Non-IT News Thread
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
So from the link that you provided, here are the stated limits of what the non-disclosure entails...
....
General rule. --Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title--(1) no officer or employee of the United States,
(2) no officer or employee of any State, any local law enforcement agency receiving information under subsection (i)(7)(A), any local child support enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had access to returns or return information under this section or section 6104(c) , and
(3) no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), subsection (k)(10), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection (n),
shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.
....You can dig through all the people mentioned in part 3, but they are consistently all judges and other legal officials. The original source also outlines how you can disclose your own, how you can designate disclosers, how power of attorney works, and so forth.
Also, keep in mind that the information released goes way beyond one person and one government department - making it seemingly quite unlikely that the release was from the government, rather than from an employee with very likely legal access to the information.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-26-internal-revenue-code/26-usc-sect-6103.html
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
This I agree with but I believe I am 5 9's correct that Trump did not release them himself. Of course individuals along the chain have the ability to gather and use the information as required by law. That still falls under Federal law.
I'll agree with one nine that the first part is correct. But don't rule it out. There are really, really good reasons for Trump to have intentionally released this snippets.
Individually along the chain, outside of government, are very clearly not covered by the federal law. Anyone in his accounting, finance, or other personal or corporate positions are very much not part of that law.
-
@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:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
-
Now, if we are speculating, then the question is "why would Trump want to release this himself?"
That's easy. He would want to release this snippets if they are tantalizingly good looking compared to the rest of it. Release something bad, but not terrible, to make people assume that the rest, that isn't released, is better. Or to keep people focused on this because something else is happening, like a war in europe or a supreme court nominee and they need people to be focused on something more digestible. Given that this shows his companies doing better than most people assumed that they were, and that it doesn't show nearly the illegal activity that many people were hoping for, there remains a lot of reasons why Trump easily wanted these released. Especially in such a way that might prompt people to act like it must have been illegal and use that to make it look like he is being attacked.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still pretty convinced that Trump didn't release these. But there's no doubt that there could be loads of reasons why he would have.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
This I agree with but I believe I am 5 9's correct that Trump did not release them himself. Of course individuals along the chain have the ability to gather and use the information as required by law. That still falls under Federal law.
I'll agree with one nine that the first part is correct. But don't rule it out. There are really, really good reasons for Trump to have intentionally released this snippets.
Individually along the chain, outside of government, are very clearly not covered by the federal law. Anyone in his accounting, finance, or other personal or corporate positions are very much not part of that law.
Like I stated before, I don't need to be lawyer to know there are laws on the books that could be used to prosecute anyone in the chain for this incident at a federal level.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
Not really. We don't get up and arms when it happens to anyone else. Just this one specific case. That's a problem. That it happens to nearly everyone, that's a problem. This one, isolated incident... no, it's background noise and shouldn't be something the American public talks about. Any more than we talk about how a car was stolen from some old lady in Detroit today. Is it bad that it happened? Absolutely. Is it relevant on the national stage? Not at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Now, if we are speculating, then the question is "why would Trump want to release this himself?"
That's easy. He would want to release this snippets if they are tantalizingly good looking compared to the rest of it. Release something bad, but not terrible, to make people assume that the rest, that isn't released, is better. Or to keep people focused on this because something else is happening, like a war in europe or a supreme court nominee and they need people to be focused on something more digestible. Given that this shows his companies doing better than most people assumed that they were, and that it doesn't show nearly the illegal activity that many people were hoping for, there remains a lot of reasons why Trump easily wanted these released. Especially in such a way that might prompt people to act like it must have been illegal and use that to make it look like he is being attacked.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still pretty convinced that Trump didn't release these. But there's no doubt that there could be loads of reasons why he would have.
Oh, don't get me wrong. That is why I am not 100% sure. I agree with you, that there are many reasons to release snippets.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Like I stated before, I don't need to be lawyer to know there are laws on the books that could be used to prosecute anyone in the chain for this incident at a federal level.
Right, and I'm just saying that that is not at all true. There's definitely no federal law about that.
-
States laws are far more likely. But that would be state by state and this was in NY where the laws are pretty heavy on protecting disclosure traditionally.
But if the data was released by the people that almost certainly did it (family or employees) then NY and the USA must certainly don't have the kinds of laws you are picturing. Someone could be fired, for sure. But that's likely it. Civil court proceedings, maybe.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
Not really. We don't get up and arms when it happens to anyone else. Just this one specific case. That's a problem. That it happens to nearly everyone, that's a problem. This one, isolated incident... no, it's background noise and shouldn't be something the American public talks about. Any more than we talk about how a car was stolen from some old lady in Detroit today. Is it bad that it happened? Absolutely. Is it relevant on the national stage? Not at all.
I understand that you or others may not get up in arms about, but I sure do. I look at many issues like this and still get upset even though I know there is nothing that I can do about it.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
No, all of those people are focused on the data in the release. Not the bit about how the information was obtained.
I'd agree, even a European war is not as consequential on the world stage as the US' government failing, which is what we are potentially facing. This data, as personal as it might seam, is truly the most relevant global news item going on right at the moment.
With the eastern European war as easy second, especially as Turkey was involved today.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Like I stated before, I don't need to be lawyer to know there are laws on the books that could be used to prosecute anyone in the chain for this incident at a federal level.
Right, and I'm just saying that that is not at all true. There's definitely no federal law about that.
