Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tracking Your Taxes

Posted by samzenpus on from the tax-spam dept.

CTealL writes "Apparently Intuit thinks it's okay to share information about taxes with third paries. According to this article, Intuit is using a third party tracking technology on all tax forms submitted to the IRS. "We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site," acknowledged Matt Belkin, who serves as vice president of best practices for Utah marketing giant Omniture, which tracks the online activities of people using Intuit's TurboTax. The IRS disavows any knowledge of this, saying "The IRS does not take a position on Web tracking tools." Makes you wonder where your tax information is going..."

43 of 593 comments (clear)

  1. The moral of the story: by Future+Man+3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Paper has nothing on electronics for leaving a trail.

    --

    I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
    -- W.C. Fields

    1. Re:The moral of the story: by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.. the true moral of the story is.. American corporate greed knows no bounds...

      --
      Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
    2. Re:The moral of the story: by oirtemed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      shorten it to greed and you got it right. Americans are no worse than other humans.

    3. Re:The moral of the story: by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely you realize that when you try to ascribe any characteristic to a couple hundred million people, you're going way out on a limb?

      I could just as well say that Europeans have nasty tendency to lump people together into groups.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Informative

    "We could capture your name, your Social Security number or any other information that you willingly pass to a Web site," acknowledged Matt Belkin, who serves as vice president of best practices for Utah marketing giant Omniture, which tracks the online activities of people using Intuit's TurboTax.

    But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.

    Yes they *can*, but do they? *no*

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  3. National sales tax now by panxerox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its time to crush this 30 year old unholy alliance between the IRS and the 3 party tax prep companys. The tax system has become like the legal system - a systematic exploitation of the American people to keep an elite in business, in this case IRS agents and retired IRS agents.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:National sales tax now by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      tax system has become like the legal system - a systematic exploitation of the American people to keep an elite in business, in this case IRS agents and retired IRS agents.

      Except, all they do is function to collect what the tax code says they should. Don't like it? You have to change the law. Fix it in congress, thus treating the problem, not the symptom.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:National sales tax now by Quarters · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A national sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation imaginable. The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings. Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages. A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities. The little $ they might have left after their purchases and their tax burden won't be enough for an adequate savings.

    3. Re:National sales tax now by Jacked · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The tax system now is (mostly) fair. Everyone pays a % of their earnings.

      Hardly. Not everyone pays a percentage. Almost half the workers in the U.S. pay no income tax at all. And, in fact, they get quite a sweetheart deal -- many of those people get a "refund" which is far larger than the amount that was witheld in the first place (refundable credits).

      The problem with a national sales tax is that middle to low income earners spend a larger percentage of their earnings. Upper class earners spend a much smaller percentage of their wages. A national sales tax would hurt low wage earners the most as they would be using the majority of their wages on food & basic necessities. The little $ they might have left after their purchases and their tax burden won't be enough for an adequate savings.

      It's been my experience that most upper class earners spend virtually everything they earn. They might spend a slightly smaller amount as a percentage of their income, but, 85% of $200,000 is a lot more real dollars than 95% of $25,000. Admittedly, I pulled those numbers out of my ass, they're just for illustration purposes ;)

      As structured in H.R. 25, everyone gets a monthly check to prevent exactly what you describe. It's actually a pretty well thought-out plan. You can read more about it at http://fairtax.org/.

    4. Re:National sales tax now by RadagastTheMagician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      while I agree with you on a sales tax being regressive, the current tax system is still unfair. Those with a lot of money already, perhaps from inheritance (Paris Hilton, anyone?) only pay taxes on their interest, and can mostly get out of that tax too.

      The current talk about repealing the inheritance tax is ludicrous. It's the only tax the Paris Hiltons of the world pay at all. Look at it like this: while Daddy worked his ass off, paid his taxes on his earnings, and received the benefits of those taxes (the military protected his investements at home and abroad), if they repeal the estate tax, once he's dead, poor little rich girl never has to work again. Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it! Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?

