if they don't take your money". What what if? Like seriously, as said. I know of places this is happening, it's not a "what if". It's a question of what if it is *you* affected, not what if it happens or not. So question, if you get your property taken, fully, due to [any type of] corruption, do you say it is beneficial?

 

Once that definition is confirmed or not, then I can discuss. I would know your standing on it, and what you mean by corruption. As said, this *is* done, so no what if "only a small thing is taken" or "what if someone else is affected", literally this is happening, fully, to actual people. Are you saying, if you were one of those currently affected people, you would say "this corruption is beneficial to me"?

 

Quote

Except the evidence supplied to you earlier indicates not all corruption is harmful. All corruption is morally and ethically wrong, legally wrong, but that has nothing to do with the impact of the corruption.

 

Thanks! That clears up the opinion, that is it morally/ethically wrong. However, as to the other point on it being beneficial, does the example of having your property taken show one of benefit or harm? (So I know what types of actions are considered beneficial or not to you).

 

As said, only for clarification on what you mean by corruption. What scope you are applying. As in, a direct answer to the above question will give a standing on this. No answer given will continue to show it's a conflicting understanding being presented to me, and not a concise one!

 

Thanks.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

"But what if they don't take your money". What what if? Like seriously, as said. I know of places this is happening, it's not a "what if". It's a question of what if it is *you* affected, not what if it happens or not. So question, if you get your property taken, fully, due to [any type of] corruption, do you say it is beneficial?

No it was never a what if it did, you raised that as a counter to the point that not all corruption has been harmful to the economic prospects of a country and the people who live in it. Your counter point to that was "but there is bad corruption", that doesn't invalidate the raised point but rather ignores it. We all know of places and examples of harmful corruption, so?

 

Corruption is an abuse of power, it can also mean morally corrupt. Corruption being synonymous with a criminal act, fraud etc, doesn't mean all corruption directly correlates to someone being harmed, can do or commonly does is not the same as always does.

 

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

Thanks! That clears up the opinion, that is it morally/ethically wrong. However, as to the other point on it being beneficial, does the example of having your property taken show one of benefit or harm? (So I know what types of actions are considered beneficial or not to you).

Irrelevant, raising a what if to counter some corruption hasn't been harmful doesn't make it not true. Keeping raising a what if doesn't address the point, you haven't actually ever addressed it only what if'd back. What if your car explodes? What if the sky falls? What if I gave you an example already of corruption that doesn't harm you?

 

If you want the courtesy of your questions being answered you could go back a page, read the links/evidence supply, address the point that was presented, discuss that and not what if back ignoring it. Then I will answer about the stuff that is bad, that doesn't need answering because stating the obvious is redundant.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

No probs. Moving goalposts.

No you see that is the problem, no goal posts have been moved,  a statement was made and supporting evidence was posted which you refuse to read.  I posted them right back at the start of the discussion on corruption, Unfortunately you are missing crucial information to understand what I am talking about.  

 

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

 

Still no answer on if it would affect you personally, if you would take the same standpoint as now. I gave one, can you answer? After, I'm happy to hear your definition.

I did answer that, Are you not reading my posts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TechyBen]

Sorry, gone back, missed your post (must have gotten a notification on other posts and skipped a page).

On 2/16/2019 at 9:46 PM, mr moose said:

Yes.  Of course I would, that's the whole point, it would be pretty naive to think we haven't been affected if not a direct victim of corruption at some point in your life.   But not all  acts of corruption have an absolute negative effect, some acts of corruption actually net a positive result for nearly all involved.  

 

If you would just read the material I linked you would understand what I am saying.

 

(Bold mine for emphasis) You are saying, if law enforcement turn up, take everything (as said, I know of places this is happening due to corruption) you will reply "thanks, this corruption is really beneficial to..." and what do you see it as beneficial to? The corrupt person taking your things, society or yourself? And you will honestly say that (you say you currently feel this way)? I know I'm asking a second time. But really. You would stand there saying "this is really beneficial"? I'm interested in who you would consider it beneficial to?

