Gov't Computers Used to Find Info on "Joe the Plumber"

After Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio gained fame as "Joe the Plumber" in the course of the current presidential campaign, it seems that he's drawn more than idle curiosity from people with access to what should probably be confidential information. An anonymous reader writes with a story from The Columbus Dispatch that "government insiders accessed Joe the Plumber's records soon after the McCain-Obama debate. 'Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate. Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.' Welcome to 1984."

Open your eyes

This stuff isn't just happening in the UK.

It's the union

This is clearly the work of the union, posing as a government employee. They found out he wasn't a member and have initiated a smear campaign against him. The most insidious thing is that they're blaming the democrats for it!

Fact: The plumber unions secretly run the stonecutters guild, which in turn secretly runs the world.

My toilet is overflowing, they're onto me...

Re:Open your eyes

Actually, this is illegal in the US.Which is the point of the article.

It's in the first damned paragraph.

"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."

Re:Open your eyes

Cue the tape! Fast-forward to minute 5. This video shows employees who were hired by "Homeland Security" to spy on a potential terrorist. Instead, they decided to spy on a private house where man/lady were having sex.

This spying on Joe the Plumber is essentially the same thing - an invasion of privacy. Now I know you'll probably argue this is just a show, but having worked for the government, I can confirm that your information is Not secure. People are reading things about you that you don't want them to know (like how much you're paying to child support, or how much you earn, or how many times you got speeding tickets).

LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92xf94JPoB8&feature=related [youtube.com]

Is anybody seriously surprised?

Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.

Joe should have posted on slashdot

....as JoeTheAnonymousCoward. Average Joe said over a cup of Joe today that he learnt about AC too late, but that maybe others could learn from his mistake.

Re:Joe should have posted on slashdot

is that what the "Post Anonymously" option does?! all these years ... all these years ...

1984?

Welcome to 1984, or welcome to a world (just like 2007, 2006, and 2005) where curious people with access to confidential information sometimes abuse it without meaning harm?

I don't think there's any reason to assume malice here, I think stupidity is good enough. This kind of thing happens all the time when famous people check into hospitals and medical residents think it would be clever to pull their file.

This seems more likely to be plain old stupidity than it does evil government influence.

ThoughtCrime and 1984

One would do well to actually read 1984 (as opposed to just scream its title every time the Right does something you don't like).

1984 was an comment by Orwell on the Communists. Orwell, himself a socilaist, learned to hate and fear the Communists after the Spanish Civil War.

Big Brother was an obvious stand-in for "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

In 1984 you will see:
* The Ministry of Truth, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent Reugter's Photoshopping of pictures from the Israel/Lebanon war; Dan Rather's falsification of documents)
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the politically correct language redefinition we experienced in the 70s/80s e.g. "differently abled" for "handicapped", in Sweden "husmor" replaced by "hemmafru" or their English cognates "housewife" with "stay-at-home-mom")
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "homosexuality is something you are born with" and "homosexuality is a personal and private decision"; or "racism is always wrong" and "affirmative action is the right thing to do")
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"

We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.

From the article...

The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.

I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan [usatoday.com]. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?

"Joe the Plumber" is kind of a lie on a lie. Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not) being held down by the Man (he's not) who will get screwed by Obama (he won't). And that self-deception has been magnified by McCain into yet another mass Republican Cognitive Dissonance(TM)-- a national party lie standing on the shoulders of one small man's lie.

Good luck in November, guys.

IMO: Typical of the Self Employed

Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.

Basically, they're harboring the same sort of dreams that keep hundreds of thousands of young men banging away at amateur sports, even though the odds of making the cut are similar. It's this sort of dream that has the positive result of driving working people to succeed, but also the mixed results from overwhelming supporting the national GOP, whose policy goals use - but do not help - these grassroots supporters.

Re:IMO: Typical of the Self Employed

Okay, I'll bite. I'm self-employed, and have been for almost a decade. I became this way because I got tired of busting my ass to put money in someone else's pocket. I now but my ass for my own benefit. I have no delusions of grandeur, but I do enjoy my freedom.

The IRS levies a penalty against the self-employed - the Self Employment Tax. [irs.gov] I'll wager that my tax bracket is substantially higher than a "wage earner" with the same gross income. Why? Because I get to pay the extra 15.3% tax for being self-employed.

Re:From the article...

>He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company.