    5. Re:National sales tax now by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it!"

      Uh... if they recieved an inheritance, and that money had already had its taxes paid on, then they already have paid for it. It's money changing hands, not money suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:National sales tax now by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh... if they recieved an inheritance, and that money had already had its taxes paid on, then they already have paid for it. It's money changing hands, not money suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

      That money is not going towards paying for ongoing maintenance. Without inhertance and property taxes the burden falls solely on the backs of current wage earners.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  4. Slashdot vs. Major Media Outlet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, on Slashdot, everyone will complain about the obvious privacy issues of having your personal information given away for marketing purposes. And, that's it. Now, if a Major Media Outlet were to carry this story, say, Reuters, then you would hear about it on NPR, you'd see it on ABC, and you'd read it in the New York Times. And it would be illegal in two months for these assholes to share your personal information while you trust them to do something as simple as file your taxes electronically. Of course, the Reuters author would have to write it up with a pro-consumer spin. It would have to cry privacy violation in every sentence.

  5. trust us! by chocochip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "You've just got to trust us," Miller replied, adding that "if we didn't uphold our privacy commitment, we wouldn't be here."

    Yeahhh, I'm gonna say no!

  6. Trusting Intuit is insane. by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quicken used to be an excellent product around 1997 or so. But then they started adding in-program spam and call home features. And that's when I stopped upgrading.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  7. Read the fine print for your savings and checking by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They already share your information, and it is done by your bank. Banks make good money selling your financial information to "related buisnesses". And there is no way to opt-out. Don't want to have us sell your social security number and financial data? Then we won't open a savings account for you. What can you do? Stuff your mattress with money?

    People have no rights anymore because buisnesses stopped thinking about serving you. They now look at aggregates. You have become an after-thought on someones spreadsheet. We have 10,000 customers. We lose 50 this month because they don't like us sharing their information. But we get 500 new accounts from our marketing blitz. The bank is going to say it isn't worth their time to deal with 50 unhappy customers when an advertisment can bring in more customers.

    BTW, this is unrelated to this story, but I need help and I have to ask (since all the smart people hang out at slashdot, and I don't know the ipa to any forus to ask). My damn internet connection is not working right. I can't get to yahoo.com, but if i type in the ip address, i get there. What the hell is wrong?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  8. Bad reasoning for not capturing SSNs...... by xiaomonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article: But he said Omniture doesn't do this. The reason, he said, is that client companies don't authorize Omniture to do it.

    So, is he saying that given the opportunity to capture this information, his company would? Semi-distrubing. What about not caputuring this information since it would be wrong to do so? Particulary with recent problems with identity theft.

    -

  9. Turbo Tax "web" version or by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the boxed version? The article doesn't appear to say and I'm not quite sure why "web bugs" would be used to collect data on the boxed version. (y'know, like... when you could just capture the keystrokes?)

  10. RTFA by firephreek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The /. article is totally misleading. Makes it sound like Intuit is actively tracking the actual returns and trying to compile info on the users, not just tracking and compiling the user process. Until there's something shown that the tracking is done beyond the site, I'm gonna reserve judgement.

    If you're gonna get the tin hats out for this, then don't forget that Intuit also makes and sells the number one financial tool for not just businesses, but also personal finances. Quicken and Quickbooks. They don't need your tax return information. All your bank accounts are belong to Intuit. If they wanted to track your buying habits, the checking history of hundreds of thousands of individuals is at their fingertips.

  11. Re:Try to hack this... by kwoo · · Score: 4, Funny
    And for complete anonymity, take your thumb, lick it, and rub over your social security numbers til you can't read it any more.

    I would love to, but there's this little problem that brings up later in the process... :P

    --
    unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
  12. The morality of the story: by IPFreely · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem. Look at the E-Filing instructions and it's all about how to find the right third party to do it for you (for a Fee!). Bleh.

    At least some states have figured out how to file taxes electronicly and directly (and free!) without involving someone with a profit motive in the mix.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    1. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the IRS would actually come out with a method of E-Filing that does not require third party involvement, they would go a long way towards elimenating this type of problem.

      It would also be a large taxpayer expense. As it stands now you could get access to send your tax return directly to the government. But you'd have to write the software, and pass the tests, and undergo a criminal background check. This ensures that the government needs to do the least work once it's received a return. It also makes it very hard for criminals to screw up the system by for instance filing false returns for people other than themselves.

      Look at the E-Filing instructions and it's all about how to find the right third party to do it for you (for a Fee!).

