Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
Ummmm, She and Chucky have FULL power to generate a bill and put it before Congress. They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I just think if the company was put through the ringer with HIPAA, it could be very costly, hurting the business to the point of no return. Defense attorneys are not cheap.
They are with HIPAA. You just show the paper and they move on to that other company. The US is very contract based and things like this are pretty efficient. You might need a lawyer, but anyone dealing with HIPAA has deep pockets to where the legal fees for this are trivial.
That's beside the point, but it's just not the big problem it seems like.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
Ummmm, She and Chucky have FULL power to generate a bill and put it before Congress. They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
Sure, but not the power to make it pass the Senate. They are NOT the ones able to make it happen, it's that simple.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just to clarify... Dash shouldn't loose his job, Dash did nothing wrong.. the contractor did.
I would hope not either. I just think if the company was put through the ringer with HIPAA, it could be very costly, hurting the business to the point of no return. Defense attorneys are not cheap.
Sadly sometimes that happens... but really, it's unlikely the company would fail if it wasn't the company doing something illegal.. you specifically said - overheard people talking about Govenor's mental status. If he is unfit to lead.. he's the one breaking the law by not reporting.. and frankly, we might also be breaking the law by not reporting.. in that case, yes, we should be shut down!
But if it's only the govenor who's breaking the law - assuming any law was actually broken - then sure, we'll get a black eye for being associated with the store, but it's unlikely we will be put out of business.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
How a Bill Becomes a Law.... this is basics of US government. House only proposes it. It's the Senate (and generally the president) that have to approve it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
Ummmm, She and Chucky have FULL power to generate a bill and put it before Congress. They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
Sure, but not the power to make it pass the Senate. They are NOT the ones able to make it happen, it's that simple.
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
Ummmm, She and Chucky have FULL power to generate a bill and put it before Congress. They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
yeah, because they know it's a waste of time... it would NEVER pass the senate, and even if it somehow magically did, Trump would veto it, and you think the first time through congress was tough.. now you need a, what - 2/3's vote to over turn a veto????
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sadly sometimes that happens... but really, it's unlikely the company would fail if it wasn't the company doing something illegal.
Right, it's only if doing something illegal that the media can even publish it practically. They can't do it to hurt the business, and no one would care. There's no readership for tax records normally.
Stealing tax data to publish when someone is on the up and up just isn't a threat. Sure, it shouldn't need to be a threat, the law should step in at some point, but practicality steps in before that and makes this a moot point. Only criminals have fear of tax releases, or those that fear that someone will be exposed as a criminal.
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
Anyone who actually believes in Trump would desire his data exposed to prove themselves right.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
How a Bill Becomes a Law.... this is basics of US government. House only proposes it. It's the Senate (and generally the president) that have to approve it.
Good, I know we both remember School House Rock. They had total power under Obama, yet was never done. Hmmm...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
You make it sound like putting a bill before congress matters.
Your example of putting a bill forward that will never pass the senate or president makes this moot. This is very simple. Your point is irrational. If people you don't like, don't attempt to do something that will never work, then you get to decide what they "want".
Okay, using that logic, I can define that YOU don't want it either, because you've not run for congress, won, and put forth that bill. So clearly, I can now decide what YOU want based on you not having done that.
See how that doesn't make sense? Just because Nancy, or you, haven't done X doesn't mean you don't want it to happen, it means neither of you have wasted the time on something that isn't relevant. Very, very simple. You are correct
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
No, it's their job to process one itty bitty piece of financial records. It's NOT their job or within their power to go beyond that nor their ability to expose things that they find.
It's very, very much not their job at all.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
NO... and what laws.. Let's say trump's wife gave the taxes to NYT - do you think that is illegal?
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes.. but not IRS to go after them.. that would be the justice system.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
If you have nothing to hide, you don't have need of encryption. That's a simple equation. The fundamental law of security is based on that, in fact. That's the law that says you only need to protect data to the level to which obtaining the data is more costly than its value.
If your data has no value, there's no need for even a modicum of protection. That's why I can leave my tax returns on a park bench safely, I have nothing to hide. Even giving the info away doesn't put me at risk.
That has nothing to do with trying to take away the right of encryption. Don't mix the two together. The point being, the market protects us from media leaks of unimportant everyday, everyman data.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
