3 ms·

It's astounding to me how there is utter silence about the fact that propublica (and god knows who else) got their hands on the detailed tax records of every pe

by nullc 3y ago

It's astounding to me how there is utter silence about the fact that propublica (and god knows who else) got their hands on the detailed tax records of every person in America... likely the biggest data breach in history, certainly the biggest government breach of private information about the public-- and over material that has some of the strongest legal protection: unlike a lot of our other private data it's a felony to print/republish tax return information without authorization. But I guess possessing that kind of info confers a degree of immunity from criticism, after all-- anyone of impact who asks too many is at risk of having their own records scrutinized.

htss2013 3y ago
Is there confirmation it's data on all Americans? I read it as Buffet's records were leaked.
- nullc 3y ago
  > I read it as Buffet's records were leaked. No, propublica has had a series of 50 or so articles since mid 2021 each covering the private tax records of varrious parties.
  - htss2013 3y ago
    Ok but did they ever say every American's records were leaked? Or are you assuming that given multiple people's records leaked?
actuallyalys 3y ago
As far as I know, ProPublica has never said it received tax information on every American, just the wealthiest. So I'm not sure it's the largest breach in history. Still, it does seem like the leak is a story in itself. For what it's worth, here's their ethical justification: > Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden. [0] And their legal justification: > A federal law ostensibly makes it a criminal offense to disclose tax return information. But we do not believe that law would be constitutional if applied to bar or sanction publication of a story in the public interest when the news organization did not itself remove the information from the control of the IRS or solicit anyone else to do so — as we did not. [0] They also note that tax records are public in certain jurisdictions, including in Sweden, Norway, and the state of Wisconsin. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the...
- nullc 3y ago
  They've confirmed it essentially by listing about the hundred or so parties that used to validate the information-- including their own staff, politicians, etc. It's certainly not just material on the "wealthiest" Americans, though that's one of the ways they've limited their reporting in order to argue a public interest angle. I think the ethics of their coverage is complicated at best, but it's also orthogonal to the fact that the leaker committed a serious felony and that the government has failed to protect information which it is obligated to protect. This is a serious breach of our trust and security and deserves inquiry regardless of where you stand on ProPublica's subsequent usage. (particularly given the earlier rumors that the leaks were by someone in the Biden administration as an effort to promote the administrations proposed tax reforms, which it seemed suspiciously well timed to do) But as far as their usage goes-- many of the articles seem like this one: grinding thorough huge amounts of data to pick out a slightly suspicious piece of straw in a huge haystack and highly speculative-- by no means a smoking gun due to the limitation of the tax records and the general absence of other forms of investigation. Is this specific article a matter of general public interest enough to justify the felony invasion of tax records? I don't agree that it is. Even if their speculative allegations were true here, it sounds de minimis and not of particular public concern. > They also note that tax records are public in certain jurisdictions, including in Sweden, Norway, Yes, and not in the US. Where they are public there are differences in what gets reported and other rules governing the use of the information that mitigate harm, simply knowing that it will be public offsets part of it.
  - actuallyalys 3y ago
    > listing about the hundred or so parties that used to validate the information-- including their own staff, politicians, etc. This sounds vaguely familiar, but I wasn't able to find it again. Do you happen to have a source for that? Also, even if some less wealthy people were included, that doesn't necessarily mean most Americans are. Whoever leaked it may have included those people knowing ProPublica could vet it. (Also, some politicians are among the very wealthiest Americans.) It also contradicts what they've said elsewhere: >Goodwin: Can you speak a little bit more about what’s in the data? People were curious about how many people were listed and if there’s any discernible criteria for what was included. >Eisinger: You can thumbnail it as the 1% of the 1%. We don’t have waitresses and plumbers, and even doctors and lawyers, we have a thin slice of the wealthiest Americans. [0] This story is less clear-cut than some others they've published, perhaps. But I don't agree that $80 million in trades that may violate ethics policies the person himself established are de minimis. I agree that the whatever security issues may have lead to this information being leaked are also issues, for what it's worth. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-we-reported-the-secret-irs-files https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-w...
pharrington 3y ago
> propublica (and god knows who else) got their hands on the detailed tax records of every person in America Do not lie.

