5 ms·

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm glad he's being charged. I wouldn't like it if some activist stole my data and made it public. If you believe that i

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm glad he's being charged. I wouldn't like it if some activist stole my data and made it public. If you believe that it's in the public interest for this information to be released, you should advocate for disclosure laws. For example, one possible law might require presidential candidates to release their tax returns. I support disclosure through legal means, not through vigilante behavior.

madsbuch 3y ago
In what world would it be an unpopular opinion that private information shared with a governmental organisation should stay private?
- Loughla 3y ago
  I don't want the information that I've sent to several agencies over the years made public. Some is medical, some is financial. It could be used against me in my field of work. No thank you.
  - brobinson 3y ago
    You misread the post you're replying to and are agreeing with it.
    - robinson7d 3y ago
      It’s possible that they’re simply agreeing with it.
      - Loughla 3y ago
        No they're right. I misread it. Even looking at it again, I think the post I was replying to was saying that nobody would have a problem with releasing their records. I don't see what I'm missing.
        robinson7d 3y ago
        Ah, no in that case you did misread it. They’re saying that “private information shared with a governmental organisation should stay private” is a popular opinion. The “unpopular” and “in what world” act like a double-negative.
        Loughla 3y ago
        I missed the "un" on "unpopular". Dyslexia is a real turd sometimes. Thank you for the explanation.
  - EMCymatics 3y ago
    Remember when basically all of congress potentially had their health records breached? https://apnews.com/article/congress-data-breach-hack-identity-theft-e4355e9e6756b1487c34c7accd0eb58e https://apnews.com/article/congress-data-breach-hack-identit...
- foobarian 3y ago
  In a world where it's coerced, like tax returns are.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    I don't entirely understand. You say, that if information you provide is coerced, then it is OK to make it public? Ie. if I force you to tell me something intimate or personal, I can share it with everyone?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I would be in favor of all financial data being public.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    That is a valid political standpoint. You should vote for somebody who are aligned with it, in what case it would not be private information anymore.
- tivert 3y ago
  > In what world would it be an unpopular opinion that private information shared with a governmental organisation should stay private? A highly politically polarized one. My understanding is this guy disclosed Trump's tax returns to some liberal news organizations. Many people hate Trump so much that I think they'd oppose this prosecution and characterize this guys actions as a public service.
spdif899 3y ago
I get the sentiment but under the current system of government it does seem quite unlikely such a law would be passed. IMO if we think something should be legal (i.e. if you think presidents' taxes should be public information) then it's ok to support vigilantism that acts towards that end, as a reasonable alternative to years or decades of lobbying.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Who then gets to decide what should be released? The random employee who gets hired by the IRS and granted access to the system gets to make those decisions? Suppose some random person decided that all software engineer (or whatever your job is) information should be public so they release your tax returns. How do you protect yourself? Do you just have to shrug and say, "well $RANDOM_PERSON thinks this is right, so I guess it is"
  - 4death4 3y ago
    The court of popular opinion gets to decide.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      If it's being done by individual vigilante employees, despite being already against the law, how does the court of popular opinion control it?
      - 4death4 3y ago
        It’s illegal so that individual employee will be brought before the courts. If the employee was justified, the jury will nullify their conviction.
        RevEng 3y ago
        When is the last time you saw a jury nullification? I agree, juries should be able to overturn convictions if they think the law is unjust, but that simply doesn't happen. The entire legal system is very careful about choosing and guiding jurors to judge based on the law, not to judge the law itself.
freedomben 3y ago
Absolutely. The government is the one organization that can legally use violence and the threat of violence to force you to do things that you don't want to do. Particularly in the case of the IRS, they are forcing you to divulge highly personal data to them every year. Using your privileged position inside that organization to steal and release that data is unconscionable. If you think it should be released and available, advocate for disclosure laws that can go through the democratic process.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  Great in principle, zero chance of it happening. Congress voting to show their cards would be like them taking a pay cut.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
pyuser583 3y ago
There’s no point in Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns. With a year or two preparation, you can make your tax return say whatever you want. Its only purposes is to determine taxes owed for a given year. That’s it. Not provide a summary of your financial interests. I’ve personally seen political candidates structure their lives in a way so that their tax return says nothing. One candidate and her husband sold massive business interests two years before running, with no expectation of payment until after the election. Those tax forms honestly said they had no income and no business interests. Which is legit, because the IRS is about getting the money it’s owed, not providing transparency into an individuals financial incentives.
- outworlder 3y ago
  > With a year or two preparation, you can make your tax return say whatever you want Which is why they usually disclose more.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    When a person applies for a sensitive job, usually have to declare their assets and accounts. Assets and accounts aren’t taxable, so don’t appear on income tax forms. Tax forms really aren’t about transparency at all.
    - jwestbury 3y ago
      Correct. When I held a security clearance, I had to file financial disclosures every other year, detailing every asset and debt I had -- bank accounts, loans, cars, boats (LOL), retirement accounts, cryptocurrency, everything. Positions like President should have to disclose most of this information publicly -- lightly redacted, so no need to publish their bank account numbers, but the figures and institutions should be public knowledge, or at least metadata about institutions.
idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
mrkeen 3y ago
> If you believe that it's in the public interest for this information to be released Public official A promised to do so, publicly and repeatedly. Public official A ostensibly earned some level of goodwill for declaring that. I kind of feel like the leaker held up A's end of the contract for him. Put it another way: If I published an ad on a website you visited promising "$500 just for clicking on this link", then you tracked me down and took the $500, would anyone feel bad for me? It would have been an illegal act, but it would hardly feel like a perversion of justice.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  > That person would still get charged with a crime just like this person is.
ksherlock 3y ago
No law can do that; the Constitution specifies eligibility for representatives, senators, and presidents. Courts take that literally. In 2019, California did pass a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose 5 years of tax returns. That was more or less immediately and unanimously invalidated by the California state supreme court.
- voxic11 3y ago
  Yes it seems that additional eligibility requirements may require a constitutional amendment. But the requirement could instead be imposed on some other part of the electoral process, like ballot access.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    yes, lets advocate a run around the constitution. That doesn't seem like it would end badly at all...

