Non-IT News Thread
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
My first line stated that I was concerned that the NYT obtained private tax records and that it should be question on how they received that information.
Right. But I could say that about anyone. I'm concerned that you run the IRS and have access to all their data. Prove you don't.
You have "concerns" but they are based purely on the possibility for a crime to have happened, not evidence suggesting that one did. It's like calling the police to say you are concerned about a car having been stolen and when they ask for details you explain that a prime parking space in front of a popular store is empty, so it's just likely that a car was stolen from that space.
Possible? Of course. Likely? No. Reason to be "concerned", absolutely not.
Your first line states two things that are speculative.... that the information was private, and that the implication that it was obtained inappropriately. Neither things is there any reason to suspect. None.
Then your response to those two unfounded points is... you now feel "...that it should be question on how they received that information." Which is a violation of the constitution. So boiling it down...
You feel that because you are afraid someone could have committed a minor crime, you think that our constitution should be suspended?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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.
My first line stated that I was concerned that the NYT obtained private tax records and that it should be question on how they received that information.
I believe we have a huge reason to think that someone in the chain gave it away. All one had to do is watch any news channel to understand the reason. Hate Trump started the day he began his first campaign. For five years CNN, MSNBC, and every other station and news paper has been digging in to Trump. That seem like a good enough reason for me.
Let me ask this - Let's assume you leaked it... and now they know.. and they prove it in a court of law...
what should happen now? Should you be imprisoned for life? should you be executed? Should you get a few years in jail? a fine? Should you get a slap on the wrist because it was your first offense....
OK great.. one of those things happens - that's put to bed.. NOW WHAT?
We still need to deal with what these tax returns we ARE aware of tell us...
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
To answer, what I consider to be an absolutely crazy question, yes, If I'm doing bad thing - I want mine leaked too.
I agree. I would want mine leaked, yours leaked, etc. I wouldn't even want "leak" to apply, I'd want the IRS to have an obligation to publish it formally.
And if I was elected, I'd be intentionally being an enemy of the state if I withheld mine. I'd like existing politicians to be held to the standard I'd want myself held to. They shouldn't have to be "lesser people" that those of us that don't want to be politicians.
Agreed - if you are a politician, your finances should be 100% transparent. Period, At least from the time you announce you are running, and for 10 years after...
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
I do agree that any person controlling the money should show theirs but that is not what the President does. He asks and Congress gives. Congress can always say No!
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I believe we have a huge reason to think that someone in the chain gave it away.
Right, but we don't. It's perfectly reasonable to say that it's a possibility. It's crazy to go past that. There's zero evidence at this point. There's no smoking gun. There's no statements to that effect.
Your belief is purely either political bias, or irrational fear. It's not founded in reality and using an irrational fear, regardless of why it exists, is a really bad reason to start acting like we should tear up the foundations of law.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
Wow, okay, now that's just false. So the president can't give favours, can't start wars, can't get paid? Um, what the heck are you trying to claim?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
To answer, what I consider to be an absolutely crazy question, yes, If I'm doing bad thing - I want mine leaked too.
I agree. I would want mine leaked, yours leaked, etc. I wouldn't even want "leak" to apply, I'd want the IRS to have an obligation to publish it formally.
And if I was elected, I'd be intentionally being an enemy of the state if I withheld mine. I'd like existing politicians to be held to the standard I'd want myself held to. They shouldn't have to be "lesser people" that those of us that don't want to be politicians.
Agreed - if you are a politician, your finances should be 100% transparent. Period, At least from the time you announce you are running, and for 10 years after...
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
I do agree that any person controlling the money should show theirs but that is not what the President does. He asks and Congress gives. Congress can always say No!
wow, if you believe that, I guess this conversation is over, because short of you moving from that position, we can't really talk about it anymore.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I do agree that any person controlling the money should show theirs but that is not what the President does.
Right. No one controls more money than the president. No one. Anywhere. He might not approve budgets alone, but that's trivial compared to the amount of money he controls.
You can't possible claim otherwise. It's a level of absurdity that no one could stoop to. Everyone knows a million ways he could move trillions, trivially.
So again.... why do you think he should be the one exception to the protections that we get.
-
@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:
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.
My first line stated that I was concerned that the NYT obtained private tax records and that it should be question on how they received that information.
I believe we have a huge reason to think that someone in the chain gave it away. All one had to do is watch any news channel to understand the reason. Hate Trump started the day he began his first campaign. For five years CNN, MSNBC, and every other station and news paper has been digging in to Trump. That seem like a good enough reason for me.
Let me ask this - Let's assume you leaked it... and now they know.. and they prove it in a court of law...
what should happen now? Should you be imprisoned for life? should you be executed? Should you get a few years in jail? a fine? Should you get a slap on the wrist because it was your first offense....
OK great.. one of those things happens - that's put to bed.. NOW WHAT?
We still need to deal with what these tax returns we ARE aware of tell us...
Right, even if that was a capital offense (hint, it's not) we are talking about an offense so much larger than any one life.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
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.
Well, assuming the press still did it's job, we'd definitely have a TON less problems than we have today... no private data.. sure would make the world and easier place on one hand.. but then at the same time, biases become and even bigger problem...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
Wow, okay, now that's just false. So the president can't give favours, can't start wars, can't get paid? Um, what the heck are you trying to claim?
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
Well, the President doesn't control one single penny. He has to ask for everything. It goes into his budget which has to be approved by Congress.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
Wow, okay, now that's just false. So the president can't give favours, can't start wars, can't get paid? Um, what the heck are you trying to claim?
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
Well, the President doesn't control one single penny. He has to ask for everything. It goes into his budget which has to be approved by Congress.
Do you even understand what powers the President has? He can deploy troops anywhere for something like 60 days without declaring war (not him, but congress)... that's billions he could spend just doing that.
As for why you want his returns (and frankly all financial data) to keep them from giving favors, receiving kickbacks, etc.
-
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
No, this is false.
Have you not followed the news at all? The big reasons are that we need to know 1) if his election was honest and valid and 2) if he is being funded or beholded to foreign powers.
How he would spend money is, again, misdirection and irrelevant.
-
@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?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well, the President doesn't control one single penny. He has to ask for everything. It goes into his budget which has to be approved by Congress.
No, all false. He controls trillions no matter how you try to paint it. Everything the president does, every action, every word, controls money. All of it.
You are confusing two things...
- That controlling budgets and controlling money is the same thing.
- What can be done legally and what can be done are the same thing.
By that logic, that IRS cannot divulge tax returns so cannot be the leak to the IRS so by your own standard, cannot need to be investigated because they aren't allowed to do that.
So which is it? It can't be both.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
If wrongdoing was happening, of course I'm happy that the public was protected. Obviously.
