3 ms·

if you were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk? They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. They certainly could p

if you were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk? They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. They certainly could prosecute you for But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive. if you're served a lawful court order, you either obey it or risk the consequences, up to and including time in jail. When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government?

ahlatimer 13y ago
They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions they're taking are perfectly legal. Leaking government secrets? Not so legal… There's an obvious reward for taking "questionable" tax deductions: lower taxes. What does Ballmer, specifically, gain from releasing classified information? And really? You want to compare questionable tax practices that aren't actually questionable legally to something that can be construed as espionage? But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive. Those two statements don't follow. The government may cease these practices if people find out and come out against them, but that doesn't stop them from prosecuting the person that brought them to light. When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government? When was the last time anyone of stature defended the public from the government via illegal means? It's a risk. Full-stop. You can get prosecuted for releasing classified information. And let's not even take it all the way to going to jail. The government can make your life a living hell just by prosecuting you for a crime, even if they're unsuccessful in getting a conviction. Which leads me back to my first question, why would Ballmer take that risk?
grey-area 13y ago
The former chairman of Quest started a six year sentence in 2009 for defying the NSA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio They don't even have to prosecute you for not obeying a secret order, they can easily use some other law to put you away, especially given they have legal access to any communication about, from and to you. I choose to believe him rather than the NSA on the reasons for that prosecution. I imagine that case had a sobering effect on anyone high up in these companies who was inclined to stand up to the NSA.

ahlatimer 13y ago

They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions they're taking are perfectly legal. Leaking government secrets? Not so legal… There's an obvious reward for taking "questionable" tax deductions: lower taxes. What does Ballmer, specifically, gain from releasing classified information? And really? You want to compare questionable tax practices that aren't actually questionable legally to something that can be construed as espionage? But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive. Those two statements don't follow. The government may cease these practices if people find out and come out against them, but that doesn't stop them from prosecuting the person that brought them to light. When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government? When was the last time anyone of stature defended the public from the government via illegal means? It's a risk. Full-stop. You can get prosecuted for releasing classified information. And let's not even take it all the way to going to jail. The government can make your life a living hell just by prosecuting you for a crime, even if they're unsuccessful in getting a conviction. Which leads me back to my first question, why would Ballmer take that risk?

grey-area 13y ago

The former chairman of Quest started a six year sentence in 2009 for defying the NSA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio They don't even have to prosecute you for not obeying a secret order, they can easily use some other law to put you away, especially given they have legal access to any communication about, from and to you. I choose to believe him rather than the NSA on the reasons for that prosecution. I imagine that case had a sobering effect on anyone high up in these companies who was inclined to stand up to the NSA.