madsbuch 3y ago

In what world would it be an unpopular opinion that private information shared with a governmental organisation should stay private?

Loughla 3y ago
I don't want the information that I've sent to several agencies over the years made public. Some is medical, some is financial. It could be used against me in my field of work. No thank you.
- brobinson 3y ago
  You misread the post you're replying to and are agreeing with it.
  - robinson7d 3y ago
    It’s possible that they’re simply agreeing with it.
    - Loughla 3y ago
      No they're right. I misread it. Even looking at it again, I think the post I was replying to was saying that nobody would have a problem with releasing their records. I don't see what I'm missing.
      - robinson7d 3y ago
        Ah, no in that case you did misread it. They’re saying that “private information shared with a governmental organisation should stay private” is a popular opinion. The “unpopular” and “in what world” act like a double-negative.
        Loughla 3y ago
        I missed the "un" on "unpopular". Dyslexia is a real turd sometimes. Thank you for the explanation.
- EMCymatics 3y ago
  Remember when basically all of congress potentially had their health records breached? https://apnews.com/article/congress-data-breach-hack-identity-theft-e4355e9e6756b1487c34c7accd0eb58e https://apnews.com/article/congress-data-breach-hack-identit...
foobarian 3y ago
In a world where it's coerced, like tax returns are.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  I don't entirely understand. You say, that if information you provide is coerced, then it is OK to make it public? Ie. if I force you to tell me something intimate or personal, I can share it with everyone?
lotsofpulp 3y ago
I would be in favor of all financial data being public.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  That is a valid political standpoint. You should vote for somebody who are aligned with it, in what case it would not be private information anymore.
tivert 3y ago
> In what world would it be an unpopular opinion that private information shared with a governmental organisation should stay private? A highly politically polarized one. My understanding is this guy disclosed Trump's tax returns to some liberal news organizations. Many people hate Trump so much that I think they'd oppose this prosecution and characterize this guys actions as a public service.

