Slashdot Mirror


IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected

LogError writes "Two weeks ago, Department of Treasury received a D-minus grade in the Federal Computer Security Report Card for 2005, down from a D-plus grade in 2004. The majority of Treasury systems are those belonging to IRS. The government-wide computer-security grade for 2005 was D-plus, while Homeland Security and Defense both received an F. Grades are based on reports submitted to Congress by the agencies; the reports are required under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.8 The scores are meant to reflect whether departments meet federally mandated security standards."

152 comments

  1. See! by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why I refuse to pay income taxes!

    1. Re:See! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is why I refuse to pay income taxes!

      Sorry, Paris Hilton, but it's still not an excuse.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  2. Surprised? Not really. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected

    This story acts as we should be surprised. The government serves the people. The IRS, on the other hand, serves the government. I let you figure out where the disconnect is.

    1. Re:Surprised? Not really. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected
      >
      >This story acts as we should be surprised. The government serves the people. The IRS, on the other hand, serves the government. I let you figure out where the disconnect is.

      Remember, remember, the Fifteenth of April,
      Congress, Corruption, and Rot,
      I see no reason, why taxpaying season,
      Should ever be forgot.

      "The IRS should not be afraid of the people. The people should be afraid of the IRS."
      -A for AMT.

    2. Re:Surprised? Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The government serves the people"?

      I'm assuming that, rather than referring to the total aggregate citizenry, "the people" refers to something like "the rich". So the chain of command is: rich -> government -> IRS -> people. In a traditional political context: nobility -> monarchy -> standing military -> peasantry.

  3. IRS Hacking by jimbolauski · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who in their right mind would hack into the IRS sure it would be nice to add a zero to my return but you don't f*** with the IRS.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    1. Re:IRS Hacking by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      you don't f*** with the IRS.

      That's why potential hackers wouldn't. They'd want to leave things nice and tidy, just the way they found them.

      Who in their right mind would hack into the IRS

      Someone looking for information on Bill Gates' bank accounts, or perhaps information useful in blackmailing someone. Financial information is very sensitive stuff. The IRS gets more than their share during normal filings. Just imagine how much info they collect during an audit!

    2. Re:IRS Hacking by Alias777 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here.

    3. Re:IRS Hacking by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      But can you say "shit"? Oh, I guess you can.

    4. Re:IRS Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe some guy named 'Trinity' did it once....

    5. Re:IRS Hacking by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here.

      I'm glad you're the one making the rules here :)

      Fuckety, fuck, fuck, fuck!

  4. Security, the Gold Standard by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cost of providing security against non-existent WMDs that couldn't reach the US even if they existed ... $100 Billion

    Cost of providing security against al-Qaeda attacking US from Iraq, even though they weren't there ... $400 Billion

    Cost of providing security against really obvious IRS forms that let people steal your money and assets easily ... $0.0005 Billion (of $500 million)

    Realizing you've been taken to the cleaners due to your own gullibility ... Priceless!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Xiroth · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's the American taxpayer.

    2. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Mr.+Capris · · Score: 1

      I feel obligated to point you towards this, a contest hosted by mastercard in which you make your own mastercard-esque ad.

      I truly feel that you guys are on to something, and i might just have to start watching ads to see if yours makes it.

      --
      Have you seen the arrow?
    3. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Just a quick FYI to the FBI bot scanning this convo- if the two posts above me got together and ran for office, not only would I vote, I'd also pay my taxes.

      It's like I keep telling you wacky feds: *I'm* not the one being irrational here.

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    4. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Evro · · Score: 1

      $0.0005 Billion (of $500 million)

      500 million is 0.5 billion...

      --
      rooooar
    5. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha... excellent.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    6. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realizing that your math skill make it clear your a 13 year old with no f*cking clue how the world operates.... *unsuprising*

      good job for the 1 person that realized that .5Billion is 5Million... You get 3 stars

    7. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Millenniumman · · Score: 2, Informative

      A billion can also be 1000000000000, or 10^12 in the long scale which is used in most non-English speaking countries.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    8. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, .5 billion is 500 million. Pot meet kettle.

    9. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A billion can also be 1000000000000, or 10^12 in the long scale which is used in most non-English speaking countries.

      In which case the GP was wrong twice.

    10. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Tatsh · · Score: 1

      True that second line. The US spends at minimum $400 billion per year on the CIA & FBI. Sad.

    11. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the very vast majority of countries define a billion as a thousand million - the US is pretty much the last bastion of 'million million'. Just as it is one of the last bastions of the imperial system.

    12. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the US does define a billion as a thousand million. I think only the UK does not, at this point.

    13. Re:Security, the Gold Standard by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. it is a thousand million. From what I read on Wikipedia, in most non english speaking countries it is a million million, and the UK had recently switched to a thousand million.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
  5. What a surprise by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a question. What does it cost the IRS if taxpayer data is stolen?

    Oh yeah. Squat. Why *should* they care? It's no skin off their back.

    If our government wanted to make sure this didn't happen, they'd fine the IRS every time there was a security breach. In fact, they'd fine the IRS just for having bad security. And then things would improve.

    'Course, in reality, why would they do that? There's no reason our government would want to hurt the IRS in any way.

    Really, what should be happening is the people of America suing the IRS for not guarding our information properly. I wonder how *that* lawsuit would go.

    Here's the fundamental issue: If you want someone to behave in a certain way, you have to make it worth their while. Right now the IRS has no incentive for keeping our info safe. Want to change that? Change it at the source.

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punish the IRS monetarily? You do realize who pays for the IRS, right?

    2. Re:What a surprise by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The government fining the IRS? That's a laugh...

      That's basically taking a million out of one pocket and putting it in another. What's the point?

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:What a surprise by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      That's basically taking a million out of one pocket and putting it in another. What's the point?

      Well I suppose the IRS has a budget to follow, so it could still hurt the IRS.

    4. Re:What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for DHS on contract. Suing won't help anything. Most federal employee's single chore during the day is to ensure they don't take any blame when the shit hits the fan.

      So, sue all you want - it'll just leave the agency with a giant hole in it's budget and no money to buy pens and paper clips.

      If you really want the problem solved, make lax security a fireable offense. But, good luck. The unions and the liberals have federal jobs so safe, it takes an Act of God to fire a lazy federal employee.

    5. Re:What a surprise by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      If our government wanted to make sure this didn't happen, they'd fine the IRS every time there was a security breach. In fact, they'd fine the IRS just for having bad security. And then things would improve.

      Why do you think fining the IRS would make a difference? They are not a company, they do not care about profit and loss. Furthermore, the IRS is the government. Fining them would be like punishing your wallet by taking money out and keeping it in your pocket instead.

      If you really want to do something to provoke change at the IRS, dock the salary of upper managers and in egregious cases, put them in jail.

    6. Re:What a surprise by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the IRS's budget would get reduced, leaving them fewer resources to do their job (of which the scope won't change), so the situation gets worse... I don't see that fining the IRS would do any good.

      Instead, I'd put the heat on your local Congressman, as well as write to this gang, who provides Congressional oversight to the IRS.

      Dig up egregious examples of conduct (in the article, it mentions an IRS contractor digging up political info on taxpayers), and write to your local newspaper.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:What a surprise by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To what end? Will we fine the IRS until they can't collect taxes?

      If you want to see the IRS punished, make heads roll when bad things happen. Which means things like:

      1. Management can be fired if a huge screwup happens
      2. Massive screwups can result in fines against management
      3. Charges can be brought against the parties responsible for the screwup

      Once their necks are on the line, you can be certain that the top level of IRS management will put pressure on the entire organization to prevent security issues.

