3 ms·

You are both completely misinterpreting my point and the tone I was intending. I'm aware there's no warrant. You said it would be "secret", which I interprete

You are both completely misinterpreting my point and the tone I was intending. I'm aware there's no warrant. You said it would be "secret", which I interpreted to mean that the parties in question may not know the information was gathered by the government from the other parties in question. I'm not sure whether that's any different than a warrant, and so if it isn't, I'm not sure your objection is well formed. If, instead, you are upset about a lack of oversight, then you should form your objections along those lines, so people actually can engage with you on the topic fruitfully. I am, in fact, fairly open to an argument along those lines, as oversight and the lack thereof seems to cause a lot of problems. I would want to know what the thoughts of the jurists on SCOTUS was regarding that. It's probably spelled out in the majority and minority opinions to some degree. > So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else? Perhaps what's going on is instead that you're not really communicating your point clearly, and when being asked for clarification your combativeness is causing you come come across as an asshole, and people are responding as such.

harry8 3y ago
Let's flip it then. Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Or better Why does /any/ government agency require /any/ secret search powers without a properly executed warrant where they justify that?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Jackson clearly cites the risk that "upon receiving notice that the IRS has served a summons, interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder."
  - harry8 3y ago
    > "...interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder." Is that asset movement or hiding illegal? Hasn't happened yet either way. A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent. A: No, it is not illegal. Then what the actual fudge? You might do something /legal/ so we'll stop you by doing it in secret? Huh? The problem is someone might or might not move assets. The suggested solution of secrecy is just _wrong_ on every level. Get some kind of court order saying assets cannot be moved. Change the law. Do whatever. The "do it in secret" answer is just wrong and /will/ be abused.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      > A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent. They'd have to prove mens rea, and then get a jury to throw you in jail. Over a fricking collection. Do collections agencies have to give you notice that they're going to scout out your street in order to repo your car? No? Then why should the IRS have to give you notice that they're going to scout out your bank in order to repo your assets?
      - harry8 3y ago
        Yeah it's really annoying for the government officials to have to prove you're a criminal before treating you like one. Imagine founding a nation where these employees had to actually do that? When collection agencies perform secret searches of your property, that's a crime! Call the police. What happens in public is different to what the government or anyone else can legally do to find out about what you do and have in private? Search warrants exist based on that distinction. Crazy I know but true!
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        You can be treated like a criminal prior to being found guilty. This is called being arrested, being held pending bail, or, as you yourself mention, a search warrant. > When collection agencies perform secret searches of your property, that's a crime! Banking records are not your property. They are the property of the bank. Neither are Google Map photos.
        harry8 3y ago
        That's a new one, you have no right to privacy for your banking records. Obviously you don't actually believe that when seeing it written out. This is a change in what conduct is considered legal. Didn't used to be, now found that it is. You might like to ponder why it was considered not legal for the IRS for such a long, long time. And what changed to push it this direction. Best to you. Due process is a thing worth defending. I think that's still a popular opinion. There are consequences for government agents if the lie to get a warrant, make arrests without probable cause and NONE of that happens in secret which is the WHOLE point here. All of it.

harry8 3y ago

Let's flip it then. Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Or better Why does /any/ government agency require /any/ secret search powers without a properly executed warrant where they justify that?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Why does the IRS need any secrecy at all here? Jackson clearly cites the risk that "upon receiving notice that the IRS has served a summons, interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder."
- harry8 3y ago
  > "...interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder." Is that asset movement or hiding illegal? Hasn't happened yet either way. A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent. A: No, it is not illegal. Then what the actual fudge? You might do something /legal/ so we'll stop you by doing it in secret? Huh? The problem is someone might or might not move assets. The suggested solution of secrecy is just _wrong_ on every level. Get some kind of court order saying assets cannot be moved. Change the law. Do whatever. The "do it in secret" answer is just wrong and /will/ be abused.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > A: Yes it is illegal. So you can go to jail for it. That's a pretty good deterrent. They'd have to prove mens rea, and then get a jury to throw you in jail. Over a fricking collection. Do collections agencies have to give you notice that they're going to scout out your street in order to repo your car? No? Then why should the IRS have to give you notice that they're going to scout out your bank in order to repo your assets?
    - harry8 3y ago
      Yeah it's really annoying for the government officials to have to prove you're a criminal before treating you like one. Imagine founding a nation where these employees had to actually do that? When collection agencies perform secret searches of your property, that's a crime! Call the police. What happens in public is different to what the government or anyone else can legally do to find out about what you do and have in private? Search warrants exist based on that distinction. Crazy I know but true!
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        You can be treated like a criminal prior to being found guilty. This is called being arrested, being held pending bail, or, as you yourself mention, a search warrant. > When collection agencies perform secret searches of your property, that's a crime! Banking records are not your property. They are the property of the bank. Neither are Google Map photos.
        harry8 3y ago
        That's a new one, you have no right to privacy for your banking records. Obviously you don't actually believe that when seeing it written out. This is a change in what conduct is considered legal. Didn't used to be, now found that it is. You might like to ponder why it was considered not legal for the IRS for such a long, long time. And what changed to push it this direction. Best to you. Due process is a thing worth defending. I think that's still a popular opinion. There are consequences for government agents if the lie to get a warrant, make arrests without probable cause and NONE of that happens in secret which is the WHOLE point here. All of it.