20 ms·
The IRS is being investigated for using location data without a warrant
- arcticbull 6y agoI'll be honest with you, if they combined this information with everything else they already know about my income, and had me sign a completed tax return at the end of the year instead of playing a game of "hope you don't accidentally commit tax fraud" I'd be ok with it.
- maerF0x0 6y agoin darknet diaries EP 26 - IRS they talk about how the budget and staff got severely cut resulting in major IT issues. I think if we want a better system we're going to also be ok with giving a portion of the Turbo Tax to fund the development, maintenance, and securing of the systems required. https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/26/ https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/26/
- colejohnson66 6y agoI don’t think people would be as upset with Intuit building that system (for the IRS) as they are that they lobby for complicated tax codes.
- pc86 6y agoYes, unless you have a lot of vendor income below the reporting threshold the IRS probably has a very good idea how much money you make. Here's an incomplete list of what they don't know that makes "but you should know my taxes!!" arguments moot: * You got married, divorced, or became a widow[er] * You had or lost a child * You paid mortgage loan interest on a primary residence * You paid student loan interest Or any number of other things that could have changed your adjusted gross income, which is what you're actually taxed on. The only way the IRS can bill you for actual taxes owed is if the tax code is simplified (an objectively good thing). The only way the tax code is simplified to that level is if most deductions and credits disappear, and whether or not that's "good" is arguable at best.
- hyperman1 6y agoIt is possible. In Belgium, the tax authorities have all this information and more. The 'tax on web' site mostly fills in your tax forms itself and asks you for corrections. For a lot of the population, these corrections are minor to none, e.g. some of the smaller charity deductions are missing.
- pc86 6y agoI didn't say it wasn't possible, only that this isn't information the IRS has ready access to for 331+ million people in the US. You'd need big legislative and/or regulatory changes to pipe that kind of information into the IRS.
- icedchai 6y agoMortgage companies already report interest to the IRS. Student loans, also.
- sokoloff 6y agoMortgage interest on a primary residence is treated differently than mortgage interest on that same house being used as a rental property.
- icedchai 6y agoI know... but for the vast majority of people, this is not an issue. You think the government doesn't know where you live, with all the other records out there? Tax preparation is a big business and is the real reason this hasn't been streamlined like it has in some other countries.
- wl 6y ago1 and 2. Governments maintain vital records. It would not be a leap for them to report changes to the IRS. 3. Mortgage companies already report mortgage interest to the IRS on form 1098. Not much of a leap for mortgage companies to keep track of whether a mortgage is on someone's primary residence and report that. 4. The IRS has this information from form 1098-E.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoYou don't need a warrant to get personal information held by third parties who willingly hand it over. The IRS isn't in the wrong here legally. If Congress actually cared they'd enact real data privacy laws with teeth.
- Drunk_Engineer 6y agoSupreme Court (Carpenter v. United States) says otherwise.
- pc86 6y agoAs another comment stated, this is only for CSLI data. Tracking data from a different third party is still fair game, and that's what the IRS was/is using.
- rhacker 6y agoIt's ridiculous that our best reference for what is legal or not is a supreme court ruling these days.
- gpm 6y agoThat's... Always been the case?
- octoberfranklin 6y agoWhy bother putting laws in writing?
- gpm 6y agoBecause that's what the courts rule based on, it's just that the initial version of the writing (the legislation) is often ambiguous so the courts add more writing over time.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
- gruez 6y agoIt's great that the government is being investigated for their actions, but it's a shame that it's seemingly limited to the IRS and not the various law enforcement agencies (eg. FBI/NSA/DHS). I guess the latter gets a free pass because "terrorism" and the former less politically popular (as evidenced by the budget cuts, despite having a net positive ROI on its budget).
- hammock 6y agoIRS is a law enforcement agency
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xbar 6y agoHence, they carry guns and sometimes shoot people. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-10-09-me-43884-story.html#:~:text=The%20FBI%20has%20launched%20a%20preliminary%20civil%20rights,the%20Golden%20State%20Freeway%20in%20Arleta%20in%20July https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-10-09-me-43884-....
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mtgx 6y agoDidn't Obama sign an executive order days before he left office, expanding raw Upstream data access to 17 agencies, in total, including IRS? https://www.zdnet.com/article/days-before-trump-takes-office-obama-expands-nsa-powers/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/days-before-trump-takes-office...
- heavyset_go 6y agoThese days municipal police departments are running their own Stingray-type towers, too.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
- trident1000 6y agoThis government under any administration seems to have a real problem with obeying the constitution which tells them to fuck off. Asset forfeiture, abusing fisa courts, NSA, wiretapping political opponents, forced lock-downs, stop and frisk. The issue is there is no repercussion for doing something unconstitutional and having a court strike you down years later. Prison time fixes this calculus fast; there should be new legislation on this ideally.