 

The car safety/deaths example is a good one here. I accept the data. Likewise, I can for "corruption", but would first need to know what you mean by it. I know car deaths are down due to improvements in car safety. I would not state that "car accidents can be, sometimes, actually a 'net positive' result" though. Even if I could spin some imaginary (or real) situation where a car accident or death results in a benefit elsewhere. Also it may be that while car safety goes up, road dangers go up too. Likewise, if corruption is down, do we still state it is beneficial? Again. Think about how we are framing our statements here. What is the goal vs method of the actions we are supporting? Are you sure you mean to suggest the corruption part of an action is beneficial, and the one you wish to support?

 

Thanks.

 

@leadeater

Quote

Irrelevant, raising a what if to counter some corruption hasn't been harmful doesn't make it not true. Keeping raising a what if doesn't address the point, you haven't actually ever addressed it only what if'd back. What if your car explodes? What if the sky falls? What if I gave you an example already of corruption that doesn't harm you?

Irrelevant? I gave an example of corruption being harmful (at least I would assume so, @mr moose seems to be saying it would be beneficial to have their property taken?). I'm like opening up with dialog and trying to learn others opinions and views (factual, opinion etc). What example of beneficial corruption do you have? That is not an irrelevant question. I'm happy to hear how you consider corruption towards you, or others, is helpful. Or how corruption could be "victimless"? As some sort of Robin hood?

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Irrelevant? I gave an example of corruption being harmful (at least I would assume so, @mr moose seems to be saying it would be beneficial to have their property taken?). I'm like opening up with dialog and trying to learn others opinions and views (factual, opinion etc). What example of beneficial corruption do you have? That is not an irrelevant question. I'm happy to hear how you consider corruption towards you, or others, is helpful. Or how corruption could be "victimless"? As some sort of Robin hood?

See you're looking at it and only accepting black and white again, the point is both cases of corruption that is harmful and also not harmful exist. You were pointed to some research on corruption which covers both but also talks about cases where it has not been harmful, that was the section being pointed out to you to show that this situation does exist. Your response to that was to bring up how corruption can be harmful, so? We know that, what's your point in relation to the cases that do not?

 

And please I already told you that I've given you an example, I gave it to you twice, I told you I gave it to you. Everything you've asked for has been said, you can go back and read it. Cases of corruption being harmful is irrelevant to the point.

 

Either way I have no vested interested in this discussion line either, not simply that it is off topic, but that I raised a point with you about how you debate. Like with the Australian law proposal you can only see it one specific way, want it to perfectly apply to every situation, align to every case or deem it impossible to implement or similar statements (which I can quote). We all have our own opinions on things but our opinions are not causations, if we think something is stupid or impractical doesn't mean it is. If we think all corruption is harmful doesn't mean it is. When your opinion of something gets challenged you fall back on evidence to support your case or look at the opposing evidence and potentially challenge that, not repeat your opinion because that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

If you want to open dialogue first do us the courtesy of addressing ours that has been already raised and not ignore it. The dialogue is already open, please address it.

[TechyBen]

Ok. So:

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 sometimes the worst outcome is a company that would have gotten the contract didn't...

So, in your mind, this is fine. Corruption that only has the effect of giving contracts to someone else are ok? So, if I swap the type of action, we would state "because some car accidents don't result in death, car accidents can be beneficial"? If that is no ok, why is "because some corruption don't result in harm, corruption is beneficial"? 

 

Again. I don't follow your logic. I'm happy to have an open discussion on it. But I fail to see where this is beneficial. I'm not following your (or Mrs Moose's) direction on it.

 

Quote

Like with the Australian law proposal you can only see it one specific way

I asked about the one specific way. Like, I'm lactose intolerance, does not mean I don't realise *other* people can eat ice cream. But I may protest if you insist "your not eating icecream, you only see it one specific way".

Quote

If we think all corruption is harmful doesn't mean it is. 

Not the Aus law (I already conceded on that, that is does seem to allow a very narrow [in law] application, on a broad [lots of services] cloud based industry).

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So, in your mind, this is fine.

 

On 2/17/2019 at 9:02 PM, leadeater said:

No one is excusing anything, again pointing to examples where there has not been a negative impact is not excusing nor supporting said action. The outcome doesn't change whether you support it or not, if it was corrupt or not, the outcome is the outcome. Should it have happened the way it did, no if corruption was involved but that is not the same thing as a negative effect from it.

 Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[TechyBen]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

 

 Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You do know, it's akin to saying "but running around with scissors is ok, because no one got hurt this time"? As in, we don't disagree on the percentages of harm vs no harm, but the risks of the event?

 

So some corruption is pointless to take note of. I fail to see where this has relation to how other people, are affected by corruption right now? Or how these are excuses against discussing the benefits or problems with a law? Or discussing how to apply it?

 

The car accident/deaths example is a good one, as it gives figures/mechanics/understanding and takes out the opinion/emotional side of things. If we were discussing that, "new law to stop accidents", I may say "ah, this law asks for no stopping in a no stop zone which also has a traffic light requiring stopping". At which point we either find a lawful application (traffic light overrides stopping zone, or stopping zone details "entrance" to zone in law, not "stopping"), or find there is none. You helped me see that yes, the law is not self contradictory. But IMO may be vague or allow misapplication. We could state "I feel this will cause more accidents in stopping zones". Or "I know of countries this *has* caused accidents in".

 

To which posting "But TechBen, read up on how accidents in total are declining" is not answering the concern, to then spin "but some accidents are not harmful" and "sometimes accidents are good for the economy" just leaves me in shock.

 

That is, the discussion has has devolved into nonsense. Though not through my presentation of questions or examples (or actual countries were corruption using similar laws is harmful to entire minorities/majorities depending on who is arbitrarily targeted as socially different).

 

I admit. I have missed your posts this last day, reading Mr Mooses, missing yours, reading yours, missing theirs.

 

Imagine this thread as "Aus gov has car accident, after passing controversial traffic laws".

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

So, if I swap the type of action, we would state "because some car accidents don't result in death, car accidents can be beneficial"? If that is no ok, why is "because some corruption don't result in harm, corruption is beneficial"? 

So basically if I change the outcome/effect of the corruption to now be harmful, which supports my point point of view I am now correct. Is that the gist of what you are saying/doing?

 

You know we are talking about the outcome/effect of the corruption right? You can't simply swap that out with something bad to support your case. If it's a harmful outcome then none of us are saying otherwise.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Sorry, gone back, missed your post (must have gotten a notification on other posts and skipped a page).

 

(Bold mine for emphasis) You are saying, if law enforcement turn up, take everything (as said, I know of places this is happening due to corruption) you will reply "thanks, this corruption is really beneficial to..." and what do you see it as beneficial to? The corrupt person taking your things, society or yourself? And you will honestly say that (you say you currently feel this way)? I know I'm asking a second time. But really. You would stand there saying "this is really beneficial"? I'm interested in who you would consider it beneficial to?

 

The car safety/deaths example is a good one here. I accept the data. Likewise, I can for "corruption", but would first need to know what you mean by it. I know car deaths are down due to improvements in car safety. I would not state that "car accidents can be, sometimes, actually a 'net positive' result" though. Even if I could spin some imaginary (or real) situation where a car accident or death results in a benefit elsewhere. Also it may be that while car safety goes up, road dangers go up too. Likewise, if corruption is down, do we still state it is beneficial? Again. Think about how we are framing our statements here. What is the goal vs method of the actions we are supporting? Are you sure you mean to suggest the corruption part of an action is beneficial, and the one you wish to support?

 

I said some some corruption not ALL corruption. You are repeatedly reverting to this concept that there is only one type of corruption or that there is no scale and it all has to result in loses for everyone except the beneficiary.  Have you read the links I posted?

 

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

You know we are talking about the outcome/effect of the corruption right? You can't simply swap that out with something bad to support your case. If it's a harmful outcome then none of us are saying otherwise.

This bit right here, sums it up nicely.

 

If the outcome is bad then I hate it, I generally don't like it even when the outcome is good.  But corruption will never go away,  Whether you like it or not there are going to be times in your life when you benefit either directly or indirectly from corruption alongside society.

 

Sometimes corruption does little more than short circuit wasteful bureaucracy and allow people to get on with job. 