      That being said, the IRS is likely suffering from the same problem as the rest of the goverment agencies: Too much work, not enough manpower/funding. Putting more pressure on the IRS may only result in making it harder to find IRS employees.

    8. Re:What a surprise by peterfa · · Score: 1

      Docterine of Soverign Immunity: the King can do no wrong.
      You can't sue the government.

    9. Re:What a surprise by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      So the IRS's budget would get reduced, leaving them fewer resources to do their job (of which the scope won't change), so the situation gets worse... I don't see that fining the IRS would do any good.

      I would expect both the Dems and our new Neo-con overlords to do exactly the opposite: problem with IRS security? Throw them more money.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    10. Re:What a surprise by ehiris · · Score: 1

      "If our government wanted to make sure this didn't happen, they'd fine the IRS every time there was a security breach. In fact, they'd fine the IRS just for having bad security. And then things would improve."

      No problem, they will just raise the tax to 150% on income from fines given to the IRS. It will be a special tax schedule. :)

    11. Re:What a surprise by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      You can't sue the government.

      Yes, we can. However, there are only specific charges you may make. As an example, Eldred v Ashcroft. Eldred sued the government all the way to the Supreme Court before unfortunately losing.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    12. Re:What a surprise by cymen · · Score: 1

      What do they get? They get MORE money. Now they need a budget to hire people to secure the data and keep it secure. That is going to cost millions! Getting a bad report card is just part of the game.

    13. Re:What a surprise by sjames · · Score: 1

      Too much work, not enough manpower/funding. Putting more pressure on the IRS may only result in making it harder to find IRS employees.

      If the tax laws were simple enough to be understood by mere mortals, they wouldn't need so much manpower to operate. For government offices in general, if they weren't so obsessed with paperwork, they wouldn't be stretched for resources.

    14. Re:What a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this type of thing happens all the time. I'm in the Army, and if we spill Fuel or hydraulic fluid or whatever we might spill on a given day, our unit gets fined by the EPA. It's not exactly like taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other though. Unless of course you keep money for groceries in your left pocket, and money for new computer parts in the other, and every time your wife cooks a bad meal you move money from the groceries pocket into your tech budget.

  6. Is A Pleasure To Have In Class by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny
    Hey, a D- is a passing grade--what's wrong with that?

    I mean, wouldn't you much rather have a national government that was more like you, instead of some kind of intellectual-elite government scoring all "A"s? Better to have a government that understands people like you than a government that is out of touch with mainstream American values, I say!

    (Break out the hookers and blow! Party at Treasury!)

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Is A Pleasure To Have In Class by vivek7006 · · Score: 1

      Nuclear regulatory Commission has slipped from a B+ in 2004 to D- in 2005. Is it being managed by Homer?

    2. Re:Is A Pleasure To Have In Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I mean, wouldn't you much rather have a national government that was more like you, instead of some kind of intellectual-elite government scoring all "A"s?

      I think you're on to something here.

      Your theory certainly explains how President Junior got elected.

      I wish it were funny.

    3. Re:Is A Pleasure To Have In Class by multisync · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you mean nucular?

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
  7. Careful... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why I refuse to pay income taxes!

    Careful, they got a D- in protecting data, but they have an A doubleplus in 'tracking your ass down and throwing you in jail'. ask Al Capone.

    1. Re:Careful... by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they have an A doubleplus in 'tracking your ass down and throwing you in jail'.

      It's for this reason that I've never understood why governments don't set the tax services (I don't live in the USA; We call the equivilent of the IRS the Inland revenue, there's no service about it on this side of the Atlantic.) onto "Teh Terrorists!!!" They are the only branch of the state that can track anyone down quickely and eaisly; surley they should be put in chrge of what you call "homeland security". ;)

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:Careful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They are the only branch of the state that can track anyone down quickely and eaisly; surley they should be put in chrge of what you call "homeland security". ;)

      What makes you think US Homeland Security is trying to track terrorists?

      Evidence all argues against it.

      Probably Homeland Security is a bunch of fat rich white guys who bribed Shrubbie and friends and are busy pocketing "sole source" theft contracts, just like every other endeavor the Shrubbie ever ran into bankruptcy...

    3. Re:Careful... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Homeland security is much more concerned with conducting surveillance on American citizens and watching what WE do than what any supposed terrorists are doing. How else do you explain their high-tech mobile surveillance systems? But they're not alone... no no, the NSA has a pretty heafty interest in us as well as we've seen from previous stories reported today. Why you ask? Well.. possibly because they want to make sure we're this supposed cohesive nation... we have to make sure we're all patriotic so when the next terrorist attack occurs... uh... well we're just more patriotic. And by patriotic that means we willingly surrender our rights for the good of the nation... however that works.

      This government can go to hell for all I care. 9/11 was the biggest shame a country could possible commit on itself and now it's a mad dash to make sure all forms of communication about all the deception cannot spread enough to come back to haunt those involved. Just wait for the next attack. I'm betting its a nuclear bomb and it will be blamed on Iran. We've had a vendetta against Iran since the 1950s and boy would their oil rake in some extra dough...

      I can't place the blame soley upon this administration though. For things to have come this far it had to have taken years and years of planning and implementation. It's a shame we've got such spineless bastards in 'power'. For anyone who doesn't think money corrupts... get ready to take your pen out and jot down some notes coz hell is gonna break loose in your lifetime. Bet on it.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    4. Re:Careful... by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are the only branch of the state that can track anyone down quickely and eaisly; surley they should be put in chrge of what you call "homeland security". ;)

      I know you're joking and all, but I still feel like pointing out for those who modded you Insightful why this isn't so simple.

      American taxpayers sign up each year and tell the government whether they're obeying the law or not by filing (or not filing) their tax returns. Terrorists don't register with the government to say that they're terrorists. The government has a much easier time knowing whether your a tax evader than a terrorist because it's all on record.

      After that, it's a simple matter or when and where you next use your SSN or other government ID to nail you down. Alternately, it's a matter of when you get caught using fake ID to evade the government to nail you down. Once you've ID'ed a tax evader, tracking them down isn't hard because evading the government once it actually wants you is much, much harder than you might think unless you completely cut yourself off from society.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    5. Re:Careful... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why governments don't set the tax services (I don't live in the USA; We call the equivilent of the IRS the Inland revenue, there's no service about it on this side of the Atlantic.) onto "Teh Terrorists!!!"

      Well, assuming that terrorists actually file taxes and don't lie about their income, it would be illegal to use that info in criminal prosecution, as that would violate the 5th ammendment. Despite whatever the Chimp in Chief thinks, the constitution applies to everyone in the country, even the terrorists.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Careful... by rthille · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, the terrorists have their incomes outside the states, and are just spending money here. Therefore, they don't owe any taxes and the IRS has no reason to track them down.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    7. Re:Careful... by flink · · Score: 1
      Well, assuming that terrorists actually file taxes and don't lie about their income, it would be illegal to use that info in criminal prosecution, as that would violate the 5th ammendment.

      The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to testify against yourself in a court. If you volunteer the information, you're out of luck.
    8. Re:Careful... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to testify against yourself in a court. If you volunteer the information, you're out of luck.

      You are compelled to list your income and occupation on the tax forms. Therefore, the IRS cannot share that info with the FBI or local cops. If you're a hooker and you declare that you made $150,000 last year and give uncle sam his cut, they won't do a damn thing to you. They won't (can't) tip off vice, because it's illegal.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:Careful... by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Homeland security is much more concerned with conducting surveillance on American citizens and watching what WE do than what any supposed terrorists are doing.

