What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
174 Comments
- LaurelR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+103"Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyhow."
- zaren, on 10/12/2007, -18/+89@otherland:
What can I no longer do? Comfortably speak in public, or wear a t-shirt protesting my government's actions. What can I no longer do? Get a book frrom the library about Islam or nuclear weapons without worrying that guys in dark suits are going to come banging on my door.
Your right to freedom of speech has been compromised. See Cindy Sheehan's arrest at Bush's state of the union address.
Your right to peacable assembly has been compromised. See the last Democratic convention.
Your right to privacy has been compromised. See the unannouncable gov't searches of users at your local library, and the warrantless wiretaps, and...
And don't forget Guantanamo Bay, where ALL of your rights as a US citizen can be stripped away if someone gets a bug up their butt and decides to label you an "enemy combatant" or someone who "gives comfort to the enemy"; where you can be held incommunicato (and without being charged with a crime) for an indefinite period of time.
While these rights have not been "taken away", you can no longer trust them to be there for you. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -10/+78It's people like you who will some day lead to the downfall of society. "Oh well, I've got nothing to hide anyway" simply will not cut it in a world where your every action can be recorded.
- transfire, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50Are you people morons?
It's has nothing to do with what you might or might not have to hide. It has everything to do with a corrupt government that cannot be stopped because nothing is hide from them.
We the People! Remember? If the Government can have secrets than We can too! - MooseFruit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45All in the name of safety and security for our citizens.
Where have we heard this before?
"Remember, remember the fifth of November,
gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot." - tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44@ otherland:
Waiting in line at TSA isn't a loss of liberty, but having to be subjected to a government search to get on a private company's plane is. So is having to "watch what you say" with your free speech (I believe that was Rumsfeld? I don't remember who said this). And what about Kelo vs. New London, where the supreme court upheld using eminent domain to give land to private companies so they can build malls and such that produce more tax money? And I guess you must have forgotten about your right to keep the fruits of your labor (your paycheck). Bush's administration has raised the national debt to ... what is it now ... 8 Trillion? Thanks, my future kids didn't really want their salaries anyway. (In case you're thinking of coming back with "I don't see this stuff in my constitution" remember that the constitution doesn't grant anything, it just outlines some of the rights you already have). - rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39@otherland
The right to a fair trial. The federal government now has the right to take anyone, bring them out to international waters and kill them. Even worse, they don't have to say they did this at all. There is zero accountability. - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38"and it wasn't President Bush who took that away, it was the democrats."
Democrats kill babies too. Yes, they do. I watched a program on it on Fox. When on recess or when taking breaks, Democrats go outside and kill babies for fun. And even though the Republicans control the senate, congress, white house, and even the supreme court, they are still unable to stop these evil doers. Instead of passing or repealing current evil laws, put in place by the evil Democrats and their evil leader Clinton, the Republicans cower in the corner sucking their collective thumbs. So, this year, please vote in more cowards! Eventually enough cowards can overwhelm the democrats by their sheer numbers and frequent diaper changes. - kuchino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23So much for we hate communism, i left that country for freedom of rights, now looks like they catching on on what Moscow once did :/
- buzzkiller, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30WASHINGTON - Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
Real Disruptive.. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me. - tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@ pimptastic:
I'm the only one who mentioned Kelo, so I assume you're talking to me. I know, it was the liberals ramming our asses this time instead of the conservatives. Same thing, different day. Both sides of the aisle are useless. - Antimatter3009, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16For the last time, Democrat is not the same as liberal! Can't anyone understand this? Also, there's nothing I hate more than when people use the terms liberal or conservative as insults, it just makes you look stupid.
Now for another point that everyone (Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives all included) often forgets is that the idea behind the Constitution was to give the government specific powers, not limit it. In other words, unless the Constitution expressly states that the government can do something, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Remeber that the Bill of Rights was insisted upon by a number of founders only because they were afraid that without defining specific rights the gov't would eventually take all of them away. The Constitution never specifically defined our right to privacy, but it didn't have to. All it had to do was not say that the gov't can take that right away. The problem is that they're encroaching on our rights so slowly that no one is noticing. People that even realize these laws are even being passed simply don't see the problem. Some day it will come back to bite us, though. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16The government is cracking down on Led Zeppelin and PayPal. COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT!
