I mean, this has long been a loophole in US law. Generally, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself (5th Amendment). But when it comes to taxes:
1) You have to declare all income, even from illegal activities.
2) The declarations can be used against you in court (IIUIC with the caveat that they need an independent reason to get a warrant for those tax records).
The article says they were already getting this information directly from the IRS until a court order shut it down. It is worthwhile to note that in the past the IRS stayed out of police investigations so that even if criminals were doing criminal things to make money, it didn't discourage them from paying taxes on it.
I would disagree with that premise, famously the FBI has used unpaid taxes to after a number of high profile criminals, most famously Al Capone but more frequently its gang members or fraud (like some of the Somali fraud cases in Minnesota). I believe they like to make your claim to encourage paying taxes, but practically they work together frequently. Crime shouldn't suddenly be ok if you pay taxes on it
Why is this data even being allowed to sell? Isn't this private data? Okay, i understand selling users data is pretty common here but i thought it was limited to "someone liking icecream or someone liking ford better than honda". but legally selling tax identifiers seems too much!
Could not gisagree more. Nobody can harm me much by knowing my ITIN. But government surely can torture me in prison by depriving me of my favorite ice cream brand. I have a right to keep it private!
The open secret here is that we have a system that collects billions (~$100 billion annually[1]) in unclaimable taxes while keeping the labor force just vulnerable enough to stay cheap. That said, ICE's actions seem like self sabotage.
This is the bill that would stop this from happening, conveniently the rep who proposed it was voted out in the republican primary by a 10% margin, rip: https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/
While there might be some benefit, most of them are snakeoil. Effectively they're just sending polite emails to "people search" websites to remove you from search results. The real, very harmful, data brokers are background check systems (LexisNexis), credit bureaus (Equifax), and insurance industry registries, which there is effectively no way to opt-out short of faking your death.
Harm depends on your threat model. For a streamer wanting to avoid being swatted then the typical data broker removal service could be quite helpful. I agree a big part of the problem is lack of understanding that the removal services only work at one layer.
There's probably even more than these, but here are some from the video: Healthcare data brokers, fraud data brokers, financial data brokers, marketing data brokers, people search data brokers.
It's a paid service, they track data brokers datasets (I assume they just act as a buyer for as many as they can) and then manually request your removal from all of them, and then aggressively follow up and chase it for you. Interesting business model, even if it's annoying that the world means you need it.
Manually opting out is probably the most effective, but obviously it's manual. Privacy guides recommends EasyOptOuts as the only paid service and manual and Google's tool for free methods.
We already have a tool for dealing with this as it pertains to cell tower data.
SCOTUS determined that merely having a cellphone, which is a modern necessity, creates too much privately held data that the telcos shouldn't be allowed, even when they want to, to hand it over to the government without a warrant.
Basically all we have to do is expand the types of data that land in this zone.
I don't think they mean "cannot do" as in "don't have the capability." But rather "cannot do" as in "are not allowed to do." If the government can't (is not allowed to) surveil me without a warrant, it shouldn't be able to (be allowed to) buy surveillance of me from a private party either.
When the government buys a piece of steel, a chunk of that is property taxes of the owner of the factory building, a huge chunk of that is business taxes, a huge chunk of that is income taxes of the workers that work there.
If the government can own that infrastructure as a fully nonprofit entity that pays zero taxes, the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100. That means our income taxes can also be much lower, because the government can be more efficient.
Right now a huge chunk of the taxes you pay to the government go toward paying second-order taxes.
Would the government be buying that steel, if they own the infrastructure for it? When I grab a cucumber from my garden, I'm not exactly paying myself for it.
And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.
That's the point. Instead of buying it, they can just have it. By $50 I meant that they're buying everything at-cost internally. Only $50 of taxpayer money is needed to procure that steel, instead of $100.
> And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.
Not if the government owns it and they decide it's tax exempt. They can also build it on government land, and decide that government land is property tax free.
Buying state owned enterprises and running them more efficiently to double their valuation (or more) has been a reliably profitable business in many countries. This suggests to me that government bureaucracy, lack of accountability etc. could result in “at cost” trending to $100 or more if government buys private companies, or starting close to $100 if government starts a new one.