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

So basically if I change the outcome/effect of the corruption to now be harmful, which supports my point point of view I am now correct. Is that the gist of what you are saying/doing?

 

You know we are talking about the outcome/effect of the corruption right? You can't simply swap that out with something bad to support your case. If it's a harmful outcome then none of us are saying otherwise.

Huh? I ask if this "beneficial corruption" exists. I did not swap out the results of corruption, they have always been whatever happens (we could theorise a "beneficial murder", no idea if you'd want to go down that route, but someone seems to have tried it for a "beneficial corruption"). We can have a non affecting corruption. Which is a failed attempt. As "attempted murder" is failed. Don't see how that affects the discussion though, if that was the point being made. Either way, as I said. Real corruption exists. Harmful corruption exists. Thus the concern about certain laws and how solid their written definitions are. Those are valid concerns, though the scope or level of the concern is up for debate.

 

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I said some some corruption not ALL corruption. You are repeatedly reverting to this concept that there is only one type of corruption or that there is no scale and it all has to result in loses for everyone except the beneficiary.  Have you read the links I posted?

 

 

Some? One would do. One beneficial corruption example (theoretical even!). So I understand what is being presented.

 

"Losses for everyone"? Never said everyone loses. As said, I can see that many people would be involved in a corrupt application of law (commercial, social or governmental). Um, if there is 1 loss, and 1 benefit, there is still 1 loss. I will be happy to see an example of either. Of either all benefiting, some benefiting, or 1 benefiting and the others not. I just really don't understand what you mean by "beneficial" corruption (though a lower bar for @leadeater as I think they only mean neutral affecting corruption).

 

Thanks.

[TechyBen]

(Sorry for double post, post came in as I was typing!)

Quote

Sometimes corruption does little more than short circuit wasteful bureaucracy and allow people to get on with job. 

Ah. Ok. So you consider not applying law as beneficial sometimes? Can you confirm that is what you mean by "beneficial corruption"?

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Huh? I ask if this "beneficial corruption" exists. I did not swap out the results of corruption

For something to be harmful or not, beneficial or not you have to look at the outcome as that is the assessment that needs to be made to say if there was harm or not. If you change the outcome you literally change the entire assessment and situation being talked about. You cannot just swap out an outcome from something that does not harm to something that does harm then ask us to justify why it is not harmful.

 

In my example of contracts there is no loss, no one had the contract before the tender process. The process was corrupt, a company got awarded the contract which for example sake because the two owners of the company are golfing friends. All the other companies that tendered lost nothing, they never had it beforehand. Not getting a contract you may have, not guaranteed, is not a loss but it's not a benefit either. The company awarded the contract benefited, the people who get to use what ever was made by said contract benefits, everyone who works on the contracts benefits, all companies subcontracted benefits.

 

If any of the other companies find out the tender process was corrupt they can take legal action, they are entitled to that and it is important to do so if you find out to fight corruption.

[TechyBen]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

For something to be harmful or not, beneficial or not you have to look at the outcome as that is the assessment that needs to be made to say if there was harm or not. If you change the outcome you literally change the entire assessment and situation being talked about. You cannot just swap out an outcome from something that does not harm to something that does harm then ask us to justify why it is not harmful.

 

In my example of contracts there is no loss, no one had the contract before the tender process. The process was corrupt, a company got awarded the contract which for example sake because the two owners of the company are golfing friends. All the other companies that tendered lost nothing, they never had it beforehand. Not getting a contract you may have, not guaranteed, is not a loss but it's not a benefit either. The company awarded the contract benefited, the people who get to use what ever was made by said contract benefits, everyone who works on the contracts benefits, all companies subcontracted benefits.

 

If any of the other companies find out the tender process was corrupt they can take legal action, they are entitled to that and it is important to do so if you find out to fight corruption.

 

I never did. I said there are instances where harm can be caused by overly general laws, or laws applied without definition. As I can currently see in tyrinicall rulerships/government's right now. That I would hope the Aus example would not be one that went that way (abuse of the access to data laws). You two are the ones arguing *for* corruption. Not me. It's your place to show if/how/what that is. I never swapped anything out, just asked for clarification on what on earth you are going on about.