      I disagree. I think Homeland Security is more concerned with looking busy and giving the appearance of security than actually improving security. You are correct, however, that the problem with our government is not Bush and Friends, it is systemic all the way to the post-WW2 politicians who got the Arabs pissed at us in the first place. This is true especially of the 1970s, although OPEC is partly to blame. Who wouldn't want to hate them?

      BTW, am I the only one who finds it odd that the Department of Defense attacks other countries (e.g. Iraq) while the Department of Homeland Security defends our country?

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    10. Re:Careful... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Informative

      The SC has ruled (on more than one occasion) that a person cannot lawfully evade filling out an accurate Tax statement, ergo it is compelled and not volunteered, ergo it is not admissable against you in criminal proceedings not involving tax evasion.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    11. Re:Careful... by Detritus · · Score: 1
      It's for this reason that I've never understood why governments don't set the tax services (I don't live in the USA; We call the equivilent of the IRS the Inland revenue, there's no service about it on this side of the Atlantic.) onto "Teh Terrorists!!!"

      Actually, they have. There was a recent article on how Kim Il-Jong is in a world of hurt because the Treasury Department, with a lot of international cooperation, has been investigating and shutting down North Korea's illegal sources of income and goods. Banco Delta Asia, a large bank in Macao, became the international banking system's leper after the Secretary of the Treasury made a finding that it was a "financial institution of primary money laundering concern". It had been deeply implicated in questionable and illegal practices on behalf of North Korea.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    12. Re:Careful... by Swanktastic · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know you're joking and all, but I still feel like pointing out for those who modded you Insightful why this isn't so simple.

      The rod up your butt must have a rod up it's butt.

    13. Re:Careful... by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      because they want to make sure we're this supposed cohesive nation... we have to make sure we're all patriotic so when the next terrorist attack occurs

      Yes, yes, I see it now. The NSA obviously exists to enforce goodthink and patriotism by hiding its existence and trying to do as little as possible. In no way is it simply trying to gather SIGINT for military and law enforcement.

      Just wait for the next attack. I'm betting its a nuclear bomb and it will be blamed on Iran. We've had a vendetta against Iran since the 1950s and boy would their oil rake in some extra dough

      Wow, 9/11 all makes sense now. In no way was al-Qaeda merely trying to bomb the World Trade Center yet another time, its obviously big oil interests and their cronies killing 2,000-some innocent people for... whatever reason you said in there somewhere.

      Or, there are no conspiracies. We're not fighting a trillion-dollar war to get a billion dollars of oil. The 9/11 attacks were not faked in a sound studio or planned by government or big oil or whatever you said, And possibly, the NSA was around before the Bush administration.

      Just a thought.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    14. Re:Careful... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      There are several things in your post that demonstrate that you don't know much about what you are trying to discuss.

      "Well, assuming that terrorists actually file taxes and don't lie about their income"

      ROFL, do you think these things matter? the _IRS_ took down _AL freakin CAPONE_ the original gangster of all the original gangsters. Do you think he filed taxes and didn't lie about his income? The IRS is generally involved to a great degree whenever any sort of organized crime is taken down. Capone being the most prominent example, but Gotti, Genovese, Luciano, even Weiss, all had the most problems due to the IRS moreso than any other faction of law enforcement. You think the IRS requires you to file taxes to take your ass down? I'd rather have special forces after me.... your chances would be better

      "it would be illegal to use that info in criminal prosecution, as that would violate the 5th ammendment"

      Its spelled amendment. And you refer to what is generally known as the right against self incrimination. I really don't see how that applies here. Posting what you make on your tax forms generally does not incriminate yourself unless those incomes come from illegitmate means, which means you wouldn't tell in the first place unless you're really, really, really bad at being a criminal. And that the 5th amendment only applies to criminal proceedings - so your tax forms don't count (though what the government takes would be considered criminal by 80% of the 'founding fathers')

      "Despite whatever the Chimp in Chief thinks, the constitution applies to everyone in the country, even the terrorists."

      Obvious partisan strike aside (zomg its soo cool to bash teh bush liek evryone else!!4!)........ its very debatable as to whom exactly the constitution applies to. the wording of it would generally mean that it would apply to non-US citizens, but in practice that is most often not the case, and would be impossible for the US to adhere to the wording if non-citizens were involved anyways. And really, if it hasn't been happening for pro-US foreigners over the last 5 decades, the constitution most certainly does not apply to the terrorists. The wording could arguably be construed that way, but its never been that way in practice.

      What in America's history would possibly lead you to believe that foreign combatants were afforded constitutional rights? Really, I'm curious as to what you might have read that would lead you to that conclusion.

      Cheers.

    15. Re:Careful... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      ROFL, do you think these things matter? the _IRS_ took down _AL freakin CAPONE_ the original gangster of all the original gangsters. Do you think he filed taxes and didn't lie about his income?

      Obviously not, since he went down for tax evasion.

      The IRS is generally involved to a great degree whenever any sort of organized crime is taken down.

      Um, because they're otherwise shielded?

      I really don't see how that applies here. Posting what you make on your tax forms generally does not incriminate yourself unless those incomes come from illegitmate means, which means you wouldn't tell in the first place unless you're really, really, really bad at being a criminal.

      It's really simple: if you lie about where your income comes from, the IRS can go after you. If you don't, they don't tell anybody about what you said.

      And really, if it hasn't been happening for pro-US foreigners over the last 5 decades, the constitution most certainly does not apply to the terrorists.

      Sure it does, at least on US soil - you don't know that they're terrorists until they're convicted. Didn't you see Tim McVeigh's trial?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:Careful... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      BTW, am I the only one who finds it odd that the Department of Defense attacks other countries (e.g. Iraq) while the Department of Homeland Security defends our country?

      Nah, I find it odd that DHS attacks its citizens.

      The US has no defense. Our borders are open. Sept 11, 2001 proved that our defense was a joke. The Commander in Chief thought that not scaring some children and reading a book about a goat was more important than even acknowledging the fact that an aid told him "The nation is under attack". NORAD, a cooperative adventure with Canada in defending our airspace did nothing. No military aircraft were ever deployed, in fact all civilian and military aircraft were told to land.

      This does not affect my sleep at night, because I don't believe in the war in terror anymore than the war against the bad commies. However, even the war on terror, the best made up enemy to date, no identity, no borders, no government, no nothing, is fading with the average joe. Expect another installment soon...

    17. Re:Careful... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      It's a nice wishful thought...and if it were true wouldn't we all sleep a little better. I hope for the sake of the nation that people wake up from that dream, not because I'm an asshole and want people to suffer more, but because they're believing in a mirage and it's sucking away their freedoms. This is no joke. There are at least a hundred major inconsistencies with the 9/11 commission's official report compared to eyewitness reports and that's not even mentioning the omissions for which Bush & Co. are have a few upcoming RICO suits against them.

      I must admit I was skeptical of the whole thing from the start, but I was 99% sure it has all been a terrible coincidence. I must say I sure felt a lot better about myself and my country when I was so sure.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
  8. IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected by TubeSteak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected

    lnk plz.
    ok thx

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  9. Bigger Government! by TopShelf · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we need a Department of Homeland Insecurity...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  10. The IRS is insecure?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  11. FISMA = painful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like many agencies have gone up:

    http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Federal%20Co mputer%20Security%20Report%20Card%20-%202005.pdf

    If you're not seeing your favorite bureau its either too small (FTC) or, like the IRS, under a larger department (Census, ITA, NIST, etc.).