      Actually, at least one third party (the makers of TaxAct), offers e-file for free to everyone. They make it hard to find the link, but if you go to the IRS free-file page, scroll down to "TaxACT.com", click the link, click "Leave IRS Site", and then click on "Start Free Return" then you can e-file your federal return absolutely free.

    2. Re:The morality of the story: by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It would also be a large taxpayer expense.
      Bull. It costs much more for the IRS to print and process a paper return than an online one, and if there were an official, taxpayer-supported IRS filing site, many more people would e-file.

      I don't know what you're saying about everybody writing their own tax preparation software, but an official IRS site could certainly prevent fraud at least as well as paper forms or TurboTax etc.

      This is a case of purposeful government waste in order to create a market for some companies. Like if I started printing my own paper tax forms, charging $10 for them, then lobbied Congress to stop the IRS from printing tax forms because it was "competing with private industry."

    3. Re:The morality of the story: by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or, for that matter, you could file on paper, for cheaper.

      Cheaper than free? I don't think so.

      In an ideal world, you'll be sufficiently under-withheld that you don't have to worry about getting a refund anyway, removing the only rational reason to e-file.

      I've got another rational reason to e-file. You save the cost of the stamp (actually to be safe you should probably use two stamps as one is probably not enough), as well as the hassle of printing out the form and mailing it in. In my case, I save the hassle of driving to the post office and buying stamps, since I generally don't have any stamps around anyway.

      Of course, I wound up working less last year than expected, so I wound up with a refund, and I'll probably get one again in 2005 since changing my exemptions to 7 probably won't be enough (should have gone for 9, I guess). But yeah, the target is to owe $999 at the end, unless of course you can manage to get your income taxes down to $0, which is actually not too hard for 2005 (a married couple can earn $41,000 if they both contribute $4000 to an IRA and have $3000 of capital losses; if they have kids or one is a teacher or have student interest or have rental property or paid tuition costs they can earn even more; just having a few rental properties can theoretically raise that number to $66,000).

      Filing on paper is still legal (as long as you prepare your own return, anyway).

      For the federal return it's still legal. California (and possibly other states), has made it illegal for a paid preparer who files more than 50 (or something like that) California returns from not e-filing an eligible state return unless the customer specifically requests not to e-file, but the federal government has done no such thing - yet.

    4. Re:The morality of the story: by Saeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'd much rather they withhold too much and I just get a refund in the spring so I don't have to worry about it.

      Frankly, that's a retarded attitude, but a lot of lazy people share it. To have your employer automatically subtract (sorry, "withhold") taxes just so you can feel like you're winning the lottery when you get your "refund" is... retarded. Not only do you lose out on the interest, but the government has you by the balls because you don't even really feel the pain of PAYING taxes.

      Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

      By the way, Tax Freedom Day for 2005 falls on April 17th, so you're still working to payoff taxes until then... but at least you won't feel it. :)

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:The morality of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since I'm self-employed, nobody withholds from me, so I get to feel it when I write my two checks to Fed and State treasuries.

      Don't you mean "eight checks"? How long have you been self-employed?? This statement surprises me (self-employed since 1997).

      The US tax system is a "pay as you go" system. You have to pay your taxes close to when you earn the income. Otherwise you pay penalties. Unless your taxes are under $1000 or you just started out you will have to pay penalties (8%? something like that).

      Does the phrase "estimated tax payments" ring any bells?

      The only time I haven't paid quarterly tax payments is during the boom, when I could easily beat the penalty elsewhere.

      So if you're self-employed, you *do* feel the sting of paying throughout the year (and yes you can overpay and get a refund, but that's retarded as you point out.. the government will loan YOU money at 8%, but when you loan THEM money throughout the year by overpaying, they give you nothing :-).

    6. Re:The morality of the story: by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps the US should outsource its tax collection to the UK.

      Actually, we use to have an arrangment just like that.

      From what I understand, it didn't work out very well.

      Why would we want your sucky government when we have a perfectly fine sucky government right here at home?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    7. Re:The morality of the story: by jonatha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>But yeah, the target is to owe $999 at the end

      >Huh? Why?

      Owing (rather than getting a refund) means you can earn interest on the money for a year rather than letting Uncle Sam have it.

      $999 is the most you can owe without having to pay penalties and interest for underpayment.

