Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Fights For Privacy of Customer Records
suraj.sun notes a CNET article on Amazon's lawsuit against North Carolina on the grounds that the state is trying to violate the privacy and First Amendment rights of Amazon's customers. "Amazon.com filed a lawsuit on Monday to fend off a sweeping demand from North Carolina's tax collectors: [for] detailed records including names and addresses of customers and information about exactly what they had purchased. ... North Carolina's Department of Revenue had ordered the online retailer to provide full details on nearly 50 million purchases made by state residents between 2003 and 2010. Because Amazon has no offices or warehouses in North Carolina, it's not required to collect the [state's] 5.75 percent sales tax on shipments, although tax collectors have reminded residents that what's known as a use tax applies on anything 'purchased or received' through the mail." Amazon is arguing that the records of what books, music, and videos its customers bought deserve enhanced protection.
We're talking about the most expensive government in the entire history of centralized power. To claim that lack of revenue is a problem is utterly laughable. With the trillions of dollars spent by the US government every year, we should be living in a utopia by now. But we're not. We're far from it.
Clearly, the problem is where the money goes, not lack of it. In fact, it could be argued that too much money is the problem. We ought to support any measure which keeps money out of the hands of the power elite, because common sense tells us that at the very least, they have way, way too much of it.
In 1987, the Washington City Paper, a paper from the left, published the video rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, from the right. There was next to no dirt found, but it wasn't for lack of self-admitted trying. It was a politically motivated stunt, and they were desperate to find X-rated rentals or even just a penchant for a particular actress of the day.
By revealing detailed media purchases to a government, it gives the incumbents the opportunity to smear political challengers.
Suppose two parties privately sell an item in one state and then the new owner transports the item to a second state. He uses the item in the second state. Tax is paid in the first state. The tax is paid on the transaction not on the use. So how can the state say with a straight face that this is a "use tax"? It's clearly linguistic gymnastics to circumvent the commerce clause.
-Dave
Posting AC. As a Federal employee, I can tell you that our retirement is not "plush" and hasn't been since CSRS went away. Now we have a small (reasonable) pension and a 401(k)-like account called a TSP that has a small match (5%).
Given that as an attorney I make far less with the government what I would in the private sector, yet I go to work every day happily, believing in what I do, and working hard, my retirement benefits are perfectly reasonable.