What you aren't aware of is that Joe had drawn up a contract to buy the company, and has recently signed a very lucrative contract with a wealthy american coupleto do the plumbing for all 7 of his houses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTRFbup0iv8 [youtube.com]

1 minute in for details.

1984?

Either 1984 has become so diffuse that all it means is badness+database, or the summary is badly confused. 1984 was all about a scenario where the state had ubiquitous control(with force of law) over information, which was used against everybody all the time. The state in 1984 was oppressive, and not one I would consider legitimate; but it ran "by the book" as it were. In this case, we have a much more prosaic example of certain individuals illegally accessing a celebrity's records, against policy, on an ad-hoc basis.

Such situations are bad, and I hope the perps will be punished, and they are (yet another) reason to oppose the creation of Giant Exploitable Databases(tm); but they have very little to do with 1984. If you simply must have a dystopian cultural reference, try Brazil [imdb.com].

Joe the Plumber's vote would not be counted

because Mr. Wurzelbacher has his name misspelled in the Social Security database, it would be assumed that he misspelled his name on his voter registration form. In Ohio, people that misspell their names or addresses, or have lost their homes and failed to update, or list a place that does not qualify as a "legal residence" in legalese like a dormitory, may be sent provisional ballots. These usually are not counted in the general election.

The Supreme Court had ruled against Ohio GOP measures, but on technical grounds or something, and now the Attorney General of the Department of Justice is probing whether or not they should be sent those provisional ballots. It's sad that Mr. Wurzelbacher had his privacy invaded, but in reference to the Republican argument, he did have something to hide.

You may have missed these details

Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.

Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.

"IT Test account". Shared by a bunch of different offices. Looks like whoever did the search was smart enough to muddy the waters a bit.

I wonder who...

It's reasonable to assume the purpose of these unauthorized accesses were to try and dig up dirt on Joe. Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe. Joe supports McCain, thus I don't expect any public outcry at all over this at all.

Now if the tables were turned and it was an Obama supporter who was having his/her info illegally accessed...well, I don't have to describe the media orgy that would occur, do I?

This is serious

I was working on a project where I had to be given access to a state's law enforcement computer system, which was the access point for their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the US National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and several other systems. I had to watch a videotape and read and sign a document promising all sorts of hell if I ever abused my access by, say, running someone without cause. One real-life example was a cop who would notice an attractive woman go by on the road and run her license plate to get her home address, where he would subsequently show up. I was glad to see that they had such strict policies. Anyone who uses their access privileges to stalk or attempt to dig up info on someone should be prosecuted.

Re:Okay so the info is out there...

Did Joe the Plumber make over 250k last year? Will Obama be giving him a tax break, totally invalidating McCain's point about Obama raising JoeThePlumber's taxes?

That wasn't the point of Joe's question. Joe stated he wanted to buy a business and hoped that his hard work would bring in more than 250K. Obama stated that he wanted to take that success and spread it to people that made less than Joe hoped to make with his business acquisition and hard work.

It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".

Re:Okay so the info is out there...

I'm a small business owner, and while we do well over $250K/year in revenue, I don't make more then $100K/yr. I don't believe I should be paid any more then my highest paid employee. Let's assume though that I did take more than $250K out of the business a year (which is what you'd have to do to hit the $250K limit Obama talks about). I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).

Re:Okay so the info is out there...

I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).

Furthermore, it is a marginal tax increase. That means it doesn't apply to any of the $250K that you took as income in order to get to the $250K point. At roughly 3% it really is quite minor in absolute dollars for anything under $300K or so - roughly $1,500 extra taxes on $300K than now.

Re:How do you think it should work then?

It is against freedom to be taxed. It is against freedom to be part of a society which has rules governing your actions. It is against freedom to not be allowed to shoot people who disagree with you. It is against freedom for other people to be allowed to own property that you could use.

Very few people actually want total freedom, unless no one else has it. The cost of total freedom is not being part of a society. Most reasonable people are willing to give up the same freedoms that they would want other people to give up. They give up the freedom to kill their neighbours and, in exchange, their neighbours give up the freedom to kill them. They give up some portion of the products of their industry to benefit society.

People in the USA talk a lot about rights, but rarely mention the responsibilities that come with them.

Re:How do you think it should work then?

You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.

No, it runs far deeper than that. "Spread the wealth" would seem to point to taking the money that I earn, and 'spreading' it to others who haven't earned it. Rightly or wrongly, thats what it sounds like.
This goes along with Hillary's line during the campaign of (speaking of the oil company's profits) "we want to take those profits and put them..."

