Non-IT News Thread
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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:
@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.
You're focused to much on what the data was.. and not on the actual crime.
Are you talking about Trump's crime?
I am focused on how the information was obtained by the NYT. That is all.
Here's a better situation - did you not want the WaterGate leaks to happen? Did you not want Edward Snowden to leak the CIA documents?
Actually, No, i don't like that they were leaked. A person holds a classified clearence for a reason. Shut up, do your job and then get the hell out. I am not saying, it didn't have a good outcome.
I know I sure the HELL DID! absolutely I wanted those leaks to happen, be damned about any laws protecting private information.
Then we need all information to be out in the open at all times. No matter then info that the goverment holds, there is at least one person who will take offense to it and deem it should be public and/or leaked.
So I guess we will agree to disagree about the 'fact' of Trumps personal taxes being disclosed, I do consider that 'fact' to be background noise, especially compared to what it could lead to investigations....
I'm good here.
Do you don't believe we should have Whistler blower protections...
wow, you want to live in communist Russia, or China, don't ya?
I don't believe anything I said would relate to communism.If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
Actually, I'm guessing my company would likely be safe - the consultant on the otherhand could end up with huge fines...
My employees were having a legitimate conversation, we assume. My company has a signed HIPAA BAA with the contractor, so we can only operate from an assumption that he will owner it. If he doesn't, welp.. we will look bad in the press for hiring that person, but we can't be held liable (I don't believe at least) for his actions.
Are you still happy you hired that consultant? You are pretty happy that Snowden did what he did. That is my point, the consultant should have, after signing the agreement, shut up, do their job and leave. That is all I am saying.
From a PR perspective, of course I'm not happen I hired that consultant. But so what? It has no baring here what so ever.
Hell yes I'm happy that Snowden did what he did - we are supposed to be a free country here in the USA. It's why we have the 2nd ammendment, because the people are supposed to be able to overthrow the gov't when it gets out of control... sadly, I don't really consider that practical anymore, our founding fathers didn't foresee the level of technology that would enable the gov't to so vastly out military the citizens....
That said, the spy shit they use, and use on us it completely illegal, and we SHOULD be aware of it. -
Yes, it sucks that as suck, the USA shouldn't have hidden powers to use against foreign powers - it just means the known powers have to be THAT much more awesome as deterrents.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
Correct. Because he voluntarily joined a contract not to disclose.
Which I've covered already. So why bring it up again?
Also, you just pointed out that it would only cost him his job, not be illegal. Which I also pointed out before.
This sounds like you've come around and agree now that laws don't cover this, only contracts that we have no knowledge of existing or responsibility over.
I was only talking about Snowden and whether you would like your consultant who had a single job to do, do more than was required and not follow the contract you put in front of them.
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.
-
@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.
By this logic, anything that we don't like, we could say that you've not made happen or tried to make happen. Let's say "world peace." @pmoncho doesn't want world peace because he's not lifted a finger to do so. You'd argue that there is nothing that you can do that would just make world peace happen. And you'd be right. Just because you are powerless to do something doesn't make it your fault that it doesn't happen.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I was only talking about Snowden and whether you would like your consultant who had a single job to do, do more than was required and not follow the contract you put in front of them.
Hey, If I'm breaking the law - then yes, I already said I want that contractor to report me, etc.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I was only talking about Snowden and whether you would like your consultant who had a single job to do, do more than was required and not follow the contract you put in front of them.
That depends, if like Snowden that allowed him to protect my country, there's no limit to what I'd want him to do.
If you are talking about a helpdesk tech messing with phones, that's quite different. Unless messing with the phones somehow protects the country.
-
@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?