- CalgaryTechGuy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Fine for you (I guess), but I'm not an American and I don't appreciate Paypal disclosing my banking information.
- zaren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Children, children... if you'd RTFA:
"Tax officials won permission from a federal court in San Jose to ask PayPal for account information for customers who have had money sent to financial institutions in 30 countries known to be tax havens...
PayPal...said it has just received the summons and hasn't decided yet how it will proceed. ``We're still evaluating our options,'' spokeswoman Amanda Pires told the AP. ``The privacy of our customers' information is something we take really seriously.''"
They're not asking for everyone's info, they're asking for specific users who appear to be trying to dodge the taxman. They'd be doing the same thing if they found these sorts of activites at Chase Manhattan or any other real bank. (Remember that Paypal isn't a real bank, and doesn't have to comply with Federal banking regulations...) On top of that, Paypal hasn't just rolled over and said "Here, have our data" like MS and Yahoo did when the gov't came looking for search engine stats. - mycatsboots, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14PayPal work against the users?
Never. - newezra, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Why is this a big deal. Like Sirocco said, this is for the ability to subpoena information from PayPal in order to prosecute illegal activities. They can't just issue a subpoena to view everyone PayPal information, and yes this ruling effects only US citizens.
Again, tax invasion is illegal. PayPal is becoming more and more like a banking institution, why wouldn't they be expected to follow the same standards as any other bank?
If you're really worried about your 'civil rights' over this then deal only in cash. - tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Oh God, cry me a river. PayPal is a bank. Like other banks based in the United States, PayPal already has many ties with the Federal government. Now, if we were to actually read the REAL ARTICLE TITLE, we would find the following text:
"Government wants PayPal to help it find tax evaders".
That's right, folks! Tax evaders. Last time I checked, tax evasion was a felony in the United States, and as PayPal is a bank, it's possible that tax evaders are using it to hide their dividends and income. The FBI and IRS already have the power to look into banker's transactions, and they've had it for some time now.
Also, don't give me any garbage about taxes either. Most people who want tax cuts also want more government programs. Just think about how little sense that makes. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Its still a fishing expedition.
Asking for all users who sent or received money from 30 countries is not a list of specific users. Asking for Joe Smith's information is getting the data for a specific user.
Notice that they have a court summons and not a warrant.
The IRS doesn't have suspects, they are trying to find suspects. This is exactly what the constitution attempts to prevent. If they had suspects, they'd get a warrant for the information and they would be in a much stronger legal position.
This whole thing looks a lot like when the California tax guy was trying to collect property tax on satelites. - darthtrevino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The problem begins when the government redefines "criminal."
- Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Look at the votes for eminent domain and see what justice upheld the ruling. you might be surprised how the liberal judges voted apposed to the conservative judges.
- Mike.ohara, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@CalgaryTechGuy, unfortunately, the Parent post has a point. Paypal in a loose definition is a banking service, though international, it holds primary offices in the US. If you had an account in a US bank, and were a non US citizen, the US Govt would already have access to your financial information, so if we use the definition that Paypal is no more then an Online Bank with primary operations in the US (there for making it a US bank) (under the parent comment's logic)
Now if paypal would not like to be restricted, it could transfer its business holdings to a different country (preferably one with out treaties with the States) and would no longer be forced to comply with the govt -- technically. - jhunt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12As a Canadian, please shut the ***** up. You come off as a typical Canadian with an inferiority complex who thinks his own ***** doesn't stink. You embarrass the rest of us.
- e3mw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Goddamn it. When the hell will they stop invading our privacy! Those damn TOS's and Privacy Poilcies are there for a reason.
- vodkamattvt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Oh and before I get slammed for that saying that its alright to hide your money in offshore accounts to avoid the feds, I dont think it is.
As a previous poster pointed out, this is standard procedure for the IRS. They are applying laws that pertain to financial institutions to online companies like Paypal. It took them over a decade to realize that the internet is for real and might be *gasp* used for nefarious purposes!
