6 ms·

I don't understand how buying stolen property is suddenly not illegal, when it is the tax authorities doing it. But there are almost no limits to what the tax a

I don't understand how buying stolen property is suddenly not illegal, when it is the tax authorities doing it. But there are almost no limits to what the tax authorities can get away with in Denmark. This is the press release from the Danish tax authorities, confirming the purchase: http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234275&vId=0 http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=2234275&vId=0

marketanarchist 10y ago
All states routinely break their own "rules". I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this.
hvidgaard 10y ago
This is a case where you have to weight both sides. On one side it is leaked documents, on the other hand it would be useless if people just paid taxes as they should. I'm okay with them doing this to catch tax evaders. Ideally all states would freely exchange information about financial transactions and tax payments for companies - rendering this useless.
- mseebach 10y ago
  In an ideal society we won't need the law at all. The society we have however isn't ideal, and so we have laws to keep it from decending into chaos and tyranny. The people at the NSA who decided to build dragnet surveillance didn't sit down one day and said "hey, I'm feeling evil today, let's violate some laws for lulz", they said "omg terrorists, this is a case where we have to weigh both sides". When cops do illegal searches, they're convinced they're weighing both sides in the interests of getting a criminal of the street. At the very least, you lose any credibility to criticise the government when they bend the law to catch some bad guys, if you're OK with them bending the law to catch other bad guys. There are some things that are more important than catching some asshole tax cheats. Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    There is a very significant difference between buying a targeted leak with information that the tax authority should have had in the first place, and creating a catch everything surveillance. They're not even remotely comparable, and trying to make them so is a poor argument. There is already a case going against SKAT about this, so that will decide if it is okay or not in the future as well. Besides, when the tax minister order this, arguable, the legislative powers have already decided that this is okay, and anything short of the federal court deciding that it is against the Constitution of Denmark, means it's already within the law.
    - hueving 10y ago
      They're more comparable than you think. This purchase has just legitimized a market for stolen information. The message is to hack and offer up for sale anything you think would be of interest to the government.
      - emp_zealoth 10y ago
        Good. The dragnets and illegal spying is not going away, period, so right now at least we might have some counter-balance to that (Find black money from state-level corruption, illegal or untaxed profits from international behemoths, etc)
        mseebach 10y ago
        Yes, because two wrongs make a right. You just need to spread the proceeds from crimes wide enough, then everyone's happy. What could possibly go wrong?
      - hvidgaard 10y ago
        > They're more comparable than you think. Enlighten me. Please. Because they're vastly different from my perspective. * One is a limited scope information about people breaking some specific laws - the information is verified to be useful by sampling. The action breaks a law created by the parliament, and that can be changed by a simple vote in the parliament. * The other is a mass surveillance without a limited scope, not targeting any specific crime and no evidence what so ever about its effectiveness. It is a breach of The Consitution of Denmark §72.
Tomte 10y ago
Even if buying was illegal, the United States have a much stronger "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine than many other countries. Germany for example doesn't have that, at all, as our Federal Constitutional Court has rules in exactly such a case (tax evasion lists bought by a German state and used to search someone's home). I wouldn't be surprised if Denmark did it the same way.
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Does this stronger "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine of the US does apply for all those three letter agencies in your opinion? Or just for the RSI?
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Doesn't the CIA (like all external intelligence agencies in all countries) pretty much exist to obtain information through extra-level means?
    - furyg3 10y ago
      Yes. All intelligenge agencies are by definition criminal organizations outside their home country. While conducting these clandestine operations they may also collect information which could convict someone domestically in court... but US courts will not permit that evidence to be submitted as it was collected illegally.
      - lsaferite 10y ago
        And that's where parallel construction was born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
    - RaleyField 10y ago
      CIA is a foreign intelligence agency and in their opinion some protections do no apply to foreigners.
tobltobs 10y ago
Do you also have a problem with illegal wire tapping if as a result a terrorist attack is prevented? Or paying money to an informant (possibly an insider) to uncover drug traffickers?
- macmac 10y ago
  Yes
- peteretep 10y ago
  > Do you also have a problem > with illegal wire tapping if > as a result a terrorist > attack is prevented? Yes? There's a reason it's illegal.
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    Can we apply that reasoning to certain drugs or alcohol?
    - peteretep 10y ago
      Are you confusing "there's a reason why it's illegal" with "anything that's illegal must have a good reason for being so"?
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Dear downvoters, cool down. The question targeted the fact that most people do accept illegal acquisition of information as long as they agree with the purpose, but strongly object breaking the law if they do not support the purpose, like forcing people to pay taxes.
charlesdm 10y ago
This wouldn't be possible in Belgium, AFAIK. A judge would throw this evidence out.
collyw 10y ago
Isn't it basically a variation on giving drug dealers lenient sentences to find out who the bigger players are?
legulere 10y ago
Surprisingly even Switzerland has bought stolen information to get tax information.
Iv 10y ago
Well, "superior national interests" are invoked for so many much more serious things nowadays even if it has nothing to do with crucial interests. Tax evasion is actually a crucial, existential problem for several countries. More so than terrorism. I, for one, welcome these exceptional measures in this case.

