Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
Wow, okay, now that's just false. So the president can't give favours, can't start wars, can't get paid? Um, what the heck are you trying to claim?
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
Well, the President doesn't control one single penny. He has to ask for everything. It goes into his budget which has to be approved by Congress.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
But why? What does a President's tax return have anything to do with being President? The president doesn't control the money, congress does.
Wow, okay, now that's just false. So the president can't give favours, can't start wars, can't get paid? Um, what the heck are you trying to claim?
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
Well, the President doesn't control one single penny. He has to ask for everything. It goes into his budget which has to be approved by Congress.
Do you even understand what powers the President has? He can deploy troops anywhere for something like 60 days without declaring war (not him, but congress)... that's billions he could spend just doing that.
As for why you want his returns (and frankly all financial data) to keep them from giving favors, receiving kickbacks, etc.
-
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
No, this is false.
Have you not followed the news at all? The big reasons are that we need to know 1) if his election was honest and valid and 2) if he is being funded or beholded to foreign powers.
How he would spend money is, again, misdirection and irrelevant.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
My only point was, do you want someone handing your info to a news paper, who already knows that they are receiving stolen property to publish their findings?
If that is minor, then OK, we can always agree to disagree about what is a minor privacy issue or a major one.
If the individual behind the release of Trumps private tax record information is background noise compared to a European war, then so is his paying only $750 in taxes.
You're focused to much on what the data was.. and not on the actual crime.
Are you talking about Trump's crime?
I am focused on how the information was obtained by the NYT. That is all.
Here's a better situation - did you not want the WaterGate leaks to happen? Did you not want Edward Snowden to leak the CIA documents?
Actually, No, i don't like that they were leaked. A person holds a classified clearence for a reason. Shut up, do your job and then get the hell out. I am not saying, it didn't have a good outcome.
I know I sure the HELL DID! absolutely I wanted those leaks to happen, be damned about any laws protecting private information.
Then we need all information to be out in the open at all times. No matter then info that the goverment holds, there is at least one person who will take offense to it and deem it should be public and/or leaked.
So I guess we will agree to disagree about the 'fact' of Trumps personal taxes being disclosed, I do consider that 'fact' to be background noise, especially compared to what it could lead to investigations....
I'm good here.
Do you don't believe we should have Whistler blower protections...
wow, you want to live in communist Russia, or China, don't ya?
I don't believe anything I said would relate to communism.If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well, the President doesn't control one single penny. He has to ask for everything. It goes into his budget which has to be approved by Congress.
No, all false. He controls trillions no matter how you try to paint it. Everything the president does, every action, every word, controls money. All of it.
You are confusing two things...
- That controlling budgets and controlling money is the same thing.
- What can be done legally and what can be done are the same thing.
By that logic, that IRS cannot divulge tax returns so cannot be the leak to the IRS so by your own standard, cannot need to be investigated because they aren't allowed to do that.
So which is it? It can't be both.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
Correct. Because he voluntarily joined a contract not to disclose.
Which I've covered already. So why bring it up again?
Also, you just pointed out that it would only cost him his job, not be illegal. Which I also pointed out before.
This sounds like you've come around and agree now that laws don't cover this, only contracts that we have no knowledge of existing or responsibility over.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
My only point was, do you want someone handing your info to a news paper, who already knows that they are receiving stolen property to publish their findings?
If that is minor, then OK, we can always agree to disagree about what is a minor privacy issue or a major one.
If the individual behind the release of Trumps private tax record information is background noise compared to a European war, then so is his paying only $750 in taxes.
You're focused to much on what the data was.. and not on the actual crime.
Are you talking about Trump's crime?
I am focused on how the information was obtained by the NYT. That is all.
Here's a better situation - did you not want the WaterGate leaks to happen? Did you not want Edward Snowden to leak the CIA documents?
Actually, No, i don't like that they were leaked. A person holds a classified clearence for a reason. Shut up, do your job and then get the hell out. I am not saying, it didn't have a good outcome.
I know I sure the HELL DID! absolutely I wanted those leaks to happen, be damned about any laws protecting private information.
Then we need all information to be out in the open at all times. No matter then info that the goverment holds, there is at least one person who will take offense to it and deem it should be public and/or leaked.