      --
      The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
  13. IRS position by NoseBag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, the IRS position is a smart one. Basically they are saying "Until it gets to us (e-mail or snail mail or whatever) we have no knowledge of it, or its journey, or what happened to it between you and us."

    That's fair, damn it.

    The issue is with the go-betweens. I say - take 'em to court and smoke 'em.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  14. No you fucking idiot!!! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Funny
    And for complete anonymity, take your thumb, lick it, and rub over your social security numbers til you can't read it any more.

    Good God, you idiot! Now they'll have your DNA!!!

  15. Attention, obvious by taylortbb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think any web surfer with basic internet knowledge knows that servers can tell what pages you visit, of course, they are afterall giving you the information. If most users find this surprising they should know what else goes on.

    Can you trust the person sorting your mail not to open it? about as much as you can trust Intuit, however as soon as its online everyone gets freaked out.

    As soon as you let someone else transmit your personal information this can happen. When you submit a form containing your SSN (social security number) the person on the recieving end or anyone in transit can read it, be the form HTML or paper.

    Anyone sorting real world mail could open a letter and read it. Any company sending your data over the web could read the data you are sending them, well, of course, you're sending it to them for a reason.

    Could a marketing company get people to infiltrate the post office and steal random letters to examine content? of course. Could a marketing company forcefully aquire data (via hacking, etc.) online? of course. But now its much harder, the data is encrypted.

    Unfourtunatly most average consumers don't read /., but for anyone that reads this, *your computer is more secure, just because its in the real world doesn't mean it can't happen, and in the computer world there is cryptographically secure prevention*. People steals cars, break into houses, and commit fraud without computers all the time, don't be afraid of your computer, or stuff online.

    (For those who are going to attack me because the article isn't about hacking, the only way for the marketing companies to get data is hacking, Intuit is *not* going to share that info. Either a or b is true: a) its against privacy laws, paper or internet. b) they could do it with your paper forms too, making it a moot point.)

  16. oops by flynt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow it's April 15th on Friday, lucky I read Slashdot!

  17. Sales tax NOT regressive by XanC · · Score: 5, Informative
    The current plan for a national retail sales tax calls for everyone, everyone, to receive a "pre-bate" for necessities. It's tied to the poverty line.

    So nobody pays tax on necessities. From there, the more you buy, the more you pay. It's progressive without having to treat people differently under the law.

    1. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by daigu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Progressive tax, by definition, is a tax the has different rates based on total income. Thus, a sales tax is not progressive. It's a regressive tax.

      A regressive tax, in contrast, is a tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.

      Example: If I make $1,000,000 a year, and you make $75,000. If we both spend $75,000 on however we define sales, we both have to pay the same in taxes. You are being taxed on 100% of your income. I am being taxed on only .075% of mine.

      While a regressive tax such as this one that is focused on consumption has benefits, it does not help address income inequities or have any built in system that recognizes the responsibility of people in fortunate circumstnaces have to the larger society and for people not as well off as they are - such as those that make below the poverty line.

    2. Re:Sales tax NOT regressive by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mathematically regressive, perhaps, when you look at income earned versus expenditures.

      But when you look at *utility gained* versus expenditures, a sales tax isn't regressive anymore. It's equitable, and some might even say it's progressive if you consider the necessities of life (shelter, food, etc.) to have a higher per dollar utility value than luxury goods.

      Sure, that person earns $1M and spends $125k, and gets taxed $31.5k or 3.15% of their income. But what's that other $875k doing? Are they papering their house with it? Stuffing their pillows? Wiping their ass? No, they're socking it away in savings, mostly in investments, thus allowing other people to benefit from it for a time.

      Money by itself, in the absence of something to buy with it, serves no purpose and has no value. Why should a person get taxed on the money they don't spend and don't get any real benefit from? That's already a concept implemented in traditional IRAs, where money saved in the IRA is not taxed, but when the money is withdrawn (presumably, when you are about to spend it) you pay taxes then.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. And here's a possible scenario.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Intuit notices that you trade a lot of stock. Merrill-Lynch agrees to pay Intuit .20 for every prospective customer lead given to them and will up it to .30 if they are not already a Merrill customer.

    There's lotsa gold in them thar data mines.