marketanarchist 10y ago

All states routinely break their own "rules". I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this.

hvidgaard 10y ago

This is a case where you have to weight both sides. On one side it is leaked documents, on the other hand it would be useless if people just paid taxes as they should. I'm okay with them doing this to catch tax evaders. Ideally all states would freely exchange information about financial transactions and tax payments for companies - rendering this useless.

mseebach 10y ago
In an ideal society we won't need the law at all. The society we have however isn't ideal, and so we have laws to keep it from decending into chaos and tyranny. The people at the NSA who decided to build dragnet surveillance didn't sit down one day and said "hey, I'm feeling evil today, let's violate some laws for lulz", they said "omg terrorists, this is a case where we have to weigh both sides". When cops do illegal searches, they're convinced they're weighing both sides in the interests of getting a criminal of the street. At the very least, you lose any credibility to criticise the government when they bend the law to catch some bad guys, if you're OK with them bending the law to catch other bad guys. There are some things that are more important than catching some asshole tax cheats. Preservation of the rule of law is one such thing.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  There is a very significant difference between buying a targeted leak with information that the tax authority should have had in the first place, and creating a catch everything surveillance. They're not even remotely comparable, and trying to make them so is a poor argument. There is already a case going against SKAT about this, so that will decide if it is okay or not in the future as well. Besides, when the tax minister order this, arguable, the legislative powers have already decided that this is okay, and anything short of the federal court deciding that it is against the Constitution of Denmark, means it's already within the law.
  - hueving 10y ago
    They're more comparable than you think. This purchase has just legitimized a market for stolen information. The message is to hack and offer up for sale anything you think would be of interest to the government.
    - emp_zealoth 10y ago
      Good. The dragnets and illegal spying is not going away, period, so right now at least we might have some counter-balance to that (Find black money from state-level corruption, illegal or untaxed profits from international behemoths, etc)
      - mseebach 10y ago
        Yes, because two wrongs make a right. You just need to spread the proceeds from crimes wide enough, then everyone's happy. What could possibly go wrong?
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      > They're more comparable than you think. Enlighten me. Please. Because they're vastly different from my perspective. * One is a limited scope information about people breaking some specific laws - the information is verified to be useful by sampling. The action breaks a law created by the parliament, and that can be changed by a simple vote in the parliament. * The other is a mass surveillance without a limited scope, not targeting any specific crime and no evidence what so ever about its effectiveness. It is a breach of The Consitution of Denmark §72.

Tomte 10y ago

Even if buying was illegal, the United States have a much stronger "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine than many other countries. Germany for example doesn't have that, at all, as our Federal Constitutional Court has rules in exactly such a case (tax evasion lists bought by a German state and used to search someone's home). I wouldn't be surprised if Denmark did it the same way.

tobltobs 10y ago
Does this stronger "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine of the US does apply for all those three letter agencies in your opinion? Or just for the RSI?
- arethuza 10y ago
  Doesn't the CIA (like all external intelligence agencies in all countries) pretty much exist to obtain information through extra-level means?
  - furyg3 10y ago
    Yes. All intelligenge agencies are by definition criminal organizations outside their home country. While conducting these clandestine operations they may also collect information which could convict someone domestically in court... but US courts will not permit that evidence to be submitted as it was collected illegally.
    - lsaferite 10y ago
      And that's where parallel construction was born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
  - RaleyField 10y ago
    CIA is a foreign intelligence agency and in their opinion some protections do no apply to foreigners.

tobltobs 10y ago

Do you also have a problem with illegal wire tapping if as a result a terrorist attack is prevented? Or paying money to an informant (possibly an insider) to uncover drug traffickers?

macmac 10y ago
Yes
peteretep 10y ago
> Do you also have a problem > with illegal wire tapping if > as a result a terrorist > attack is prevented? Yes? There's a reason it's illegal.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  Can we apply that reasoning to certain drugs or alcohol?
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Are you confusing "there's a reason why it's illegal" with "anything that's illegal must have a good reason for being so"?
tobltobs 10y ago
Dear downvoters, cool down. The question targeted the fact that most people do accept illegal acquisition of information as long as they agree with the purpose, but strongly object breaking the law if they do not support the purpose, like forcing people to pay taxes.

charlesdm 10y ago

This wouldn't be possible in Belgium, AFAIK. A judge would throw this evidence out.

collyw 10y ago

Isn't it basically a variation on giving drug dealers lenient sentences to find out who the bigger players are?

legulere 10y ago

Surprisingly even Switzerland has bought stolen information to get tax information.

Iv 10y ago

Well, "superior national interests" are invoked for so many much more serious things nowadays even if it has nothing to do with crucial interests. Tax evasion is actually a crucial, existential problem for several countries. More so than terrorism. I, for one, welcome these exceptional measures in this case.