 

You seem very intent on showing corruption is ok for some reasons. I think we know why.

 

Quote

 All the other companies that tendered lost nothing

Yeah, no. Factually not true. They loss an even playing field. Either through "bribes" or through breaking laws. Or had due harm to them (added cost of bribing if all companies involved in bribing/breaking laws). Thus, sorry... I have no decision on what is what, but as you present it, it is self contradicting.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Those are valid concerns, though the scope or level of the concern is up for debate.

Well considering this was your entry point in to this discussion line I have to say it was a difficult journey from denying such a thing exists at all and an unwillingness to acknowledge it's existence.

 

On 2/17/2019 at 10:46 AM, mr moose said:

Yes.  Of course I would, that's the whole point, it would be pretty naive to think we haven't been affected if not a direct victim of corruption at some point in your life.   But not all  acts of corruption have an absolute negative effect, some acts of corruption actually net a positive result for nearly all involved.  

 

On 2/14/2019 at 11:58 PM, TechyBen said:

What?! And that is me checking out of the conversation. Thanks for your input. But no.

 

 

Have you forgotten how you entered in to this discussion?

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You two are the ones arguing *for* corruption.

Please stop saying that, that is false. You've been told multiple times were are not, never say that again.

 

Pointing out instances of corruption that has not brought harm is NOT support of it.

[TechyBen]

Sorry  @leadeater

Mr Moose made the statement some are "beneficial".

You have said "the other companies did not lose anything". That is factually wrong. They lost either costs/money in having to bribe or loss work (as it would be evenly distributed vs multiple supplies instead of 1 supplier *every time*) etc.

 

That is a net benefit for 1 corrupt official/company, but loss for the others. It's the definition, not me, stating that.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It's the definition, not me, stating that.

Corruption is defined as an abuse of power, it does not stipulate harm nor impact. The reason why corruption is outlawed is because it often does, or has other factors like companies not competing in level playing fields and companies unduly profiting from corruption. That doesn't mean in my example that every contract tender process is corrupt or you have to bribe for everything, that does exist, but sometimes that happens without the company actually realizing that is corruption or the employee is not aware that is violating company policy. What's wrong with giving someone I know and trust the contract? Corruption.

 

There is such policies where I work which is why I used it as an example, we are a government funded educational institute and are subject to certain spending rules and regulations and tender processes. Breaking those is illegal.

 

If I circle all the way back to what I understood @mr moose original point in mentioning corruption is that corrupt law enforcement would not need that proposed law change to engage in corrupt acts nor would it necessarily assist much in doing so. Yes it can be abused, the judicial system is there to oversee that and to stop or punish if it happens. You would need both law enforcement and the judicial system to be corrupt to get away with such things.

 

We all have a right to privacy but within the law there are provisions that allow for that to be violated. I don't feel like diving in to that right now but as far as law enforcement goes they have needs to enable them to do their jobs, what provisions and how they can apply them we the people give them is very topical but we cannot discuss it while ignoring the needs or issues of either side. There also needs to be an understanding that there will be cases where the two points of view, needs or wants, are directly opposing and a decision needs to be made on how to resolve that, essentially who's is more important.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Some? One would do. One beneficial corruption example (theoretical even!). So I understand what is being presented.

 

It's all in the links I provided which you seem to refuse to want to read.

 

Which is why I keep asking you to read them.  You're are literally just repeating yourself as if it offers some sort of validity to your understanding. 

 

 

 

[TechyBen]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's all in the links I provided which you seem to refuse to want to read.

 

Which is why I keep asking you to read them.  You're are literally just repeating yourself as if it offers some sort of validity to your understanding. 

 

 

 

And this is why discussion is almost impossible... because I really have no idea what you are proposing. Just roadblocks.

 

Quote

For those without money and connections, paying even small bribes to access basic public services such as public health or police, can have important consequences. In fact, petty corruption in the form of bribes often acts as a regressive tax, since the burden typically falls disproportionately on the poor.

 

Quote

Corruption is commonly defined as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain". Here we provide evidence of how diplomats in New York City abused their diplomatic status to break traffic rules by parking illegally.