So I guess we will agree to disagree about the 'fact' of Trumps personal taxes being disclosed, I do consider that 'fact' to be background noise, especially compared to what it could lead to investigations....
I'm good here.
Do you don't believe we should have Whistler blower protections...
wow, you want to live in communist Russia, or China, don't ya?
I don't believe anything I said would relate to communism.If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
Actually, I'm guessing my company would likely be safe - the consultant on the otherhand could end up with huge fines...
My employees were having a legitimate conversation, we assume. My company has a signed HIPAA BAA with the contractor, so we can only operate from an assumption that he will owner it. If he doesn't, welp.. we will look bad in the press for hiring that person, but we can't be held liable (I don't believe at least) for his actions.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
If wrongdoing was happening, of course I'm happy that the public was protected. Obviously.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Okay, what reason does one need for the President's tax return? The only acceptable reason would be to know how he would spend money. Where it could be spent or put in someone's pocket.
No, this is false.
Have you not followed the news at all? The big reasons are that we need to know 1) if his election was honest and valid and 2) if he is being funded or beholded to foreign powers.
Honest and valid has absolutely nothing to do with a tax return. He stated that he is audited every year and it is the IRS's job to keep him honest and valid.
He gave up the business to his children and has no control over its workings, there not beholden to anyone. So still no reason for tax records.
If Congress felt the President needed to release their tax records, they would make a law for the President to do so. After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
Correct. Because he voluntarily joined a contract not to disclose.
Which I've covered already. So why bring it up again?
Also, you just pointed out that it would only cost him his job, not be illegal. Which I also pointed out before.
This sounds like you've come around and agree now that laws don't cover this, only contracts that we have no knowledge of existing or responsibility over.
Just to clarify... Dash shouldn't loose his job, Dash did nothing wrong.. the contractor did.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
My only point was, do you want someone handing your info to a news paper, who already knows that they are receiving stolen property to publish their findings?
If that is minor, then OK, we can always agree to disagree about what is a minor privacy issue or a major one.
If the individual behind the release of Trumps private tax record information is background noise compared to a European war, then so is his paying only $750 in taxes.
You're focused to much on what the data was.. and not on the actual crime.
Are you talking about Trump's crime?
I am focused on how the information was obtained by the NYT. That is all.
Here's a better situation - did you not want the WaterGate leaks to happen? Did you not want Edward Snowden to leak the CIA documents?
Actually, No, i don't like that they were leaked. A person holds a classified clearence for a reason. Shut up, do your job and then get the hell out. I am not saying, it didn't have a good outcome.
I know I sure the HELL DID! absolutely I wanted those leaks to happen, be damned about any laws protecting private information.
Then we need all information to be out in the open at all times. No matter then info that the goverment holds, there is at least one person who will take offense to it and deem it should be public and/or leaked.
So I guess we will agree to disagree about the 'fact' of Trumps personal taxes being disclosed, I do consider that 'fact' to be background noise, especially compared to what it could lead to investigations....
I'm good here.
Do you don't believe we should have Whistler blower protections...
wow, you want to live in communist Russia, or China, don't ya?
I don't believe anything I said would relate to communism.If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
Actually, I'm guessing my company would likely be safe - the consultant on the otherhand could end up with huge fines...
My employees were having a legitimate conversation, we assume. My company has a signed HIPAA BAA with the contractor, so we can only operate from an assumption that he will owner it. If he doesn't, welp.. we will look bad in the press for hiring that person, but we can't be held liable (I don't believe at least) for his actions.
Are you still happy you hired that consultant? You are pretty happy that Snowden did what he did. That is my point, the consultant should have, after signing the agreement, shut up, do their job and leave. That is all I am saying.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
My only point was, do you want someone handing your info to a news paper, who already knows that they are receiving stolen property to publish their findings?
If that is minor, then OK, we can always agree to disagree about what is a minor privacy issue or a major one.
If the individual behind the release of Trumps private tax record information is background noise compared to a European war, then so is his paying only $750 in taxes.
You're focused to much on what the data was.. and not on the actual crime.
Are you talking about Trump's crime?