spdif899 3y ago

I get the sentiment but under the current system of government it does seem quite unlikely such a law would be passed. IMO if we think something should be legal (i.e. if you think presidents' taxes should be public information) then it's ok to support vigilantism that acts towards that end, as a reasonable alternative to years or decades of lobbying.

freedomben 3y ago
Who then gets to decide what should be released? The random employee who gets hired by the IRS and granted access to the system gets to make those decisions? Suppose some random person decided that all software engineer (or whatever your job is) information should be public so they release your tax returns. How do you protect yourself? Do you just have to shrug and say, "well $RANDOM_PERSON thinks this is right, so I guess it is"
- 4death4 3y ago
  The court of popular opinion gets to decide.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    If it's being done by individual vigilante employees, despite being already against the law, how does the court of popular opinion control it?
    - 4death4 3y ago
      It’s illegal so that individual employee will be brought before the courts. If the employee was justified, the jury will nullify their conviction.
      - RevEng 3y ago
        When is the last time you saw a jury nullification? I agree, juries should be able to overturn convictions if they think the law is unjust, but that simply doesn't happen. The entire legal system is very careful about choosing and guiding jurors to judge based on the law, not to judge the law itself.

freedomben 3y ago

Absolutely. The government is the one organization that can legally use violence and the threat of violence to force you to do things that you don't want to do. Particularly in the case of the IRS, they are forcing you to divulge highly personal data to them every year. Using your privileged position inside that organization to steal and release that data is unconscionable. If you think it should be released and available, advocate for disclosure laws that can go through the democratic process.

mrkeen 3y ago
Great in principle, zero chance of it happening. Congress voting to show their cards would be like them taking a pay cut.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

pyuser583 3y ago

There’s no point in Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns. With a year or two preparation, you can make your tax return say whatever you want. Its only purposes is to determine taxes owed for a given year. That’s it. Not provide a summary of your financial interests. I’ve personally seen political candidates structure their lives in a way so that their tax return says nothing. One candidate and her husband sold massive business interests two years before running, with no expectation of payment until after the election. Those tax forms honestly said they had no income and no business interests. Which is legit, because the IRS is about getting the money it’s owed, not providing transparency into an individuals financial incentives.

outworlder 3y ago
> With a year or two preparation, you can make your tax return say whatever you want Which is why they usually disclose more.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  When a person applies for a sensitive job, usually have to declare their assets and accounts. Assets and accounts aren’t taxable, so don’t appear on income tax forms. Tax forms really aren’t about transparency at all.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    Correct. When I held a security clearance, I had to file financial disclosures every other year, detailing every asset and debt I had -- bank accounts, loans, cars, boats (LOL), retirement accounts, cryptocurrency, everything. Positions like President should have to disclose most of this information publicly -- lightly redacted, so no need to publish their bank account numbers, but the figures and institutions should be public knowledge, or at least metadata about institutions.

idontpost 3y ago

[dead]

mrkeen 3y ago

> If you believe that it's in the public interest for this information to be released Public official A promised to do so, publicly and repeatedly. Public official A ostensibly earned some level of goodwill for declaring that. I kind of feel like the leaker held up A's end of the contract for him. Put it another way: If I published an ad on a website you visited promising "$500 just for clicking on this link", then you tracked me down and took the $500, would anyone feel bad for me? It would have been an illegal act, but it would hardly feel like a perversion of justice.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
> That person would still get charged with a crime just like this person is.

ksherlock 3y ago

No law can do that; the Constitution specifies eligibility for representatives, senators, and presidents. Courts take that literally. In 2019, California did pass a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose 5 years of tax returns. That was more or less immediately and unanimously invalidated by the California state supreme court.

voxic11 3y ago
Yes it seems that additional eligibility requirements may require a constitutional amendment. But the requirement could instead be imposed on some other part of the electoral process, like ballot access.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  yes, lets advocate a run around the constitution. That doesn't seem like it would end badly at all...