by nullc 3y ago

htss2013 3y ago

Is there confirmation it's data on all Americans? I read it as Buffet's records were leaked.

nullc 3y ago
> I read it as Buffet's records were leaked. No, propublica has had a series of 50 or so articles since mid 2021 each covering the private tax records of varrious parties.
- htss2013 3y ago
  Ok but did they ever say every American's records were leaked? Or are you assuming that given multiple people's records leaked?

actuallyalys 3y ago

As far as I know, ProPublica has never said it received tax information on every American, just the wealthiest. So I'm not sure it's the largest breach in history. Still, it does seem like the leak is a story in itself. For what it's worth, here's their ethical justification: > Many will ask about the ethics of publishing such private data. We are doing so — quite selectively and carefully — because we believe it serves the public interest in fundamental ways, allowing readers to see patterns that were until now hidden. [0] And their legal justification: > A federal law ostensibly makes it a criminal offense to disclose tax return information. But we do not believe that law would be constitutional if applied to bar or sanction publication of a story in the public interest when the news organization did not itself remove the information from the control of the IRS or solicit anyone else to do so — as we did not. [0] They also note that tax records are public in certain jurisdictions, including in Sweden, Norway, and the state of Wisconsin. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the-tax-secrets-of-the-001 https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the...

nullc 3y ago
They've confirmed it essentially by listing about the hundred or so parties that used to validate the information-- including their own staff, politicians, etc. It's certainly not just material on the "wealthiest" Americans, though that's one of the ways they've limited their reporting in order to argue a public interest angle. I think the ethics of their coverage is complicated at best, but it's also orthogonal to the fact that the leaker committed a serious felony and that the government has failed to protect information which it is obligated to protect. This is a serious breach of our trust and security and deserves inquiry regardless of where you stand on ProPublica's subsequent usage. (particularly given the earlier rumors that the leaks were by someone in the Biden administration as an effort to promote the administrations proposed tax reforms, which it seemed suspiciously well timed to do) But as far as their usage goes-- many of the articles seem like this one: grinding thorough huge amounts of data to pick out a slightly suspicious piece of straw in a huge haystack and highly speculative-- by no means a smoking gun due to the limitation of the tax records and the general absence of other forms of investigation. Is this specific article a matter of general public interest enough to justify the felony invasion of tax records? I don't agree that it is. Even if their speculative allegations were true here, it sounds de minimis and not of particular public concern. > They also note that tax records are public in certain jurisdictions, including in Sweden, Norway, Yes, and not in the US. Where they are public there are differences in what gets reported and other rules governing the use of the information that mitigate harm, simply knowing that it will be public offsets part of it.
- actuallyalys 3y ago
  > listing about the hundred or so parties that used to validate the information-- including their own staff, politicians, etc. This sounds vaguely familiar, but I wasn't able to find it again. Do you happen to have a source for that? Also, even if some less wealthy people were included, that doesn't necessarily mean most Americans are. Whoever leaked it may have included those people knowing ProPublica could vet it. (Also, some politicians are among the very wealthiest Americans.) It also contradicts what they've said elsewhere: >Goodwin: Can you speak a little bit more about what’s in the data? People were curious about how many people were listed and if there’s any discernible criteria for what was included. >Eisinger: You can thumbnail it as the 1% of the 1%. We don’t have waitresses and plumbers, and even doctors and lawyers, we have a thin slice of the wealthiest Americans. [0] This story is less clear-cut than some others they've published, perhaps. But I don't agree that $80 million in trades that may violate ethics policies the person himself established are de minimis. I agree that the whatever security issues may have lead to this information being leaked are also issues, for what it's worth. [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-we-reported-the-secret-irs-files https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-w...

pharrington 3y ago

> propublica (and god knows who else) got their hands on the detailed tax records of every person in America Do not lie.