I am focused on how the information was obtained by the NYT. That is all.
Here's a better situation - did you not want the WaterGate leaks to happen? Did you not want Edward Snowden to leak the CIA documents?
Actually, No, i don't like that they were leaked. A person holds a classified clearence for a reason. Shut up, do your job and then get the hell out. I am not saying, it didn't have a good outcome.
I know I sure the HELL DID! absolutely I wanted those leaks to happen, be damned about any laws protecting private information.
Then we need all information to be out in the open at all times. No matter then info that the goverment holds, there is at least one person who will take offense to it and deem it should be public and/or leaked.
So I guess we will agree to disagree about the 'fact' of Trumps personal taxes being disclosed, I do consider that 'fact' to be background noise, especially compared to what it could lead to investigations....
I'm good here.
Do you don't believe we should have Whistler blower protections...
wow, you want to live in communist Russia, or China, don't ya?
I don't believe anything I said would relate to communism.If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
Actually, I'm guessing my company would likely be safe - the consultant on the otherhand could end up with huge fines...
My employees were having a legitimate conversation, we assume. My company has a signed HIPAA BAA with the contractor, so we can only operate from an assumption that he will owner it. If he doesn't, welp.. we will look bad in the press for hiring that person, but we can't be held liable (I don't believe at least) for his actions.
Yup, the laws work properly here. It's specific data, with specific laws, and specific people who can and cannot disclose, and specific chains of custody to make sure we know who is at fault and when.
Thanks to stuff like this, we don't really have to worry like is assumed with stuff hitting the news. Because if there really is a security breach, they'll almost certainly get caught. Once again... making this just background noise.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Honest and valid has absolutely nothing to do with a tax return. He stated that he is audited every year and it is the IRS's job to keep him honest and valid.
No, it is not.
He made claims as to profits to the American people. You've been VERY clear that the IRS isn't allowed to keep him honest because that would divulge his tax returns which they cannot do.
Again, you keep trying to have it both ways. You can't.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
You are pretty happy that Snowden did what he did.
I couldn't possibly be happier. That's what a hero looks like, this is what it takes to be an honest, patriotic American. That's someone who actually loves his country and took risks for it.
I can't love my country AND want a corrupt gov't or official covered up, the two are incompatible.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
That is my point, the consultant should have, after signing the agreement, shut up, do their job and leave. That is all I am saying.
You prefer people to keep quiet if they discover a crime? Even if it's in the interest of national security and the foundations of the government?
I can't agree with this, in the slightest. I get why we hope whistleblowers go away, they are scary if we fear that the things we love are based on illegal or unethical behaviour. But it's always better to know the truth.
It's unfortunate that sometimes the law makes it that exposing a big crime means committing a small one. But that's the price that a true patriot sometimes has to pay for the good of the people. America, like most countries, was founded by people willing to die to protect their country. Sometimes the best people are put in the line of fire. But without them, we'd have a dictatorship and no laws to protect us.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
It applies because it states that tax returns are considered private and confidential. Plus, I'm sure there is a law somewhere that then applies to anyone else who touches that information. One doesn't need to be a tax lawyer to know that.
No, that's not how it works. It's only private and confidential until released. But it's released. So that has no assumption of applicability.
It was released by someone and that is where the applicability lies.
Sure, but not the NYT. And honestly, who cares? Should process of law be followed? Yes. Is it relevant here? Nope.
If tax records were release by anyone other than Trump or his POA to the NYT, then the NYT is in possession of stolen goods.Think about it... the biggest news story in the world today, overshadowing a European war that has broken out, is going on... and your saying that we shouldn't be so concerned with the news, but instead focus on something so trivial that regardless of the outcome, no one cares as it affects no one.
I don't but apparently Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire and NY Times thinks so.
I'm not saying that if someone committed a crime that there shouldn't be an investigation, of course there should be. But it's a crime on par with a HIPAA violation made against every American citizen nearly all the time by nearly every doctor's office. It's wrong, it's our private data, but we don't overshadow real news with being concerned about minor privacy leaks that happen every day. That's all this is in the background. it's literally "background noise" and completely inconsequential on a news level.
I agree but it doesn't make it right. Seeing its as "background noise" is the specific problem. It's not, it is HUGE problem.
