In the electronic version of the NYT on May 27, 2016: “Even though Silicon Valley professes to be for free speech — this is where Twitter was invented, after all — the reaction opens a window into the thinking of the digerati, who are becoming more guarded and elusive even as their products make the world more transparent.” A commonly held and disseminated conclusion is that digital technology enhances transparency. This is true in some cases, however those that have practiced in the field of financial investigations can affirm that digital technology can just as easily be used to create a virtual but false set of statements (financial and non-financial) that purports to reflect (economic or other) reality but actually misleads. Financial fraudsters frequently need digital technology to create an intentionally bogus audit trail. Just as firearms can defend or offend, digital technology can inform or misinform; it may be deployed to cause statements and conditions to appear or disappear.
Digital technology enables rapid communication, but the underlying information may be claptrap. Concealment of beneficial owners (i.e., directing wills / minds) and actual business purposes depend on the present infrastructure of legal fictions and digital technology that forms a global bridge across which electronic funds travel under the cover of legitimate commercial activity. See an earlier notice of financial-related crimes with Panama as a hub.
From the same NYT article (accessed May 28, 2016 at 6:45 am ET): “A journalist’s job, at least in theory, is to ask questions and print the truth, which means it is less than loved in citadels of power.” This cynical take on human nature, specifically that of the digerati, presumes that those in power are not fans of truthful reporting. If this is true,….