  12. IRS is in the middle of a change over anyway by vtechpilot · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for a company that creates electronic filing software for the IRS, and I work with them on a regular basis. While Electronic filing has really only been popular the last few years its history goes back a very long time (in computer years). For example, currently to file a form 1040 electronically, it gets formatted in custom text format, attached to a whole bunch of other forms, gets all sorts of headers and summary information tacked on. It gets gzipped, then pushed through a z-modem connection over a telnet session, inside of an SSL connection. Why? Because it evolved that way. There was a time when electronic filing meant putting magnetic media in the mail. So the file formats go way back and are all fucked up because they are constantly updating the forms in respons to legislation. when they stopped with the magnetic media and started using modems, the whole thing was run like a BBS, so ta-da z-modem. When the bbs system was moved to the internet, it became telnet. Then they said oh shit its on the internet, we need encryption, so they moved that into an SSL connection.

    Case in point the whole system is fucked up because its doing things it was never designed to do. So now we introduce Modernized E-File. MEF is basically the IRS rebuilding its entire system from the ground up. File formats are getting moved to XML, the network connections are moving to SOAP, and all sorts of other cool stuff.

    Given the amound of stuff thats going on right now I would expect them to be scored poorly because basically the existing system is held together with duct tape while the new system is being built, and the new system probably wasn't considered in the score since its not completly up and running yet.

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
    1. Re:IRS is in the middle of a change over anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I never understood why MUDs never turned the login to SSL :(

      /end of bad humor

      What is wrong with telnet? Just because it isn't "real WWW" doesn't mean it is bad. If it works then why fix it? :) But of cause it doesn't really matter if the database is easily hack-able.

    2. Re:IRS is in the middle of a change over anyway by Lish · · Score: 1

      Because it's unsecured, unencrypted, that's why. HTTP with no SSL wouldn't be any better.

      --
      "This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
    3. Re:IRS is in the middle of a change over anyway by spicyjeff · · Score: 1

      Read the original parent post, the telnet session in question is over SSL.

    4. Re:IRS is in the middle of a change over anyway by Lish · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I know that. The poster I was replying to was implying that there was nothing wrong with telnet and why would you move to WWW. My response was meant to convey that going telnet->www wouldn't have done anything, and that it was the SSL that was key. I guess I was not clear.

      --
      "This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
    5. Re:IRS is in the middle of a change over anyway by vtechpilot · · Score: 1
      What is wrong with telnet? Just because it isn't "real WWW" doesn't mean it is bad. If it works then why fix it? :)


      Mainly, its an implemetation problem. z-modem over telnet inside SSL isn't widely supported as other protocols. Sure it is possible to get all sorts of librarys and components and tie them together, but you have to do all sorts of glue work, and it doesn't always work. You can litterly spend weeks trying to hammer a component onto another only to find out that the internal implementation of z-modem doesn't properly escape control characters so it will never reliably work over telnet, despite the fact that z-modem was designed to run on unreliable analog connections. You could also find out that the IRS says in their documentation that escaping control characters is required, but their own system is sending a z-modem handshake that instructs the connecting program to not escape control characters. This causes all sorts of baldness and sterility in your average programmer.

      No, the new way is much better. The IRS publishes a WSDL, and I just load that into my favorite IDE, and ta-da I can send and recieve data with the IRS as what appears to be a native function call. It doesn't matter if I am using Java, Delphi, one of the Many .Net languages, Python or a host of other languages, it just works.

      But of cause it doesn't really matter if the database is easily hack-able.


      Your right on here. The point was that the IRS system was not built with security in mind. The new system, MEF, is being designed with security in mind. If they have to do a complete rebuild to secure it, they might as well do it in a way that reduces implemetation and maintenance costs for those who must use the system.
      --
      Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
  13. Hookers and Blow?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hookers and blow?!

    Sounds like 1970's W. is back in the house!

    1. Re:Hookers and Blow?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hummm.
      • Was a cheerleader rather than the person who did things.
      • Likes to pretend that he did something/was something that he did not/was not.
      • was cowardous WRT vietnam.
      • Lied about it.
      • Pretty much a traitor but with loads of weasel words.
      • Sent a company into bankruptcy and had to be rescued by the Saudi's.
        • No, this is still the same old W., but the saudis will be unable to rescue us. This time is for keeps.
  14. Old News by lynxpardinus · · Score: 2, Funny

    We all knew this already. If a chick like Trinity could hack into the IRS... how good could their security be?

  15. Let's be fair by truthsearch · · Score: 2

    Let's be fair here. Isn't a D-minus really an F? Let's not split hairs, people. If I got a C-minus my scholarship would have been dropped. Can't we drop them from the government for not even grading an average C?

    1. Re:Let's be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't because the IRS and all the other failing agencies are now part of Dubya's new gov't plan called "No Agency Left Behind". Seeing how well the original "No Child Left Behind" works in education by producing a nation of functional illiterates.

    2. Re:Let's be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the Government were 70% competent, we'd be ecstatic!" --Calvin

  16. Homeland Security by bawnpa · · Score: 1

    What IRS data have "lawmakers" which are supposed to be people we elect to make decisions for us deemed important to homeland security? My income and work/education related expenditures aren't something I think of when I think of defending the homeland.

  17. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 2, Funny

    In 2004, the Department of Commerce got an F.
    In 2005, the Department of Commerce got a D+.

    Clearly, they must have improved slightly. Why didn't anyone highlight these improvements to show the DOJ, NRC and Treasury that, even if you're completely retarded, you can still make some improvement?

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:zerg by Shemmie · · Score: 1

      That just proves exams are getting easier...

  18. Did any one pass? by sirnuke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did any department pass?

    In other news, the department of agriculture passed with flying colors. Though they haven't figured it how to plug in their 486 yet, so it's not entirely a fair fight.

    --
    Zing!
  19. Defense gets an F? by Araxen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's pretty funny the department that gets the most funding gets a F grade. What a joke!

    Meanwhile NASA only gets a drop in the bucket.

    1. Re:Defense gets an F? by Doc+Scratchnsniff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may have cause and effect backwards. These scores appear to be self-reported. The department of Defense has realized that the best way to get more money is to give themselves a bad score.

    2. Re:Defense gets an F? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the DoD is still processing the paperwork in quadruplicate to purchase computers in the first place.

    3. Re:Defense gets an F? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Meanwhile NASA only gets a drop in the bucket.

      Whoring are we? How many mod points for just a blow job?

    4. Re:Defense gets an F? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      These scores appear to be self-reported. The department of Defense has realized that the best way to get more money is to give themselves a bad score.

      I tried that in college, but it never increased my pay. Shit, they wouldn't even let me graduate.

  20. exactly why by dollar4bill · · Score: 1

    I refuse to do my taxes via e-file. The having to use a third party program also doesn't help.

  21. Effect of scores on budgets by Doc+Scratchnsniff · · Score: 1

    Will departments use low scores to justify increased budgets for security related projects? According to the article, the scores were reported by the departments themselves. Surely it will be easier for the IT supervisor of a "D-" departments to hire more security specialists than it will be for the IT supervisor of a "B+" department.

    1. Re:Effect of scores on budgets by Danimoth · · Score: 1

      No, the guy who fills the post after the current IT head gets canned will though.

      --
      No smoking sigs indoors.
  22. I Got a D- In English Yet I am Sucessful by mrs+clear+plastic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So they get a D-.

    Big deal!

    They are a very sucessfull agency. They have been providing the 'bread' for the U.S. Government for years.

    Mrs. Thompson of McCall Junior High School in Winchester,
    Massachusetts gave me a D- in English during my eighth grade.

    Do I let it bother me?

    No!

    I am just as happy as I could be.

    In fact, I knew someone who was a streight A student.
    His achievment? The methadone clinic.