Well as long as you studied all the federal finance and tax laws, then I will believe you.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I understand that you or others may not get up in arms about, but I sure do. I look at many issues like this and still get upset even though I know there is nothing that I can do about it.
When have you gotten up in arms before, though? You never mention things like random peoples' info being disclosed. Why is this one time special?
What I'm saying is that this is a crime that, may or may not have happened in this case, but happens constantly all over American hundreds of thousands of times a day, and we need to deal with it as a single statistical problem. Not focus on one specific, random time that we have no specific reason to think it might have happened.
There are countless (literally) true thefts of personal data that we know of daily. THis is just speculative that it's one of them. Just one. If you are going to be up in arms about it, do so on a national scale that includes all of the people it is happening to.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well as long as you studied all the federal finance and tax laws, then I will believe you.
I provided that laws that exist for the case. Both the laws that we found, and standard legal operating procedures, make it expected to be the obvious case. You are stating that something both unlikely, and that we can't find any law to cover, must be true. But it's not obvious and there's no reason to expect it to be true.
You are basically saying that Zeus must exist, because we can't prove otherwise. You can't effectively prove the negative. If there is a law that makes something like this true, it might be really hard to find, but given that it doesn't follow standard US law, is in no way likely, and doesn't come up when researching this, you really need to provide something that shows that there are laws about this given that the existing laws very, very specifically don't cover it (and would never be expected to and I'm not even sure how they could.)
It's a nonsensical situation that would cover such a broad range of things that making such a law would effectively make American business impossible. It's as simple as... such a law can't actually exist. But if it did, it would be so dramatically problematic that you should be able to find it incredibly quickly, because people would be crippled by it daily.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well as long as you studied all the federal finance and tax laws, then I will believe you.
You did notice that FindLaw, the largest law library online, stated explicitly that I was correct, right? They didn't quote the laws behind it, because obviously laws don't exist to ALLOW things, only to disallow them, so conceptually they can't. But it's considered so obvious and well known that they were able to state it on the link that you provided to me about the very limited situations where you can't expose them.
Here is the same data from Cornell's Law Library, as well, but it's identical so not very exciting, since both are just stating the US law code...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I understand that you or others may not get up in arms about, but I sure do. I look at many issues like this and still get upset even though I know there is nothing that I can do about it.
When have you gotten up in arms before, though? You never mention things like random peoples' info being disclosed. Why is this one time special?
I don't have to be public about them and I don't see every post here either. Plus if others reply that cover my same thoughts, no need to respond. When it comes to many security stories, my sentiments are already included in the story or replies.
This one gets me because Trump tax records have been a huge issue for 5 years now. Trump DOES NOT have to release his tax records. Done, end of story. Move on with real issues. Now "somehow" the NYT obtains private tax records, yet I don't see anywhere here or in the comments on NYT complaining about how the NYT received stolen information as an issue.
That is why I spoke up about this. I don't want anyone at the IRS or in the chain giving up mine or yours.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
Not really. We don't get up and arms when it happens to anyone else. Just this one specific case. That's a problem. That it happens to nearly everyone, that's a problem. This one, isolated incident... no, it's background noise and shouldn't be something the American public talks about. Any more than we talk about how a car was stolen from some old lady in Detroit today. Is it bad that it happened? Absolutely. Is it relevant on the national stage? Not at all.
I understand that you or others may not get up in arms about, but I sure do. I look at many issues like this and still get upset even though I know there is nothing that I can do about it.
Well sure, individually you do, but nationally - most won't, most people will be like meh, who cares.. if anything - good for them for leaking it.
-
@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:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
My only point was, do you want someone handing your info to a news paper, who already knows that they are receiving stolen property to publish their findings?
If that is minor, then OK, we can always agree to disagree about what is a minor privacy issue or a major one.
If the individual behind the release of Trumps private tax record information is background noise compared to a European war, then so is his paying only $750 in taxes.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Now "somehow" the NYT obtains private tax records, yet I don't see anywhere here or in the comments on NYT complaining about how the NYT received stolen information as an issue.
That is why I spoke up about this. I don't want anyone at the IRS or in the chain giving up mine or yours.This isn't how things work. We don't know that the tax records were private, that's an assumption. We don't have the slightest reason to think that the IRS was involved for reasons I stated before. The NYT is protected from disclosing that information as a constitutional right of dramatically higher importance than the leak itself.
This is misdirection. Something of tremendous importance has happened. And we are stuck discussing something of trivial comparative importance that we don't even have any specific reason to think has happened other than it being a real possibility.
You can't go after the constitution just because you don't conveniently have proof that something didn't happen. This makes no sense.
There are layers and layers of "doesn't add up" here. It sounds scary and important when we say "I don't want anyone at the IRS or in the chain giving up mine or yours." Of course we don't want that. But we have no reason to think that that happened here. This is "what if" risk talking. Imagine if someone ran into your IT office and said "I don't know where I left my USB stick this morning, and since I can't prove where it is, I have to assume IT stole it and took my private data." Sure, that could have happened, but we have no reason to think that it did.
That's where we are with this. Something big and important is happening. Maybe something far, far less important happened, maybe. But we don't know and can't know. So getting misdirected to even discuss it is a problem.
If conceptually you feel the federal government is stealing private data, that's a completely different problem that I know nothing about. Do you truly feel that the IRS is a risk to you and me and everyone else in the "steals our tax returns and publishes them" sort of way? Because I don't think that that's a rational fear, especially as if they actually did that, we'd see the results of it all the time.