So much is available via the data brokers, for companies, governments, really anyone. Maybe this will lead to greater privacy across the board against these brokers.
It's been like this for a long time and nothing has changed. In fact I would argue that consumer and citizen privacy has gotten much, much worse. It is extremely wishful thinking (in typical hackernews commenter fashion) that the "free" market will generate consumer protections.
ICE reminds me of what I read about the 1930s era - but it is really stupid on top of that. So basically this then screams of a money machinery for a few. Taxpayers money goes into private pockets here, all under the disguise of "EVIL MIGRANTS".
ICE funding was boosted by billions of dollars. The supposed loss of jobs and services by illegal immigrants is easily surpassed by governmental waste.
Creating chilling effects of registering to pay taxes. What could possibly go wrong?
I mean, this has long been a loophole in US law. Generally, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself (5th Amendment). But when it comes to taxes:
1) You have to declare all income, even from illegal activities.
2) The declarations can be used against you in court (IIUIC with the caveat that they need an independent reason to get a warrant for those tax records).
[flagged]
The article says they were already getting this information directly from the IRS until a court order shut it down. It is worthwhile to note that in the past the IRS stayed out of police investigations so that even if criminals were doing criminal things to make money, it didn't discourage them from paying taxes on it.
I would disagree with that premise, famously the FBI has used unpaid taxes to after a number of high profile criminals, most famously Al Capone but more frequently its gang members or fraud (like some of the Somali fraud cases in Minnesota). I believe they like to make your claim to encourage paying taxes, but practically they work together frequently. Crime shouldn't suddenly be ok if you pay taxes on it
> practically they work together frequently
Are the originators of these investigations the same? Might that matter?
> Crime shouldn't suddenly be ok if you pay taxes on it
Cool. Nobody is making that argument.
Why is this data even being allowed to sell? Isn't this private data? Okay, i understand selling users data is pretty common here but i thought it was limited to "someone liking icecream or someone liking ford better than honda". but legally selling tax identifiers seems too much!
Could not gisagree more. Nobody can harm me much by knowing my ITIN. But government surely can torture me in prison by depriving me of my favorite ice cream brand. I have a right to keep it private!
Our voting records and DMV records are also often sold by your state or even local city government.
It should not be sold. But it is.
https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/data-brokers/
Consumers are the product.
The open secret here is that we have a system that collects billions (~$100 billion annually[1]) in unclaimable taxes while keeping the labor force just vulnerable enough to stay cheap. That said, ICE's actions seem like self sabotage.
[1] https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
This is the bill that would stop this from happening, conveniently the rep who proposed it was voted out in the republican primary by a 10% margin, rip: https://www.surveillanceaccountability.com/
What are some data erase service(s) that you guys recommend?
While there might be some benefit, most of them are snakeoil. Effectively they're just sending polite emails to "people search" websites to remove you from search results. The real, very harmful, data brokers are background check systems (LexisNexis), credit bureaus (Equifax), and insurance industry registries, which there is effectively no way to opt-out short of faking your death.
Harm depends on your threat model. For a streamer wanting to avoid being swatted then the typical data broker removal service could be quite helpful. I agree a big part of the problem is lack of understanding that the removal services only work at one layer.
There's probably even more than these, but here are some from the video: Healthcare data brokers, fraud data brokers, financial data brokers, marketing data brokers, people search data brokers.
Good video explaining the situation with data brokers and the removal services: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX3JT6q3AxA
Never used them, but I ran into https://incogni.com/ yesterday.
It's a paid service, they track data brokers datasets (I assume they just act as a buyer for as many as they can) and then manually request your removal from all of them, and then aggressively follow up and chase it for you. Interesting business model, even if it's annoying that the world means you need it.
Manually opting out is probably the most effective, but obviously it's manual. Privacy guides recommends EasyOptOuts as the only paid service and manual and Google's tool for free methods.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/data-broker-removals
Opt outs don't even exist at the top level, only on the people search ones utilizing the data.
Surely you are joking.
Once collected why would a data broker want to purge your record?