    As Dr. Norman Paul, or Lexington Massachusetts; my
    childhood phychiatrist; told me, don't let the little
    things bother you. You can only be your true self to be
    happy.

    I see the IRS as quite happy right now.

    Luv

    Cleara

    --
    Cleara
    1. Re:I Got a D- In English Yet I am Sucessful by gandracu · · Score: 1

      Wow, you seem really stupid. Which explains why you're happy; it takes brains to be unhappy.

    2. Re:I Got a D- In English Yet I am Sucessful by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      You know the difference? You are an individuum and not an organisation.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    3. Re:I Got a D- In English Yet I am Sucessful by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      You know, it's quite obvious that you got a D- in English. They may be 'successful', but they are now holding the bank account details of MANY Americans, along with all kinds of other interesting data.
      I wouldn't want someone who was stupid enough to get a D- in security to be guarding any of MY data, just like I wouldn't want you writing anything that represented me. Your psychiatrist told you how to be happy, but I've seen many idiots smiling all the way up to the end.

  23. Blame Game by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The problem is obviously the report cards. They got a D+ on a report card, which resulted in getting a D- on the next one. If they didn't give report cards, we wouldn't have to read news stories like this, which make us feel so bad. Instead we'd just read news about getting robbed after their ID was stolen from the IRS, making them unable to pay their taxes, and going to jail in place of the IDnappers.

    Or maybe the problem is the media, for reporting these stories which tell IDnappers where to look to steal IDs. Instead we should just learn about it privately, when the bank closes our empty account, or the IRS sends goons to arrest us when we're too broke to pay our taxes.

    OK, maybe the problem is the IRS. Without the IRS, we wouldn't have our IDs exposed to theft. And who wants to pay taxes? Instead, we could just let the country grow over with weeds and druglord gangs.

    All right - the problem is my posts. Too long, too sarcastic, too scary. No, it's your fault for reading them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  24. Attention Homeland Security by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

    You are all fired. It is obvious that bringing in random people that don't even know what they are going can get at least a D-. Heck, sometimes I don't even show up for class and don't bother studying for the test and I can pull a D+.

  25. Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by thepuma · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We need to get rid of the IRS altogether and replace it with the FairTax.

    The FairTax would replace the complex and difficult to understand federal income tax with a fair and simple national sales tax.

    Under the FairTax, Americans will take home 100% of their paychecks, allowing them to save more money for education and retirement, as well as make investments that will stimulate our economy. Not only will American workers take home their whole paychecks, each registered household will receive a monthly "prebate" check to refund taxes paid on necessities. This combination of sales tax and monthly prebate makes the FairTax the only tax proposal that completely "untaxes" the poor.

    The FairTax is revenue neutral. While the American worker has everything to gain under this new system of taxation, the government will lose nothing in federal funding.

    The current system of taxation is beyond repair. Compliance is difficult and expensive, often prohibitively so for aspiring small businesses.

    --

    Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax

    1. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by sasdrtx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oxymoron.

      The only fair tax is NO tax.

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    2. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wow, from your description, this would be a boon to overseas e-commerce and Canadian border busineses. If you get sales tax whored at US businesses, then don't shop in the US. The government will be forced to pound the hell out of anyone who enters the country with goods.

      Also, Walmart would rule the world with this one. Their lower prices would now be significantally lower than the mom and pop shops, since the tax overhead is much higher. Also, that would give them much more say in government affiars since they'll be one of the major suppliers of government funding. Oh, and squash free software, since free software now has a direct drain on the economy. Congratulations, you just made the Microsofts and Walmarts of the world that much more powerful.

      Terrible, unrealistic idea

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    3. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by tsioc · · Score: 1

      keep in mind that the IRS doesn't create the tax laws, they merely handle the paperwork and try to make sure that people follow the laws. If you disagree with the tax laws, blame your representatives. As for the IRS being punished, it happens.

    4. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got through about a quarter of the faq and the apples v. oranges math pissed me off too much. You can't treat income the same way as expenditures. Under this system, income that was invested rather than spent would remain untaxed. So people earning millions would only pax taxes on a percentage of their income while everyone else would pay pretty close to a flat rate. I make a decent amount of money and have a comfortable lifestyle and am able to save some money every year. If I was making ten times as much money as I am now I would not be spending ten times as much. I would have a slightly better lifestyle and be saving lots of money.
      Basically the Fairtax has an incredibly disproportionate effect once you get into the very high income brackets. No thanks.

    5. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Syberghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And in regards to this specific story, under the Fair Tax there wouldn't be an IRS, nor would any other government agency need comprehensive files about every single American that contain sufficient information to steal their identity.

      Hackers can't steal what isn't there.

    6. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by pi_rules · · Score: 2, Informative
      Also, Walmart would rule the world with this one. Their lower prices would now be significantally lower than the mom and pop shops, since the tax overhead is much higher.


      I haven't worked it out yet, but it sounds false to me at first glance. Let's see if this is true.

      Let's say I make $100 under the current system. Immediately 30% is lopped off by the Federal government (give or take a little here and there) so I have $70 to buy stuff with.

      Let's say state sales tax is 6%

      If Wal-Mart has an item for $5 we'll presume the mom-and-pop has it for $6 -- a 20% increase in the overall price. Sound fair?

      The final cost at Wal-Mart would be $5.30, or (5.30/70.00) = 7.57% of my take-home income.

      The price at the mom-and-pop is $6.36 or (6.36/70.0) = 9.09% of my take-home income.

      Now under FairTax the Feds would have a 23% sales tax.

      The final price at Wal-Mart (5.00 * 1.06 + 5.00 * 1.23) = $11.45. Then (11.45/100.00) = 11.45% of my take-home income.

      At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 * 1.06 + 6.00 * 1.23) = $13.74. Then (13.74/100.00) = 13.74% of my take-home income.

      Percentage increase at Wal-Mart is (11.45/7.57) = 151% increase
      Percentage incrase at mom-and-pop is (13.74/9.09) = 151% increase.

      Nope... not seeing the Wal-Mart advantage here.
    7. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Just thought of something else. I'm not too up on the FairTax but isn't the plan to keep necessities tax-free like food? I know that's the case with groceries in my home state of Michigan with regards to state sales tax.

      Presuming that this is the case then let's run it again:

      $5/70 = 7.14% of my income.
      $5/100 = 5% of my income.

      $6/70 = 8.57% of my income.
      $6/100 = 6% of my income.

      5.00/7.14 = 70% of original felt price.
      6.00/8.57 = 70% of original felt price.

      Not working out in your favor on that one either...

    8. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We need to get rid of the IRS altogether and replace it with the FairTax.

      I love the fair tax, except I would want to make some changes. If you read through, they do a good job of telling why they picked levels of numbers, but they don't pick the numbers the way I would, and they are all arbitrary. The other thing I haven't seen addressed is fraud prevention. The government will be sending out somewhere around $13,000,000,000 per month in checks. I'm thinking that someone would think that would be a good way to get a hold of some cash. Look at how the feds have handled aid to Katrina victims. They've royally screwed it up. How are the homeless going to get their rebate checks? How are the people that deal on a cash-only basis going to handle the checks? Get bank accounts? Or will they be losing $$$ to the high fees at those predatory check-cashing places?