How is this not background noise? Let's say his daughter found the papers and handed them over - no law was broken, save perhaps theft of papers from him... but that is such a minor crime compared the potential of the returns shows, that literally NO ONE cares about.
My only point was, do you want someone handing your info to a news paper, who already knows that they are receiving stolen property to publish their findings?
If that is minor, then OK, we can always agree to disagree about what is a minor privacy issue or a major one.
If the individual behind the release of Trumps private tax record information is background noise compared to a European war, then so is his paying only $750 in taxes.
You're focused to much on what the data was.. and not on the actual crime.
Are you talking about Trump's crime?
I am focused on how the information was obtained by the NYT. That is all.
Here's a better situation - did you not want the WaterGate leaks to happen? Did you not want Edward Snowden to leak the CIA documents?
Actually, No, i don't like that they were leaked. A person holds a classified clearence for a reason. Shut up, do your job and then get the hell out. I am not saying, it didn't have a good outcome.
I know I sure the HELL DID! absolutely I wanted those leaks to happen, be damned about any laws protecting private information.
Then we need all information to be out in the open at all times. No matter then info that the goverment holds, there is at least one person who will take offense to it and deem it should be public and/or leaked.
So I guess we will agree to disagree about the 'fact' of Trumps personal taxes being disclosed, I do consider that 'fact' to be background noise, especially compared to what it could lead to investigations....
I'm good here.
Do you don't believe we should have Whistler blower protections...
wow, you want to live in communist Russia, or China, don't ya?
I don't believe anything I said would relate to communism.If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
In that situation, are you happy that consultant you hired record the conversation on the a phone, gave it to the local news station?
Actually, I'm guessing my company would likely be safe - the consultant on the otherhand could end up with huge fines...
My employees were having a legitimate conversation, we assume. My company has a signed HIPAA BAA with the contractor, so we can only operate from an assumption that he will owner it. If he doesn't, welp.. we will look bad in the press for hiring that person, but we can't be held liable (I don't believe at least) for his actions.
Are you still happy you hired that consultant? You are pretty happy that Snowden did what he did. That is my point, the consultant should have, after signing the agreement, shut up, do their job and leave. That is all I am saying.
From a PR perspective, of course I'm not happen I hired that consultant. But so what? It has no baring here what so ever.
Hell yes I'm happy that Snowden did what he did - we are supposed to be a free country here in the USA. It's why we have the 2nd ammendment, because the people are supposed to be able to overthrow the gov't when it gets out of control... sadly, I don't really consider that practical anymore, our founding fathers didn't foresee the level of technology that would enable the gov't to so vastly out military the citizens....
That said, the spy shit they use, and use on us it completely illegal, and we SHOULD be aware of it. -
Yes, it sucks that as suck, the USA shouldn't have hidden powers to use against foreign powers - it just means the known powers have to be THAT much more awesome as deterrents.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If you hire a consultant to come into work, fix a router, signs HIPAA agreement that states anything they see or hear is confidential before he walks in, hears two billers discussing the Govenor's mental status, Dashrender could be out of a job as the company will be fined millions because of a HIPAA leak.
Correct. Because he voluntarily joined a contract not to disclose.
Which I've covered already. So why bring it up again?
Also, you just pointed out that it would only cost him his job, not be illegal. Which I also pointed out before.
This sounds like you've come around and agree now that laws don't cover this, only contracts that we have no knowledge of existing or responsibility over.
I was only talking about Snowden and whether you would like your consultant who had a single job to do, do more than was required and not follow the contract you put in front of them.
Just to clarify... Dash shouldn't loose his job, Dash did nothing wrong.. the contractor did.
I would hope not either. I just think if the company was put through the ringer with HIPAA, it could be very costly, hurting the business to the point of no return. Defense attorneys are not cheap.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
By this logic, anything that we don't like, we could say that you've not made happen or tried to make happen. Let's say "world peace." @pmoncho doesn't want world peace because he's not lifted a finger to do so. You'd argue that there is nothing that you can do that would just make world peace happen. And you'd be right. Just because you are powerless to do something doesn't make it your fault that it doesn't happen.
