4883861
story
Comments: 394 +- Your Rights Online: Anonymous Newspaper Commenters Subpoenaed In Tax Case on Wednesday June 17 2009, @07:50AM
Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday June 17 2009, @07:50AM
from the somebody-point-these-lawyers-at-youtube dept.
from the somebody-point-these-lawyers-at-youtube dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmedia.gif); width:60px; height:53px;
themedia
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnews.gif); width:60px; height:66px;
news
skuzzlebutt writes "In a federal tax case reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal last week, a local businessman has been paying his employees in gold coins instead of cash or ACH, and has reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage — not the much higher market value of the metal. The United States disagreed, and brought him up on 57 counts of income tax evasion, tax fraud and criminal conspiracy. The non-authenticated comments section of the original article brought a lot of supporters out of the woodwork, including a few who thought the jury should be hung (literally, procedurally, or figuratively ... pick one). In response, the prosecution has subpoenaed the names of the anonymous commenters, citing fears of jury safety. Or something. The obvious questions of privacy and protected speech aside, for the folks that support the defendant (the newspaper is fighting the subpoena), this also brings back into the spotlight the troll-empowering nature of pseudo-anonymous, non-authenticated boards. If they want to find you, they will; is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?"
Related Stories
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
i'll be the first to say.. (Score:5, Funny)
..what a terrible summary
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a beer wrangler.. oops. you said bear wrangler
For a minute there, I was about to be offended.
There's a difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently they want the identities of all submitters of comments on that article. Not just the ones who made threats (going from the vague to the hyperbole).
It's actually a chilling effect. One day you are commenting on a newspaper article (without making threats), the next day your name and address pop up on some prosecutors desk while he is investigating another commenter on the same article.
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
That was my first thought, as well: The freedom to speak anonymously isn't freedom to make anonymous threats. However, I disagree that anyone was threatening the jury here. There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone. If I say that George W. Bush should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of the country on rails, that's not the same as threatening to assault him.
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone.
Wow, do I wish more people realized this. I was suspended in Highschool for this EXACT same thing. I "Threatened" another student who had been picking on me by saying I ought to kick his ass. When I pointed out to the vice principal that the choice of the words "ought to" was intentional because it implied I was not going to, she claimed there was no difference.
Parent
Snail mail threat == Clear and present danger. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Snail mail threat == Clear and present danger. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's deeper then that. It's that we have to protect the people we force to do the dirty work for us against any reasonable threat. We have long recognized the necessity of investigating any threat to see if it was some blowhard letting steam out or someone capable of committing harm. It doesn't help that the names and addresses of Jurors are generally publicly availible too.
It might be a different story if it was an all volunteer process but it isn't. If you register to vote, you are automatically placed into the jury pool and you can't get out of service easily. I generally claim I support jury nullification and don't have to sit on a trial, but others don't pull stunts like that so they are stuck with the jury duty as a result of expecting to have a voice in their community, state, and country with the right to vote.
Parent
You forgot a few things to be anonymous (Score:5, Informative)
* Don't touch the envelope or paper without wearing several layers of surgical gloves.
* Don't use a printer that leaves any identifying marks. Most modern color printers are traceable and most older typewriters are as well.
* Don't lick the stamp or envelope!
* Don't drop it in any drop-box that has a security camera anywhere nearby.
Parent
Re:You forgot a few things to be anonymous (Score:5, Funny)
* Don't touch the envelope or paper without wearing several layers of surgical gloves.
* Don't use a printer that leaves any identifying marks. Most modern color printers are traceable and most older typewriters are as well.
* Don't lick the stamp or envelope!
* Don't drop it in any drop-box that has a security camera anywhere nearby
They'll still find you from the return address...
Parent
Re:i'll be the first to say.. (Score:5, Informative)
Clearing houses pre-date Publisher's Clearing House by decades. In fact, my guess is that this is where PCH got the name. Basically clearing houses were places where banks would exchange all of the checks they received from other banks. Accounts would be settled between banks. As a manual process, it was a royal pain in the ass. In the era of electronic funds transfers and check imagining, this process has become much more automated, reducing float times that some individuals would take advantage of.
