@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.

@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.

@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.

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@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.

Honest and valid has absolutely nothing to do with a tax return. He stated that he is audited every year and it is the IRS's job to keep him honest and valid.

He gave up the business to his children and has no control over its workings, there not beholden to anyone. So still no reason for tax records.

If Congress felt the President needed to release their tax records, they would make a law for the President to do so. After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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!

@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.

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:

I 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.

But do you want them leaking yours?

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.