Im waiting for them to try to get that sales tax from us from ordering anything online. I still say to that, over my dead body! - foomandoonian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@otherland "Nobody was put there for taking books out of the library. Onle people captured in Afghanistan were."
In all fairness - I hope someone strangles you in your sleep... - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14@ Tax evasion is... like... illegal.
Actually, it's the income tax that's illegal. The 16th Amendment was never properly passed. But, the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about it. That's one big reason we are quickly moving toward fascism, If we are not already there.
No I don't mean we're going to set up concentration camps and start gassing people. I mean we are moving toward the economic system know as fascism in which the people technically own property but it's use is regulated and taxed to the point that, for practical purposes, they might as well be leasing it from the government.
For more info, start here http://www.bmstahoe.com/IncomeTax/ica_ltnw.html - socket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9What privacy?
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10a) Paypal is not a bank.
b) Anybody using Paypal to transfer money to and from their offshore tax haven account is an idiot who deserves to get busted, IMO.
I have few problems with this particular request, as it's limited in scope (but still not limited enough, IMO). However, I don't think the government should be able to just supoena large amounts of information willy-nilly. It should relate to an existing case and the information should be very limited to material relevant to that case. - Discourses, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah I know everything is Republicans and Fox News fault blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. If only democrats were in power we'd all be okay again. Just a little more SOCIAL ENGINEERING and we'll be fine. They both suck in their own way. If you support one party and hate the other you're just as bad as anyone else.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well, Mr. 1337geek, you'd probably better stop using teh internets! You may also want to close any other bank accounts you have. Oh, and don't use credit cards or your social security number when signing up for or applying for anything.
This is nothing new. Knee jerk. - DalekoProvidek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You want privacy? Get a piece of paper and a stamp. There is no privacy online. To paraphrase Elliot Spitzer: "Never talk when you can nod, never write when you can talk and never, never put anything into a e-mail."
- newezra, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8That's a completely different issue! The US government was trying to subpoena data from Google to view the public's search queries. This is a violation of privacy. With PayPal they will only be able to subpoena someones account information if they're prosecuting.
PayPal should be expected to follow a similar set of rules that any other banking institution follows.
If you want to evade taxes, go get a real off-shores account. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Look, the US already snoops on any and all forms of income. That's how things around here work. People are using PayPal to hide portions of their income, and you *have* to have seen this coming a mile (or twelve) away. There is no major revelation here, and no reason to panic.
Tax evasion is... like... illegal. - SchreibG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Technically, PayPal is NOT a bank - however, they keep your money in a bank, or in a moneymarket account you choose
"As of March 12, 2002, your available balance funds are held at the following institutions: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Comerica Bank - California, USA, and Bank of America, N.A." - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Actually there's a debate between Congress and the President about this exact point. (All filtered through the press secretary and the appointed atty general.)
Currently, the Bush cabinet is looking to do away with any warrant or oversight for domestic calls, and seems to have been caught doing exactly that, in bulk.
Warrants are so easy to obtain, even after the fact, and are almost never turned down, that you'd have to wonder about any government agency or bureau who feels they shouldn't need one. Nixon didn't want to get the warrants before wiretapping either. - vodkamattvt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Everyone should learn a valuable lesson from this.
1. Paypal is subject to US government demands because they are a US company.
2. Neteller is not a US company (UK I believe)
Not really as important, Im guessing they are targeting mainly ebay jokers who are avoiding taxes. Now if they were able to get their hands on Neteller ... I personally know a handful of people who have tens of thousands tied up in online poker winnings in Neteller that I guarentee isnt being reported.
Poker -> offshore
Funds Transfer -> offshore
Genetic research -> offshore
Stem cell research -> offshore
Buying music -> offshore
etc.
The world is not like it was in the early 20th century, Im not sure what we are trying to accomplish here. There is no "protectionism" or isolationism in the 21sth century. The wold is simply too small and too interconnected with all the technology. Everything you push out of the US you can get elsewhere. - mikemac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I have no problem with criminals having privacy. Burglars, murderers, even Charles Manson all have a right to privacy. It's when they invade SOMEONE ELSE'S privacy that I have a problem. As a wise man once said, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose."