      Don't get me wrong, the Fair Tax will benefit me much more than the average person. However, I'm not one to screw over everyone else for my benefit. There would need to be tight controls on disbursing the checks (something they don't even mention) and means for anyone to cash it for free (maybe new laws making it illegal to charge a fee to cash a federal check? - but I hate new laws). Oh, and I don't like their strict use of the poverty level standard. I'd rather the 23% have to go up to 35% and have the rebate be at 1.5 times the poverty level, or use the poverty numbers, but pay the single person poverty level to each and every person (the $178 being paid to each of the parents and children in a family of 4 for a total of $712, rather than the "combined" $479 for a family of 4). I think that the Fair Tax is by far the fairest to the poorest, but I'd want it a little more fair. Better than crappy could still be crappy.

      But I do agree it is an interesting idea that is worthy of attention. The income tax is way too complicated at this point, it is unfixable. Either it needs to be started again from scratch, or we need a new system.

    9. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 * 1.06 + 6.00 * 1.23) = $13.74. Then (13.74/100.00) = 13.74% of my take-home income.

      What are you, an idiot? The fairtax thing is 23%, not 129%.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    10. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron. Read it again, this time paying careful attention to what he's calculating.

    11. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I read it again. He's calculating state tax +100% + federal tax. This is obviously crap. It's also a powergrab by the feds, which is reason enough to oppose it.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Peristarkawan · · Score: 1

      Okay, firstly, a 23% sales tax isn't going to add $6 to the price of a $5 item, so it should be immediately obvious that your numbers are off. The actual final prices will be $5 * (1 + .06 + .23) = $6.45 and $6 * (1 + .06 + .23) = $7.74.

      Secondly, assume for the moment your figures were correct. Then Wal-Mart does have the advantage, because what is important is the difference between the percentages, which grows, and not the fact that both percentages increased by the same factor. However, since the percentages actually decrease by the same factor, the difference shrinks, and Wal-Mart in fact appears to be losing advantage under FairTax.

    13. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      No, I hosed up the calculations with taxable items. The untaxable items post still remains. I'll re-work the math in another post here.

    14. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      As has been pointed out my tax calculations were dead wrong. Stupid mistake; I was doing it all on the fly. Let's try again:

      Now under FairTax the Feds would have a 23% sales tax.

      The final price at Wal-Mart (5.00 + 5.00 * 0.06 + 5.00 * 0.23) = $6.45. Then (6.45/100.00) = 6.45% of my take-home income.

      At the mom-and-pop: (6.00 + 6.00 * 0.06 + 6.00 * 0.23) = $7.74. Then (7.74/100.00) = 7.74% of my take-home income.

      Percentage increase at Wal-Mart is (6.45/7.57) = 85% of original felt price.
      Percentage incrase at mom-and-pop is (7.74/9.09) = 85% of original felt price

      It still does NOTHING to help out discount retailers or to even hurt them.

    15. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by pi_rules · · Score: 1
      However, since the percentages actually decrease by the same factor, the difference shrinks, and Wal-Mart in fact appears to be losing advantage under FairTax.


      I believe you may be correct and have showed me the err or my thinking. Let's try this again from a different persepctive: How much crap can i buy with $70 vs $100 under both systems.

      5 * 1.06 = $5.30 with the "current" model that gives me $70. That means I can buy 13.20 units.
      6 * 1.06 = $6.36 with the "current" model that gives me $70. That means I can buy 11.00 units.

      5 + (5 * 0.06 + 5 * 0.23) = $6.45 and given $100 I can buy 15.50 units.
      6 + (6 * 0.06 + 6 * 0.23) = $7.74 and given $100 I can buy 12.92 units.

      15.50 units / 13.20 units = 17% purchasing power increase.
      12.92 units / 11.00 units = 17% purchasing power increase.

      SHIT! I thought that one would actually work out for the mom-and-pop operations favor when I started writing this! I realize, now, why that makes no sense, but until I wrote down the numbers I thought it to be possibly true.
    16. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by dooglio · · Score: 1
      It still looks good for the Fair Tax. I've heard fud that says that people will be discouraged to buy under a consumption-based tax system, but it seems to me they would be encouraged. They would have more in their pocket, and still be able to choose when to and when not to buy (and subsequently pay tax). Under the present system, by your calculations, they get less to spend and they *still* have to pay tax.

      And it seems that Wallmart will have the same advantage in either system, unless I'm missing something?

    17. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      If you get sales tax whored at US businesses, then don't shop in the US. The government will be forced to pound the hell out of anyone who enters the country with goods.

      They already do that with duty checks and whatnot at the borders (paved ones anyway:) and its supposedly illegal to buy prescription drugs from foreign countries.

      I can see the fanfare now. "Buy American!" Its more expensive, and hey the stuff is probably not made in the US anyway, or if it is its foreign owned.

    18. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by TecKnow · · Score: 1

      Okay, first of all, the way you're calculating it, the proposed national retail sales tax tax rate isn't 23%, it is 30%. The 23% rate they give is what they call 'tax inclusive.' For example if the sales tax is 5% then a $1.00 item would have a cost with tax of $1.05 but the 'tax inclusive' rate is only 4.8% because $0.05 is only about 4.8% of $1.05. See this question in the fairtax.org FAQ.

      Next, food and medical expenses are taxed under the reasoning that rich people spend much more on their neccecities than poor people do. See this question in the fairtax.org FAQ.

      Instead of exempting items by category, every family in the country gets a check in the mail equal to the amount of taxes they will pay on spending up to the poverty level.

      Lastly, the point I think the original post with regards to overhead cost (mom and pop vs Walmart) was making was that the effort involved in managing the collection of taxes is proporitonally greater for a mom-and-pop business with few transactions than for a large company like Walmart with many transactions. I'm not sure I believe that argument either, but I have other problems with this proposed national sales tax.

    19. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by hackstraw · · Score: 0


      The fair tax would not work. It would be unfair against anyone that is not wealthy.

      Bill Gates reportedly gives 1/3 of his earnings away -- after taxes.

      Most of the income tax is paid by the wealthy people in the country. Yeah, they might pay a lower percentage, but wealthy people have staff (ie jobs) to maintain their houses, planes, yachts, etc. They create jobs. Also many wealthy people cannot spend all of it on toys and food like you and me, so they invest it, do venture capital, and whatnot. That under the sales tax are not "faire game". Also, many wealthy people just hoard their money, so no tax there either.

      Plus implementing it would be impossible. Cars would jump from $20k a pop to $28k a pop or so. Being that most people cannot afford to buy a car, they finance it, so the banks would get tons of extra cash from interest. The $20k @ 6% interest would then go from costing the person $23k to $32k over a 5 year loan. Not to mention credit cards at much higher interest rates.

      I'm not saying that taxes are screwed up. Its the most expensive thing I pay for in life. But a national sales tax would never, ever work.

    20. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Mike_K · · Score: 1

      A sales tax based system causes poor people to pay a disproportionately large percentage of their income in taxes, compared to rich people.

      A poor person, you end up spending your entire monthly income just to get by. So your entire income gets taxed. A rich person ends up only spending say 25% of their income on housing/food/etc, and puts the rest of it away as an investment. So the poor person ends up paying 4 times higher percentage of their income than the rich person. Is that "fair"? This suggestion is even worse than a flat income tax.

      In general I find that anybody who talks about "fair" taxation has no idea what they're talking about. Taxes are not fair. You have valid contradictory arguments which all have to be taken into account to make a very difficult but workable compromise. It's not supposed to be fair, it's supposed to be beneficial to the society.

      Most people agree (possibly through a force of habit, but nonetheless) that incremental tax brackets are good, and those who study this approach often use the "veil of ignorance" argument - imagine you are about to be born and don't know who your parents will be, what their financial/educational status is, what opportunities you will have, what disabilities you will have, etc; design a tax system that works. You may find that if you're born to a single parent living in a ghetto and going to a school that doesn't teach anything except violence, you would prefer if your parent doesn't need to get a third job just to be able to feed you. Even if it means that if you were born to a lawyer and a banker living in NJ and working in NYC, they could only afford to buy you one BMW for your 16th birthday.