There is no escape.
Residents of California have the right to opt out, no?
In theory, they also don't get spam calls.
Opt out from snake oil salesmen.
Yea sure. If it helps you sleep better. It is the law.
In reality the data is already 'grey market' so I doubt the law matters to them.
Disappear and new data broker sets up shop. You think these people are regulated? I bet they swap datasets like Pokemon.
Just tell Siri "Erase all pictures of Ron!"
Does anyone know where your average citizen can buy this data?
This was covered in NOH's data broker article. But mostly Snowflake or AWS.
https://nooneshappy.com/article/data-brokers-unregulated-for...
The government should not be able to outsource things they cannot do themselves. This is a loophole in our laws.
We already have a tool for dealing with this as it pertains to cell tower data.
SCOTUS determined that merely having a cellphone, which is a modern necessity, creates too much privately held data that the telcos shouldn't be allowed, even when they want to, to hand it over to the government without a warrant.
Basically all we have to do is expand the types of data that land in this zone.
Wouldn't that just lead to a whole parallel economy of government-owned infrastructure & manufacturing?
I don't think they mean "cannot do" as in "don't have the capability." But rather "cannot do" as in "are not allowed to do." If the government can't (is not allowed to) surveil me without a warrant, it shouldn't be able to (be allowed to) buy surveillance of me from a private party either.
Ah, ok, I wildly misread/misunderstood that. Thanks!
Not a bad thing at all.
When the government buys a piece of steel, a chunk of that is property taxes of the owner of the factory building, a huge chunk of that is business taxes, a huge chunk of that is income taxes of the workers that work there.
If the government can own that infrastructure as a fully nonprofit entity that pays zero taxes, the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100. That means our income taxes can also be much lower, because the government can be more efficient.
Right now a huge chunk of the taxes you pay to the government go toward paying second-order taxes.
Would the government be buying that steel, if they own the infrastructure for it? When I grab a cucumber from my garden, I'm not exactly paying myself for it.
And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.
That's the point. Instead of buying it, they can just have it. By $50 I meant that they're buying everything at-cost internally. Only $50 of taxpayer money is needed to procure that steel, instead of $100.
> And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.
Not if the government owns it and they decide it's tax exempt. They can also build it on government land, and decide that government land is property tax free.
Buying state owned enterprises and running them more efficiently to double their valuation (or more) has been a reliably profitable business in many countries. This suggests to me that government bureaucracy, lack of accountability etc. could result in “at cost” trending to $100 or more if government buys private companies, or starting close to $100 if government starts a new one.
> ... the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100.
And also lose $50 of tax revenue. I do not see how the government is any better off here.
$50 of gross revenue discounted is not $50 of tax revenue lost.
This scheme didn't pan out for the Soviets.
They shouldn't buy socks for the army, they should make the socks themselves?
I believe the original commenter meant "The government should not be able to outsource things they are not allowed to do themselves."
Has the army been restricted from making socks?
Buying, making, and owning socks are not against the law in the usa, so socks are already compliant with the suggestion.
Can't buy the wool second-hand, gotta have government-owned sheep.
Thankfully, the pentagon should already have some sheep specs on hand
I believe that's covered under MIL-SPEC-M00-BAAA
Could they do CPU chips?
So much is available via the data brokers, for companies, governments, really anyone. Maybe this will lead to greater privacy across the board against these brokers.
It's been like this for a long time and nothing has changed. In fact I would argue that consumer and citizen privacy has gotten much, much worse. It is extremely wishful thinking (in typical hackernews commenter fashion) that the "free" market will generate consumer protections.
Surveillance Capitalism is an apt description.
No one voted for it but here we are. Flock on every strategic corner.
ICE reminds me of what I read about the 1930s era - but it is really stupid on top of that. So basically this then screams of a money machinery for a few. Taxpayers money goes into private pockets here, all under the disguise of "EVIL MIGRANTS".
The 1930s stuff was really stupid as well.
ICE funding was boosted by billions of dollars. The supposed loss of jobs and services by illegal immigrants is easily surpassed by governmental waste.
[dead]
Stereotype says Immigrants don't pay taxes?