Whether it be a 3 man plumbing operation, or Big Oil...'taking profits' leaves a bad taste in many peoples mouths.

Taking my money to provide necessary infrastructure is no problem. Taking it and giving that money to people who have not earned it is a problem.
Rightly or wrongly, "spread the wealth" sounds exactly like that.

I earn money, it's mine, not yours.
Beyond infrastructure and basic assistance, it is exactly that. Why can't I choose whom to spread it to? New employees, charities, whomever.

Today, the line is $250k. Tomorrow, $200k. Next year, $150k. You know as well as I do...govt's always want more.

Re:How do you think it should work then?

We've had public health care for years in Canada, our social security is better and we are a welfare state, you can join the club too it's a lot nicer on the other side; we don't turn the aged away because they cannot afford medical service, we actually have a huge booming retirment industry; oh and did I mention that we keep crazy people off the street by giving them money (and possibly preventing them from harming others)....just a thought. Oh and after these bailouts, our tax bracket will be even lower than yours ;) 99% of your inmates should have had medical attention but now you get to pay for them for the rest of their known lives. ~Bullets and electrictity are far cheaper than re-education. Now remember everyone belongs to everyone else, repetition is key. (Of course if Russia invades we are turning to you to save us :'( )

Opt-in

I've always been a believer in opt-in economy. Just mark huge swaths of land as "government-free" counties. No government means: no roads, bridges, water treatment, fire stations, EMTs, hospitals, or regulated utilities. You buy the land, you move there, you're on your own.

Then, all of the libertarians declaring that government is intrinsically evil can negotiate with utility companies to run power lines, open restaurants without any health inspections, and do their work without OSHA or fire regulations. After a few decades you would find that they had done something remarkable, and that is formed their own government with exactly the same rules.

A kid dies from salmonella poisoning from the burger joint - now health inspections are mandatory. Four men die in a fire in a building that had no fire suppression system, and now that's a requirement. The company firehouse is done away with because they bungled their badging system, and let someone's business burn to the ground who was actually a member. A local court system developed after blood feuds threatened to throw the whole county into chaos, and it's now illegal to conceal firearms after a judge was assassinated. Voting regulations have been established after the banker buys four consecutive elections, which resulted in all road construction projects benefitting his new housing development... I could elaborate, but you probably get the point.

Government is a necessary evil, but not all governments are evil. The only thing that turns a state into a negative entity is when concentrated power, economic chaos, or external military invasion takes the power away from the population, which does occur much of the time. The solution is not to take the resources of the nation place it outside the grasp of it's population, but exactly the opposite. In my experience, I've had much better relationships with local (albeit small) government utilities than I have with AT&T or any other large corporation, mainly because the top of the chain ends within a few miles of my business - I can go talk to (or berate) the person in charge. The top of the chain of any large corporation is simply unreachable, and the AT&T rep doesn't really care if my phone service is reliable or not - where else am I going to go? And if we have four phone companies running lines, how long before three are swallowed by the one with the most money? And if you regulate the monopolies, what's the difference between local governmental control (notice I didn't say federal) besides greasing the pockets of useless executive boards?

People like Joe the Plumber don't understand that part of the infrastructure of the united states is the working population. If those workers have a safe neighborhood, reasonable pay, and voluntarily pay extra taxes to socialize industries that perform poorly under free markets, the whole economy is better for it. Not only because the basics of the western world will be less expensive, but because entrepreneurs will be incentivized to tackle new ideas, instead of swindling money out of decades old problems that have already been solved. If corporations weren't busy creating inefficient markets for the sake of making more money, we'd still have many things that europe has kept - functioning mass transit systems, lots of investment in education, low poverty rates, more equal distribution of wealth -- that is a measure of the health of an economy, by the way -- and the right to organize in unions.

Or, you can be concerned by paying an extra 4% of tax, only on money earned over 250,000 per year.

By the way, where is Fred the Accountant, asking McCain why he supported Roe v. Wade in 2000? Or why he wants the Federal Government to legislate what marriage is? Or why Falwell was no longer an agent of intolerance? Or why he said in 04 that taxing the wealthy a bit more was okay? The truth is, Joe the Plumber wouldn't be able to get close enough to ask McCain or Palin a question. Anyone perceived as someone other than a die hard supporter is turned away, or threatened with arrest for carrying signs that say: "McCain = Bush."