      And yes, obviously I'm exaggerating.

      m

    21. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A government that prints money on demand doesn't need to tax the labor of the citizens it ostensibly serves.

      The biggest irony in all tax reform debate is this: The money isn't real - it's a fiction. It's made up. The Federal Reserve issues Federal Reserve Notes -fiat money, it has no real value, and loans it to the Federal Government... huh?

      Basically, they create money from nothing, loan it to themselves, and then charge interest to themselves to make a profit on something that was created out of thin air in the first place!

      NICE work if you can get it.

      Oh, and banks? They operate on a principle called "fractional reserves", which means that they are allowed to loan more money than they have on hand... in essence, banks create money from nothing, too.

      Gosh, I wish I could do that... but it'd be called counterfeiting.

      Then to top it all off, we have to pay taxes on what we're paid for our labor - real work for fiat money, only to give part of it back.

      It's a wonderful swindle - I'm trying to figure out how to get in on it myself.

    22. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm confused, is this simple real world example that hard to comprehend?

      at 6% now, 23% fair tax, 5$ at Walmart, 6$ at Mom&Pop

      now
      Mom&Pop = $6.36
      Walmart = $5.30
      difference = $1.06

      fair tax
      Mom&Pop = $7.38
      Walmart = $6.15
      difference = $1.23

      As the sales tax percentage goes up, the price difference goes up. People look at the prices of the products, not arcane crap like the percentage of take home pay and the increase over what the price used to be. The higher the tax goes, the bigger advantage it is for the lower price.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    23. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      It still does NOTHING to help out discount retailers or to even hurt them.

      Two guys walk up to you in a bar.
      Guy one says, "I make $50,000 and got a 10% raise. I hear you were pretty bad at applied math and are now living in a cardboard box, so I'm going to donate my 10% raise to you."
      Suddenly he is pushed aside by a guy in a McDonalds uniform, who says, "I only make $15,000 a year, but I flip burgers real good, and I too felt the rays of God and would like to donate my 10% raise to you. Also, I'll throw in a free burger!"
      You think for a few seconds and say, "Hmmm, well I too just got a 10% raise from the dude who has me round up cats for his restaurant. And since both are 10% there is no difference. I'm hungry and could sure use a hamburger, so McD man, hit me up!"
      50k walks away, slowly shaking his head.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    24. Re:Just one more reason to enact the FairTax by pi_rules · · Score: 1
      As the sales tax percentage goes up, the price difference goes up. People look at the prices of the products, not arcane crap like the percentage of take home pay and the increase over what the price used to be.


      Calculating the cost of something based on what percentage isn't "arcane crap" -- that's the only thing that really matters when you're trying to consider whether or not you can afford something.
  26. Do it like Japanese, publish it. by QuessFan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally, I think Japan has the better system of publish list of top 100 tax payer, how much they earn and how much they pay in tax, etc.

    The privacy of tax return had allowed too many tax loopholes and evasions to go un-notices. If tax returns are public, the transparancy and public outrage would ensure loopholes are plug and tax system remains fair.

    In the U.S. the finanacial accounting and tax accounting had been allowed to drifted away from each other. If public investors are allowed to see the tax returns of their holdings, they can get much better sense of a corpration's performance. A lot of recent corporate scandals would had been discovered sooner or prevented all together.

    1. Re:Do it like Japanese, publish it. by Gunny101 · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree. Corporates already publish their financials. What we are worried about is PERSONAL information. Nobody has any business knowing how much I make, and doing so is a risk to my person (Why not rob the guy next door, as he makes 2 million a year).

    2. Re:Do it like Japanese, publish it. by QuessFan · · Score: 1

      If people are able to uncover those around them who have 'life syste inconsistent with reported income,' then tax evasion will become much less common.

      As for safety concern. I can only go by my own experience. As a government employee, my salary, property holding, etc. are already disclosed as public record. Since I work with the judicial branch, I personally know many rich judges.(Usually sucessful lawyers before they went on the bench) Donald Trump's older sister, MarryAnne Trump Barry, was worth 85 millions last time I checked. And she is not even the richest federal judge. And unless they are Supreme Court justice or involves in high profile case they don't receive enhanced police protection either. I haven't heard about enhanced level of property crime againist higher earning/networth government employees, have you? If that's the risk factor, I am feeling much safer right now.

    3. Re:Do it like Japanese, publish it. by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      I really don't know the concern about the privacy either. Is the people that only pretend to be rich or are in tons of debt and about to go publicly bankrupt in fear here? Or is it the ones that cheat on their taxes that are worried like this poor guy, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-28 -cunningham_x.htm

      Why can't people spell html?

  27. Legitimacy of the tests by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has it occured to anyone that perhaps DHS and the DoD get failing grades because they take different, more effective approaches to security than what's handed down by a beauracracy?

    1. Re:Legitimacy of the tests by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      Has it occured to anyone that perhaps DHS and the DoD get failing grades because they take different, more effective approaches to security than what's handed down by a beauracracy?
      You sound like those parents who say "my child is failing because you don't know how to grade their work."

      At which point everyone looks at the parents and goes "Huh?"

      In an attempt to justify their statement, the parents explain how their child has a learning disability and while the kid can't spell, their grammar is excellent.

      If you want to put failures in special ed, that's fine. Just don't give them sensitive responsibilites, like protecting the country or dealing with my tax information.

      Anyways, TFA is about the IRS & Dept. of Treasury, not the DHS or DoD. I'm only saying this because the comment is relevant either way.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Legitimacy of the tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Much like they have taken more effective approaches to dealing with natural disasters and wars. Both the Katrina and Iraq marvels owe their success to top leadership telling the lower downs in the beareaucracy to keep their "ideas" and "plans" to themselves and let the action take place. Rock on DOD-DHS, you are the true rebels of the government!

  28. Ob South Park Quote... by vwjeff · · Score: 1

    Randy: That word's kind of getting old. It's not really funny anymore.
    Man: Yeah, they're gonna have to come up with a new swear word now.
    Mr. Garrison: Well, they can't use "fag." Because you can't say "fag" unless you're a homosexual.
    Randy: Really? So we can't say (bleep)?
    Mr. Garrison: No. See, you got beeped.
    Man: You mean you have to be a (bleep) to say (bleep)?
    Mr. Garrison: That's right.
    Jimbo: Hell, that's not fair! I should be able to say "fag."
    Randy: Hey, you didn't get beeped.
    Jimbo: Uh, oh.
    Mr. Garrison: Well well well! Guess we learned something new about you, Jimbo, you freakin' fag! You wanna make out or something?

  29. And they want me to pay for this data? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Why should I pay for this data

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217091.htm

    when I get get it for free, then?

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  30. I thought they worked around by using 1/2" tape by wsanders · · Score: 1

    I thought they worked around all the security issues by just writing all their data on 800 bpi 1/2" tape. Seriously, the only people who have those things anymore are the IRS and the FAA.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  31. Either it's mandatory or it's optional. by jd · · Score: 1
    If it's mandatory, then if a department's staff fail, they should be let go. Mandatory means "this is what you need to do". Mandatory isn't a choice. If it's the fault of IT staffers, sack the staffers. If it's the fault of management, sack the management. Do what it takes to meet mandatory requirements and cut out the dead wood.


    That's if it's mandatory. If it's optional, then they don't need to meet the standards and all is well with the world. But if it IS optional, then the Government should state so and not claim that they're mandatory. Optional is a choice, no matter what CYA the lawyers want to put onto it.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  32. Entire report card by flooey · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those interested, the entire report card is available here.