Parent
Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
AC OUT!
Threats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Threats (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't trust the government to protect my rights
Neither do I.
Problem is, many people see governments as the source of rights; so it's an uphill struggle right from the start.
Parent
Re:Threats (Score:5, Insightful)
They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted. This includes Credit Card Numbers, ISP, and Addresses for every poster.
If they tailored request to those few (I read three) that actually crossed the line into threatening, then it is what you say.
I believe it is the over reach that is why ACLU and Review are both fighting for anonymity of their posters.
It is also a pleasure to a media outlet that lives by the 1st Amendment to support their reader 1st Amendment rights. -- Do you hear that NBC, FOX and others that force user give up those rights to respond to articles.
Parent
Re:Threats (Score:5, Informative)
They do not have point of asking for ALL information of EVERY ONE that posted. This includes Credit Card Numbers, ISP, and Addresses for every poster.
If they tailored request to those few (I read three) that actually crossed the line into threatening, then it is what you say.
I guess the prosecutors eventually got that exact message, because they have now narrowed the subpoena to just two posters [lvrj.com].
I don't really disagree with your point, but in this case it's just William Cohan once again being a complete tool. He'd go after your grandmother for assault on a public official if she complained about a tax bill. He's been going after Robert Kahre for years, this isn't the first time. This latest round reeks of vindictiveness over having his case completely thrown out the last time he tried it.
Here's [lvrj.com] a little more background if you're interested.
Parent
anonymity is a right (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that in the (implied, non-existant) Internet charter of rights anonymity is a basic human right. I believe in opt-in, not opt-out. A webmaster has a sacred trust that he will guard his users' IP addresses and only leverage them for internal use, if at all. Besides, that IP address could have been used by the subscriber, a child, a wardriver, a cheapskate nextdoor neighbour, or an entirely different household if the ISP made a mistake in their logs.
On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form. I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.
If the government fears how people react to facts then maybe they should outlaw news media.
Who were these authors? (Score:3, Interesting)
And should they have been prosecuted? They formented a war ya know.
Publius, Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus, Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman, Busy Body, Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty ,"Vindex the Avenger".
Why make it traceable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know why forum administrators even bother keeping around enough information to reveal the identity of an anonymous poster?
I mean, I can see keeping around the web server logs for a day or two, to help debug problems. And if you do analytics, keeping the logs around long enough for the analytics software to compute aggregate data.
But why keep any data longer than that; especially data that's detailed enough to tie an IP# to a posted message?
Re:Why make it traceable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
I'll bite on this (Score:5, Informative)
Since I previously worked in a company that's primary business was in running (and selling advertising on) web-forums, I suppose I'd be as qualified as anyone to answer this:
a) The default behaviour of the software is to record IP addresses. It's not like most companies are building their own, they're using something like vBulletin, IPB, or possibly PHPBB. I'm not even sure if this is a feature that could be disabled without a plugin/hack
b) Basic security is tied to IP. Just as does slashdot, so do other forums get their share of trolls. You actually don't see it a lot here, but penis-enlargement, pr0n, scams and spam are also fairly common. The IP address is your only semi-reliable link to a real person, in which case you can block certain IP's or netblocks that become an issue, track down users with multiple accounts. I do say semi-reliably as IPs can be routed through proxies etc, but many boards actually have RBL's for known proxies
c) Advertising, which for many boards is the chief (or only) source of revenue, often ties to IP address. Most programs collect statistics by IP, and also other fun stuff like geo-targetting, rotation (so you don't see the same ad a gazillion times in a row), etc
d) User related to locality can be fairly well-determined by IP. If you've got issues where all your users in the Eastern US connect slowly/poorly, or possibly where you have many users in Western Europe but they have a shit connection, then it may lead you to consider adding services (local server, cache, or whatever) in those areas.
e) The last thing I can think of off the top of my head is statistics, which are also very important to many web-boards to see where they're growing and where they need improvement.
