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:
Then the NY Times puts out partial information to the public.
Are we concerned that the information is partial? Yes. Whose fault is that? Blame the people forcing it to be partial, not the people informing the public.
Absolutely we are concerned that its partial. It's plain crappy journalism.
How does that make it crappy? One moment you are questioning how they got what they got, now you are complaining that they didn't get enough. Can't have it both ways. Either it's absolutely amazing journalism as they are the only ones who managed to get it at all. Or it's crappy that they released anything. Can't be crappy because they only got so much, as it's the best out there.
Any "crappy" from "partial" is from one of two sources.... the tax payer himself who hasn't made public what should be; or the rest of the government from allowing it to ever have even temporarily remained secret and not having an automated publishing system for elected official's records.
-
@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:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Donald Trump 'paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017' - NY Times
Donald Trump paid just $750 (£580) in federal income tax both in 2016, the year he ran for the US presidency, and in his first year in the White House, the New York Times says.
The newspaper - which says it obtained tax records for Mr Trump and his companies over two decades - also says that he paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years. The records reveal "chronic losses and years of tax avoidance", it says. Mr Trump called the report "fake news". "Actually I paid tax. And you'll see that as soon as my tax returns - it's under audit, they've been under audit for a long time," he told reporters after the story was published on Sunday. "The IRS [Internal Revenue Service] does not treat me well… they treat me very badly," he said.Ummm... Shouldn't the question be how did the NY Times obtain a copy of private confidential tax records?
Then the NY Times puts out partial information to the public. Isn't that technically something that anyone here that worries about Information Security have a big issue with?????
There is a lot of assumption in that. First of all, this is NOT private information, it's public information for national security. I'm concerned that anyone is allowed to run this country without this being public, in fact, it's essentially treason. Anyone doing so without showing that they are eligible for office, isn't actually eligible for office.
Not according to this.
https://tax.findlaw.com/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html
I'm not sure how any of that applies. That the IRS can't disclose your taxes is what that is talking about, not that people you have shared them with cannot. Unless you are implying that the IRS is who published them, and I assure you that they did not, I don't know what you are trying to point to. Once the IRS has returned your taxes to you, the confidentiality of the information is on you to protect.
This is true of all your private information. That something is private under certain conditions changes under many conditions - the biggest one being when you yourself disclose it.
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.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Not according to this.
https://tax.findlaw.com/federal-taxes/tax-return-confidentiality-and-disclosure-laws.html
This page has a good discussion on it...
Obviously there is speculation that the leak itself was illegal. And it's totally possible. Maybe even plausible. Bordering on likely. But that's a concern about the leak, and any number of concerned citizens could have been the leak. Loads of them. Some in the government, many not. Right now, though, there is no serious suspicion of wrongdoing.
But what's most important is that a leak of that nature has extremely well established precedent that it is not the fault of the publishing body or reporter for publishing matters of public interest regardless of how they are originally leaked. The law firmly says that the first amendment doesn't just allow, but is intended to allow, for this publishing because its purpose is to protect the public.
-
Jet suit paramedic takes Lake District test flight
Inventor Richard Browning puts potentially life-saving suit through its paces in ‘groundbreaking exercise’
Defying gravity as they hover over water before zipping across mountainous landscapes and landing with pinpoint accuracy, the jet suit paramedic could soon form part of what could become an extraordinary new service being trialled in the Lake District.
-
@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.
And there most certainly ARE laws about the second piece, and they do NOT do what you think. It has nothing to do with being a tax lawyer. There are many people along the chain who have either the right or the option or can be instructed to release the information. One of them being Trump himself, in this specific case.
Certain people are specifically not allowed to release it, like the IRS or a CPA. But lots of other people are only barred from releasing it based on individual contracts that may or may not exist.
Just saying "you don't have to be a tax lawyer" to know something, doesn't make it true.
The simple example is this... can YOU have someone look at your taxes or tax returns legally? Of course you can. You can ask ANYONE to do it. The law applies to the IRS, not to you. Not to anyone you authorize with the data. The only people to whom it applies automatically are those that you do not authorize with the information who get it by force (aka, the IRS and the post office.)
-
@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:
Then the NY Times puts out partial information to the public.
Are we concerned that the information is partial? Yes. Whose fault is that? Blame the people forcing it to be partial, not the people informing the public.
Absolutely we are concerned that its partial. It's plain crappy journalism.
How does that make it crappy? One moment you are questioning how they got what they got, now you are complaining that they didn't get enough. Can't have it both ways. Either it's absolutely amazing journalism as they are the only ones who managed to get it at all. Or it's crappy that they released anything. Can't be crappy because they only got so much, as it's the best out there.
I am not complaining they didn't get enough for a short story but not something that would be considered a story with journalistic integrity. Its a freaking blurb with political bias.
-
@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.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I am not complaining they didn't get enough for a short story but not something that would be considered a story with journalistic integrity. Its a freaking blurb with political bias.
Facts don't have bias. You can't claim it's a blurb or has bias until you know what, if anything, the NYT trimmed out to only give us this much. The feeling of bias would, at this stage, only be because the facts don't look good for one political group. Now, if they are in fact, not facts, that would be a bias. But if they weren't facts, the ability to have them removed is swift and effective.
It's 100% worthy of being a story. The biggest one in the world today, in fact. Journalistic integrity is not determined by how much data you are able to obtain. It's by the process and accuracy by which they are obtained and presented. Integrity and "ability to get more data" are completely different concepts. This is way more than enough data to be really meaningful and important, there's no question that it should be public and that we need to know.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I am not complaining they didn't get enough for a short story but not something that would be considered a story with journalistic integrity. Its a freaking blurb with political bias.
Facts don't have bias.
I didn't say that.
-
@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. To the American public it doesn't matter, that's a small personal matter that may or may not exist. It's a common happenstance where crime might have been committed, but just as likely might not have been. But we have no idea if it was, or by whom, or where.
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'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.
-
@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.
And there most certainly ARE laws about the second piece, and they do NOT do what you think. It has nothing to do with being a tax lawyer. There are many people along the chain who have either the right or the option or can be instructed to release the information. One of them being Trump himself, in this specific case.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.
Of the individual is always allowed to through out to anyone their personal info. I am not doubting that but if you actually think Trump handed is tax records to the NY Times, I don't know understand why you would think that.
-
@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.