  33. IRS E-File insecurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Funny that this post should come up today. This Wednesday, I finally got around to doing my taxes, so I went to the IRS website and clicked on one of their endorsed partners to receive my free online tax submission.


    Everything was going fine until I filled out the address of my employer from my W2. On the W2, it was listed as "Comptroller's Office, SoAndSo Corp.". So I typed that in, verbatim, to the website. Surprise of surprises, I got back an ASP debugging page saying that an SQL syntax error had occurred and 's' was an invalid command.


    For those of you that don't know, this just screams SQL Injection vulnerability. I went back to the login page and tried logging in with "abc'abc". Not only did I get an SQL syntax error on this page as well, but the debugging information showed the IP address, user name, and password of the MSSQL server used to store all of the tax information. *sigh*


    This was at about 10:00 pm, so my immediate attempts to contact the company failed. I also contacted the IRS, and eventually got a case assignment after about three different calls to various help desks. I called the company again in the morning and carefully explained the dangers of A) not turning off ASP debugging information on production systems and B) creating SQL statements by concatinating user input. The IRS did eventually call back, and I was able to connect them up with the company spokesman. I'm sure they had an interesting talk.


    Moral of this story... there really isn't one. The IRS had linked to these people directly, and in that way endorsed them, but no one, from the IRS or the company, ever thought of placing a single quote into any one of their text fields. Also, this site was verified by TRUST-e, but apparently they're only worried about SSL. Oh, and after all that, the site still isn't fixed. They've turned off ASP debugging. But that's it. I can still log in with "username'--" and an invalid password. Anyone know where I should go next? Who to talk to?

    1. Re:IRS E-File insecurity by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      Trinity. 3nity@thematrix.mov

      >Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (3), OS detection may be less accurate
      >Interesting ports on 10.2.2.2:
      >(The 1533 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
      >Port State Service
      >21/tcp open ftp
      >23/tcp open telnet
      >25/tcp open smtp
      >110/tcp open pop3
      >1434/udp open slammer
      >6889/tcp open bittorrent
      >6889/udp open bittorrent
      >
      >Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.194 seconds
      >Operating System: WindowsXP Pr0 (H4X0r3D by L337 3W3Z3rS)

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    2. Re:IRS E-File insecurity by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try the FBI. I can't believe that outfit isn't running afoul of some serious Federal laws somewhere.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:IRS E-File insecurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Authorized e-file Partners Notice

      The Internal Revenue Service has entered into partnership agreements with these companies to foster electronic filing. As a convenience to taxpayers, the Internal Revenue Service has provided links to these companies' web sites, and the companies have provided the aforementioned descriptions of their products and services. The Internal Revenue Service and the United States Government do not endorse or warrant these companies or their products or services. The decision to use or not to use any of these products and services will not result in any special treatment from the Internal Revenue Service.

      The IRS is committed to enabling all taxpayers to comply with their tax filing obligations. Whether you choose to file a tax return electronically or on paper, you should rest assured that the IRS is fully committed to protecting your information on our tax processing systems and by working with our industry partners.

      Many taxpayers use the services of our industry partners, such as paid preparers, Electronic Return Originators (ERO) and transmitters, as part of their tax return preparation and filing process. In order for you to make an informed decision as to how you will file your tax return, we recommend you read and understand the privacy and security policies and procedures of the IRS and of any industry partner that will handle your tax return information."

    4. Re:IRS E-File insecurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the mob? I am sure the Russian/Chinese/American mafia will pay quite a bit of money for information on how to obtain all that juicy information useful for blackmail among other things.

  34. Hax0rz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, and now with the article being slashdotted...they probably will notice thousands of port scans on their network after checking logs =)

  35. The disconnect is right after "surprised" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Where you start spreading the myth about governments serving its people. Ain't been that way for quite some time now.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. How's that a surprise? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Take your average company. Now take a manager's PC and a tech's PC. Which one is more likely to be secured? And the owner of which takes home more money?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Lemme get this straight. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And please correct me if I got anything wrong here. The agencies themselves send in reports. Not some "mystery shopper" guy checking their security, but they hand their reports in themselves.

    And they STILL fail?

    Scary to think that they're even too dumb to cheat.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. A literalist hacker helps you today! by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it would be nice to add a zero to my return...

    I decided to help you out there. Here you go.
    Instead of getting a return of $237.13, you will now receive $237.130.

    Have a nice day!

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:A literalist hacker helps you today! by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      No, you misunderstood - I fixed your error: Instead of receiving a refund of $237.13, he will now receive $0.00.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  39. Slashdot: U.S. government, 4 corruption, 1 health. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    There were four stories today on Slashdot about U.S. government corruption, and one about the government functioning as it should:

    This one: IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected. If the IRS is denied the computer equipment it needs, there is more money for the government corrupters to steal.

    Former BSA VP Confirmed as Tech Undersecretary. Another unqualified person is appointed to influence U.S. technology.

    FCC Opens Flood Gates for Junk Faxes. "Under the new rules, a junk faxer could visit your website and call that an existing business relationship."

    AT&T Forwarding All Internet Traffic to NSA?. The U.S. government conducts more surveillance world-wide and domestically than any agency, ever, in the history of the world.

    Today's news from Slashdot about the U.S. government is not all negative:

    FTC Levies Fine Against Big-league Spammers.

    --
    Violence does not promote democracy. It promotes more violence.

  40. Taking a jab... by wuffalicious · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's good to know that when other government agencies are starting to become increasingly paranoid, there is one that values keeping their records available to the public.

  41. The report card by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 2, Informative
    The full report card is certainly interesting, especially since those agencies that have high profiles in national security matters (Defense, State, Homeland Security) all received an "F". Department of Justice (think FBI, DEA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fared about as poorly with a "D-".

    The Social Security Administration scored an "A". As I recall they were also one of the first federal agencies to complete their work on the Y2K project. Score another one for monolithic bureacracies over fragmented bureaucracies :)

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  42. Do you really think by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    that a paper filing stays on paper once it gets to the IRS?

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  43. Fuck That!!!! by Excen · · Score: 1

    Break out the hookers and blow! Party at Treasury!

    Fuck that! Party over at the DEA Headquarters! You can have your blow and hookers, I'll take the fine, sweet, Mississippi-grown Government G-17 Cheeba and hotbox the House and Senate. Maybe then we can get IP law changed, the troops 10,000 miles away from things that goes "Allah Akbar--BOOM!!!!", Bush impeached for that Scooter Libby stunt, and DUKE NUKEM GODDAMN FUCKING FOREVER ALREADY!!!!!!!!!

    --
    "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
  44. Good! I'm glad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Information wants to be free.

  45. IRS says filing *is* optional,paying isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have to file. However, if you don't file then (pursuant to Code Section 6020(b)) the IRS will prepare and file a return for you and the only way not to be obligated to pay whatever they decide you owe is to file a return yourself.

    But as long as you're willing to pay whatever the IRS decides you owe you don't have to file your own return.

    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id= 122901,00.html

  46. Security, the Open Standard by tverbeek · · Score: 1
    At least they're doing better than the guy I just bought a used Mac Mini from on eBay. A few hours ago, I unpacked it, attached my display/keyboard/mouse, powered it up, and found a PDF of his 1040A and supporting schedules for 2005 sitting on the Desktop. I opened it to confirm it was really what the filename said it wasm, and sure enough: there was his income, the whole family's social security numbers....

    For the record, the next thing I did was to shut it down, reboot from the setup DVD, and perform a wipe-and-reload on the hard drive.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/