And yes, these work fairly well for 95% of the John-Doe users. Most people, even those who consider themselves clever, don't make much use of proxies or other such things to post secretly on boards, which allows the wheat to be filtered from the chaff fairly well based on IP. Until a better method comes along, it's probably the best way.
p.s. Don't use my own board as an example of something spam-proof. It's using different software than I used at work, gets very little time dedicated to it, and the spam-collection is actually something of interest while I try to come up with fun methods of dealing with the spammers.
Parent
Face Value vs Ore Value (Score:5, Interesting)
So lets say I take my pay check and head off to the bank and when cashing it, get a roll of pennies. Further suppose that one these pennies has some rare quality making it worth $100 to a collector... is that an extra $100 of Income?
Re:Face Value vs Ore Value (Score:5, Insightful)
If you sold it to the collector for $100 it indeed would be an additional $99.99 income.
Parent
Re:Face Value vs Ore Value (Score:5, Interesting)
If I don't sell, however... its just face value, right?
In this story they go after the employer, regardless of the actions of the employees.
This is a very complicated subject that begs a lot of questions. Can my bank post a $100 loss for their mistake in giving me a $100 penny? Can they post a $100 win if they hand me a counterfeit $100?
Parent
Re:Face Value vs Ore Value (Score:5, Interesting)
What they're terrified of is people going back to hard currency.
He's being made an example of, it's that simple.
It's a loophole that's protected by the US constitution. Gold and Silver are protected as legal currency and the federal government must supply and accept gold and silver tender. The only way around it is to amend the constitution - or scare people enough not to do it.
If it became popular may also get people asking difficult questions like why a $30 coin is really worth $1000, or more to the point why a $1 federal reserve note can only buy 1% of the value of a $30 dollar coin.
Such things are best not thought about by the plebs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it became popular may also get people asking difficult questions like why a $30 coin is really worth $1000, or more to the point why a $1 federal reserve note can only buy 1% of the value of a $30 dollar coin.
Back in the day, American Indian's used a form of currency called Wampum. So, what was it? Valuable metal? Nope. Useful stones? Nope. Anything functional or "intrinsically" valuable at all? Heck no. It was *seashells*, strung like beads and worn around the neck, valuable only because the man
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're thinking of is that the dollar bill used to be backed by gold. Other nations could at any time they wanted trade money for gold (and vice versa) with the US government. The Smithsoni [wikipedia.org]
Re:Face Value vs Ore Value (Score:5, Insightful)
What they're terrified of is people going back to hard currency.
Terrified? Please. I suppose they're also terrified of all those Econ 101 students learning about what money is, what the value of an exchange is, what value is. Oh, no, I forgot: that's the indoctrination that keeps six billion people in the Matrix. Except for a few laser-eyed gold bugs, that is.
The IRS collects tax on income. Lots of in-kind income is taxable just like cash. It should be, else non-cash income would have a tax advantage, and the whole economy would be encouraged to seek less efficient forms of payment. If you think that's a good idea, talk to my friend who, in Soviet days, got paid in shoes.
Really, it's too bad your comment can't be scored +1 ignorant. Try learning some economics before having an opinion on it. Or at least have the humility not to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
YES! (Score:3, Funny)
Absolutely!
Posting AC so they don't find out who I am.
Face value (Score:5, Insightful)
Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.
The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.
However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.
What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability. Practically every politician engages in avoidance. Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth. If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit. The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rephrased, what Kennedy is saying is this: "It's not whether it's legal or not, it's whether we want to fuck the taxpayer or not."
IRS is right on this one (Score:5, Interesting)
What this guy did was essentially barter gold bullion that happened to be in coin form for labor.
Even if the US government is required to trade a $20 bill for your $20 gold piece, that does not establish the value of the gold piece for tax purposes.