- colejohnson66 6y agoPractically no one in Congress would introduce a bill to do so because they (almost certainly) would be afraid it could be used on themselves. That’s my guess anyways.
- pc86 6y agoNo small part of this boils down to the fact that we have career politicians, who have never once held a real job, and that's not what was envisioned when the Constitution was written. If you could only rely on a government salary for 6 months out of the year, or if you could only hold any government job for 5-6 years in a row before being forced back into the private sector, a lot of problems we have with the government deciding it knows better than the Constitution would go away. I'm not saying we wouldn't have a host of other problems.
- triceratops 6y ago> if you could only hold any government job for 5-6 years in a row before being forced back into the private sector, It would make the revolving door situation even worse. Can you trust a legislator to deal impartially with industry-specific legislation if they have to find a job in that industry 5 years later?
- pc86 6y agoI think we've jumped the shark with regard to original/founders' intent, but that being said the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities. Now like I said I don't think there's any way to get back to that, but even the notion of a revolving door situation presupposes professional legislators. Term limits in general would help the revolving door problem by limiting the amount of influence any one individual could ever have.
- pgoggijr 6y agoHow is this different from them calling up a known associate and asking them for my location? Until there is real privacy enforcement here, and it's clear that location data is owned by the person being tracked and not some third party that happens to have their hands on it, I don't see this pattern going away.
- hammock 6y ago>How is this different from them calling up a known associate and asking them for my location? Would that be legal without a warrant?
- javagram 6y agoYes you don’t need a warrant to interview witnesses or associates.
- MereInterest 6y agoI see a difference in scale. Calling up one associate to ask on one person's location on a single date is one thing. Calling up every person in the country to ask on their location throughout the last year is something else entirely. I think privacy should be seen as a spectrum, not just a binary private/public.
- jldugger 6y ago"Defund the police" is already big in political parties, as long as its the 'tax police.'
- x87678r 6y agoSo My Cell Company, FB/Google, all the ad trackers and hedge funds know where I am but govt isn't allowed to? IRS should write an app...
- comeonseriously 6y agoOr set a precedent, change/create laws, etc with the IRS, then go from there.
- pc86 6y agoThe idea that you have certain Constitutional rights that the government isn't allowed to mess with but private companies are is well established and has been known and accepted for centuries.
- LudwigNagasena 6y agoYou can (in theory) choose not to use your cell company, FB and Google. But you can’t choose not to use IRS.
- undersuit 6y ago>But you can’t choose not to use IRS. Just don't make enough income to interact with them. You don't have to be paid above $19,700 a year, you choose to be paid.
- jtbayly 6y agoSo the IRS isn't allowed to buy this data, but I am?
- dragonwriter 6y agoYes, in the US there are lots of Constitutional protections that apply only against the government.
- darksaints 6y agoIt's a shame that we don't have criminal charges for government employees that violate the 4th amendment. As it is structured, the government has the incentive to test their boundaries constantly, as there is no risk in doing so. The worst that can happen is any actions they take on such information gets thrown out in court. That isn't a disincentive...they can continue to violate the law, because there is nothing stopping them...merely laws that prevent them from using the illegally acquired information if the defendant has a competent lawyer. But never a penalty for illegally acquiring the information in the first place.
- refurb 6y agoRandom question - but just because it violates the constitution, that doesn’t necessarily make it a crime, correct? In other words, the Constitution limits the government from unreasonable search, but it doesn’t proscribe a punishment if it’s violated. You’d need a separate law for that?
- TT3351 6y agoStrictly speaking this is correct. Even in cases of treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
- octoberfranklin 6y agoIf it violates the constitution then the government employee loses their protection from Title 18, Section 242. That is what makes it a crime. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-l... ...acts under "color of law" include ... acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
- bogwog 6y agoWouldn't there also be fines, or at least compensation for those affected?
- busterarm 6y agoHow many times is the IRS going to get caught with its hand in the cookie jar? Last time it was our medical records after ACA.
- uncletammy 6y agoOnce again Ron Wyden seems to be one of the only members of congress who sees the dangerous path we are on with respect to data privacy and our government's Orwellian overreach. I would quit job tomorrow to work on this guy's presidential campaign.
- TT3351 6y agoDo we need another 71 year old running for office? I'm not so sure
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y agoIt used to be until really recently that we showed respect for our elders. In 7000 years of existence, most major cultures that survived gave hero-like status and higher offices to elders that survived to old age. They were the source of knowledge, experience and truth. It is only in our degenerate times in which we think 71yr olds are more than a hindrance and less of an asset. We turn around and instead give a platform to a 15 year old Greta who could not even narrate what it is like to have a baby and has no clue about life. We send 18yr olds to collegr to criticize the foundations of western society. They are still living off their parent's dime. We are truly in a mess Our country is truly destined to fail
- actionowl 6y agoget 'em!