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dupy almost sounds like a lib trying to act like a conservative just to make them look bad. Hmm...
- tower31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IMO the only American tax payers that actually benefit from the system are the poor single mothers with kids. I did taxes for a young lady last year. She made 4300 dollars the entire year. She had two kids. Her total Federal paid in was 248. Her return was 4400 dollars. With the child tax credit plus others she doubled her income for the year. My wife and I on the other hand paid almost 30k in taxes. We are far from rich. This just doesn't seem right.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not quite the same.
"I like comparing it to the phone company. If you are suspected of a crime, the governemnt can get all of your telephone records anytime they want"
This is more like, "there's a lot of crime in Detroit, lets listen to everyone's calls to Detroit to make sure they aren't guilty of a crime".
Read the article.
They don't have a list of suspects, so they want to get the records of everybody who has an account in a country labeled as a tax haven, and look for suspects. - dupy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with willcodeforbeer, because I would also code for beer too.
More so though, I agree because the question that came to my mind was "And how did they know about these 'specific users' in the first place...?" - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You do have a right to privacy, it's clearly spelled out in the 4th amendment. Secure in your person, house, papers (should be considered to include all records) and effects. Look up the word secure if you don't believe me, but if you are secure in all those things you have absolute privacy. It's a pretty good propaganda campaign that has convinced people otherwise.
This is a fishing expedition. Having a bank account in a foreign country is not a crime. They have no evidence a crime has been committed they just want to browse records to see if one may have been. I really like the part about unknown accounts.
'The IRS also hopes PayPal can help them identify currently unknown taxpayers' and their payment cards , as well as offshore bank accounts, that might be evidence of tax evasion.'
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not to nitpick DBCubix, but the government owns neither the bank nor the money.
The Federal Reserve is owned by international bankers who hold immense monetary, gold and oil value. This is not a conspiracy, but a tenant of "Reserve banking" and modern economics where banks do not have to keep more than 5% of their actual holdings on hand in real money.
So you can see that the only one who owns the "money" (Federal Reserve Note) is the person who possesses it. It has no intrinsic value other than a promise by the privately held federal reserve to honour it. Say one day the Government cashed in all its bills, there is nothing stopping the federal reserve from saying that they will not/cannot honour the note. The value of your dollar is determined by international economics and interest rates (related to inflation, set by the Federal Reserve Chairman!), and is not decreed by BushCo, the Senate or Judicial Branch. So you can see that the Government has zero control over the federal reserve, and has had zero control since the fed was created in the early half of the 1900s(?). If the governemnt were to actually try to control its currency, it would actually have to pursue foreign and domestic policy that force the Feds hand to drop/rise interest rates.
Hey I dont know everything, and perhaps I'm confusing some details. I Certinaly don't claim to be 100% correct... but I know bs when I read it, and you're full of it buddy! :D
That said, I saw this Paypal thing coming a mile away. Paypal is a just really a Trust which is a little different than a bank, but the government is trying to treat it like a bank. Dunno if legally there is any difference but I did know the government would eventually try to test the theory. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@The problem begins when the government redefines "criminal."
It goes beyond that. The problem begins when the government IS criminal. - SupaDawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7To that end I quote one of my favorite sayings....
"We're bigger and we're on top. If this was prison you'd be our bitch" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11This isn't a breech of privacy. Tax Evasion is a felony and while I'm the biggest privacy advocate this side of the Mississipi, I don't have a large issue with the Government looking at PayPal records. Now wiretapping phones without a warrent, THAT is a huge breech of not only privacy, but the United States Consititution.
- 60days, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The US really needs a version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998
"According to the provisions of the DPA, data collected by one party to another party may only be used for the specific purposes for which they were collected. Personal data may only be kept for an appropriate length of time and must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the data owner."
Which means any time you give information here in the UK, theres a tickbox as to whether you will let them share your information. You say no: They can't. On top of that the data has to be accurate, the subject must have the ability to access and correct the data. One thing I can't find confirmation on is how this law would relate to subpoenas from the government unfortunately - senixon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That is so messed up!, digg+ for the info, NOT the gov.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 174 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is