 

Quote

As we can see, countries that score higher in the Corruption Perception Index (i.e. countries seen as less corrupt) tend to also have better scores in the Human Development Index.

 

How do the data plots support your understanding? That some corruption is beneficial?

[TechyBen]

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

What's wrong with giving someone I know and trust the contract? Corruption.

Yeah. I can understand it from that point. We have to separate our personal business from one working for a governmental authority. We feel it is the same, but sadly it is not. The only way to win some games, in that case, is not to play. I would not want to be the person putting out the contractual tender, if I knew I had to allow the bribing, or untrustworthy companies. I would be in a lose lose situation! (Give out to bribes, or give out to unable/untrusted companies)

 

PS, as a note, I have worked sweeping floors for companies that were nationally (or globally) "corrupt" and fined for it. Even the floor sweepers were affected by that seemingly "neutral" event (it was, as they could see entirely neutral and just a "part of business", yet end result, it was harmful).

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

And this is why discussion is almost impossible... because I really have no idea what you are proposing. Just roadblocks.

 

 

 

 

How do the data plots support your understanding? That some corruption is beneficial?

 

Did you just scour those links for sentences that individually are not representative of the whole?

 

Here's some quotes cherry picked the same way:

 

Quote

According to this source, close to 70% of firms report having been asked for bribes in Syria and Liberia. Whereas in countries such as Bhutan, Slovenia, Israel, Eritrea and Estonia, the corresponding figure is below 1%.

Because corruption is not the same everywhere and the scales are massively different within countries as between them.

 

Quote

As we can see, countries that score higher in the Corruption Perception Index (i.e. countries seen as less corrupt) tend to also have better scores in the Human Development Index.

This means countries that are less corrupt (lower immediate impact on poor people) are also countries with higher human development.  That means that corruptions changes with the development of humanity the more first world you re the less corruption impacts you in a negative way.

 

Quote

Most of us fail to imagine that corruption can also grease the wheels of prosperity. Yet in places where bureaucracies and organizations are inefficient (meaning entrepreneurs and big firms struggle to transport or export or comply with regulation), corruption could improve efficiency and growth. Bribes can act like a piece rate or price discrimination, and give faster or better service to the firms with highest opportunity cost of waiting

 

and

Quote

Of course, most corruption is nowhere near as outrageous, and there are times when the presence of corruption can actually lead to just outcomes.

 

 

Which are pretty self explanatory.

 

 

So when my claim is that SOME corruption in first world countries can be beneficial, you need to stop focusing on 3rd world dictatorships where the poor are already at a significant disadvantage.

 

As I said right back at the start, corruption is on a scale that does not stop before it becomes beneficial (which is different to honorable) and while it is debated in academia, they mostly agree that there are forms of corruption that benefit the populace.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

Yeah. I can understand it from that point. We have to separate our personal business from one working for a governmental authority. We feel it is the same, but sadly it is not.

No it is all the same, it's all called corruption. You can't just brush aside something and pretend it doesn't exist, or say it doesn't matter. Corruption is corruption, the basis of the point was that there is many kinds of corruption with wide ranging effects and actual economic experts have looked at the impacts of corruption and have found evidence that some instances of corruption has been a net benefit to the local society.

 

Failing to acknowledge all forms of corruption allows corruption to exist, if you say some forms of it don't matter or aren't important enough then why go through the effort to prevent it or punish it when found?

 

As @mr moose has said above when you heard corruption you laser focused in on the specific kinds of corruption you could think of, serious human rights violations kinds, rather than actually clicking on the provided links to get context to the discussion. If you had done that we could have avoided the entire circle of no end trying to point you to kind of corruption that was being referred to, not the ones you were thinking of.

 

Edit:

And if you think I work for a government authority then no I do not, funded by and work for aren't the same thing. Education is taxpayer funded, where else would that money go? We also have private research investments from industries, that's a core reason for the existence of universities, to conduct research not just teach.

[TechyBen]

@mr moose and @leadeater

 

Sorry, I have nothing to say. Conversing here is near impossible. I never said you work for a government authority either. Just that we can be affected by them, and it's obvious you are in *IT* and affected by changes to these laws.

 

/bye.