Even a $20 bill can be worth more than $20 if it's a collector's item, such as one that's in an uncut block, one that's old and still in original condition, one that's very old, or one that's been autographed by hand by the Treasurer of the United States or Secretary of the Treasury whose signature appears on the bill.
If I pay my employees in collector-value currency, you bet the IRS will consider it a barter-for-labor arrangement and tax accordingly.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I pay someone with a $20 bill and a lump of gold and then try to make the case that t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No if you're paid with $20 in government currency then as far as the government is concerned you received $20 in wealth.
Otherwise it works the other way too and this $100 dollar paper note is only "worth" 1 cent and should be taxed as such.
Oh that's right, for some insane reason people always come down on the side of the government.
Perhaps you should ask *why* the government is stamping $30 on legal tender that actually costs 1000 $1 federal reserve notes (and counting). These gold coins are not "special"
Unlawful governance (Score:4, Insightful)
"Reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage -- not the much higher market value of the metal"
The money paid is 100% legal United States Currency, minted by the United States Government itself.
The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.
What's the problem? It's not his problem that the US government has destroyed the value of money so that "old" but perfectly legal currency is now worth 1000 times more than it's equivalent "new" money...IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.
Otherwise he's being prosecuted for something that "feels" illegal, which is a deadly slippery slope to go down.
Re:Unlawful governance (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's clearly paying his employees based on the market value of the coins, not the face value.
Imagine I paid my employees with one dollar bills signed by Jesus, Buddha, and Abe Lincoln. Clearly these would fetch a high price on the autograph market, significantly above $1 (yeah, I know, you're not supposed to mutilate currency). I think the IRS would be perfectly justified in treating these as having a worth above their face value, since any reasonable person would recognize that they are not just an ordinary dollar bill.
He's being prosecuted not for paying his employees in gold, which is perfectly fine (if dumb), but for lying about its value, which is against the law.
Parent
RTFA first (Score:3, Insightful)
The money is printed by the Federal Reserve and NOT by the Federal Government. Sheesh, don't you know the difference?
It is legal tender for all debts.
The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold. The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone. Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.
What it cares about is its value in USD.
In this case this guy paid in Gold, whose real value is more than what its face value states.
RTFA and research before you open your pie hole.
The tax dodge itself seems spurious (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely then, should they choose to sell these they'll pay income tax on any profit they make. If they use them as legal tender, they'll only be able to use the face value. I suppose they might be able to haggle the price of a large purchase down a little but for everyday spending it seems the savings are small.
How anonymous is slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything. So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC? Be imaginative in your answers (e.g. someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted(*)). Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out.
(*) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably, but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data. Like I said, be imaginative.
What is with the Slashdot support for crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thought... (Score:5, Informative)
This means that if my employer pays me in nickels then I also must pay more in income tax to the feds as a nickel is worth more then five cents in pure metal value these days.
No, you can go to the bank and get nickles for 5 cents each. You can not go to the bank and get $20 gold pieces for $20 each.
If you were melting down the nickels and selling the bulk metal you would be in violation [usatoday.com] of more than tax laws.
Parent
Re:Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's stating that states may not MAKE anything but gold and silver coin a tender.
That means they can't design their own legal tender. It doesn't mean that they can't accept legal tender made by the federal government.
Re:Hypocritical? (Score:5, Informative)
Quarters, unlike gold coins, are legal tender.
Blatantly, outright, not even close, missed by a mile, false. 10 seconds on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gold_Eagle [wikipedia.org]
Refers you to the US mint government webpage:
http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/mint_programs/am_eagles/AmerEagleGold.pdf [usmint.gov]
Here's a direct quote from the first page of this US MINT government issued document:
"They're also legal tender"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They may be free to say anything, but they must be willing to accept the consequences of what they say in many cases.
Courts have long held (arising out of common law) that some forms of speech are not protected. We have long (even since the time of the framers) had limits on speach: libel and slander. We also have laws that treat threats not as free speech, but as a form of assault (differentiated from striking someone: "battery"--the treatment of "assa