    CRS/GDS companies like SABRE/Worldspan/Apollo, etc do it all the time now. ( I worked for SABRE as a developer for several years )United Airlines gives SABRE a fee for every lead they give them for customers that have flown into ski resorts. More money per lead if these folks have done it more than one year. If they flew someone besides United, then United sends them a coupon for X% off their next flight to said ski resort destination city.

    And who else pays for this data? Why the ski resorts themselves! Look for the trend and if you appear to be an outdoorsy type then maybe Jeep will send you a coupon for a special deal from one of their dealers.

  20. Re:Read the fine print for your savings and checki by ms139us · · Score: 5, Informative

    Banks make good money selling your financial information to "related buisnesses".

    Sorry to burst your bubble. I work closely with dozens of banks and credit unions on this very topic. GLB inspires more neurotic fear in bankers than anything else I have seen in some time.

    By the way, "related businness" means sharing information with other companies that must be there to support the bank, like disaster recovery companies, records archiving companies, etc.

    Whether or not you believe it, "related businesses" simply cannot use your information for anything other than performing their service for the bank.

    The closest a bank can get to profiting from your personal information is using it to offer services. A bank may notice that you have a high credit card balance and offer you a HELOC, it may notice that you have a high savings balance and offer its CDs, it may notice that your car loan is getting paid down and offer a pre-approved loan for a newer car, etc.

    Other than that, your information is strictly off limits.

  21. I took a quick look at Intuit's web site by rifftide · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's a relevant portion of their personal account login page:
    <noscript>
    <a href="http://www.shop.intuit.com/;jsessionid=ULNOD HLNVG4HOCQIBMVR3KQKBAFSOF4K">
    <img src="http://ct.intuit.com/cgi-bin/ctasp-server.cgi ?i=Wc2mzatwkBvfVzl3&i=igjdl2giGjlvwcMn&g=1" alt="Web Analytics" border=0>
    </a>
    </noscript>
    This HTML is active if scripting is disabled in your browser. There's also a corresponding block of code within a SCRIPT tag that does the same thing when scripting is enabled. I would've included that, but I couldn't get it past the /. lameness filter.

    What it does is ask the server for an image (JPEG or GIF). But this request actually triggers a CGI program on the server side, passing it a unique session identifier that was served in the original page. The CGI app on Intuit's side most likely relays the request to the tracking company's server for logging. Cute, huh?

    Since I'm not a customer, I didn't go past the login page. But it would be interesting to examine the analytics code served up in the account management pages - perhaps they pass not only the session identifier, but form values as well. (The analytics script could be triggered after the user hits the submit button, for instance). This may have been the point Omniture's CEO was making when he said that he could get customer's SSNs and salary data if he wanted to. Hopefully, there is a negotiation between Intuit and the web analytics firm about what customer information will be tracked, and procedures in place to verify that the analytics portion of the HTML does not collect more information than agreed upon.

    Maybe someone with an account at Intuit should take a closer look at the page sources to see what parameters are being passed to the analytics server while you're managing your money.

  22. this is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dissemination of your personal information without EXPLICIT voluntary consent is clearly against the law. I hope someone is smart enough and will sue the hell out of them.

  23. Yawn!!! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is total media hype. This whole thing is just about some cookies to track web usage. No big deal. I filed my taxes this year on-line with Intuit using Firefox (under Linux, even though TurboTax said I wasn't using a supported OS. I changed the UA to Firefox WinXP and TurboTax didn't complain again). Under my Firefox preferences, I set my cookie options to "ask me every time". This way, the first time a site/servername tries to set a cookie, Firefox prompts me and I can tell Firefox to "always accept" or "never accept". When I did my taxes with Intuit, I noticed non-turbo tax cookies trying to be set. I just told Firefoxt to "always deny" those cookies and to "always allow" the cookies from turbotax. I had no problems doing my taxes after that with TurboTax online.

    Just use Firefox for all of your web browsing and most of your privacy issues will go away. In FF, just go into your preferences/options under security -> cookies and set that to "ask me everytime" and your good to go.

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  24. Re:I had a problem like this by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I bought a VISA gift card at AAA(that travel place), and they got my social security number"

    Those gift cards are are something you have to pay up front for, correct? If so, why did you give out your SSN for a cash transaction?

  25. Broad generalizations by benhocking · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would you say that all people who make broad generalizations are idiots? ;)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?