Slashdot Mirror
Medical Firm Sues IRS For 4th Amendment Violation In Records Seizure
cold fjord writes "A healthcare provider has sued the Internal Revenue Service and 15 of its agents, charging they wrongfully seized 60 million medical records from 10 million Americans ... [The unnamed company alleges] the agency violated the Fourth Amendment in 2011, when agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee – and that led to the seizure of information on 10 million, including state judges. The search warrant did not specify that the IRS could take medical information, UPI said. And information technology officials warned the IRS about the potential to violate medical privacy laws before agents executed the warrant, the complaint said." Also at Nextgov.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White : the theft of private and privileged documents from the IRS offices and from other governmental agencies
even Wikipedia thinks that CoS plays dirty and doesn't play fair
If it takes that level of psychopathy and money and criminal activity in order to successfully fight against the IRS, what odds does a company with legitimate meritorious claims against the IRS have? None? :>(
They are getting a head start on Obamacare where your medical care and finances are all part of the Government. Get used to it as the new norm if you use healthcare in the US.
The truth shall set you free!
"when agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee –"
A search warrant requires judicial approval. This looks like a company that is taking advantage of the current IRS "scandal" to defend itself against a wholly unrelated investigation. It worked.
They seized 60 million records of 10 million people because of 1 possible tax cheat? Nice.
To paraphrase a wise man recently, "I don't want to see who's getting slapped on the wrist. I want to see who's going to jail."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Let us know when you have the other side of the story.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I was expecting the CDC to pull this stunt, but the IRS?
They're just getting a head start on Obamacare - which they will be administering.
Ten million people's medical records? They now have a mandate to have EVERYBODY's.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
When will the IRS start issuing jack boots to all agents?
I'd be more curious who gets the money if they win? From TFA:
The suit seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages, per violation. The recordsâ(TM) seizure could impact up to one in 25 Americans, UPI said.
I assume they will be passing that money to affected Americans?
It appears that the IRS had a legitimate search warrant. if the data had been appropriately encrypted, it would be impossible tor the IRS to get access to it without help. If they were shown to have got that help, then they would have been clearly in violation. As it is, the company is at least as much to blame, surely?
Oh, it's more than that. The IRS is the key enforcer for the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
Your Next IRS Political Audit - The tax agency is getting vast new power in health care
The IRS Is Accessing Your Health Records. You Trust Them?
The US Government needs to get the problems at that agency fixed, now. Between this and the suppression of political groups going on, this is intollerable and undemocratic. What did Franklin say? A Republic, if you can keep it?
The IRS’s Curious Immunity - It’s worse than the PATRIOT Act.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
When everyone kept their mouths shut when the Warrantless Wiretapping was approved, did you expect it to stop there? Benjamin Franklin's quote about temporary safety fell upon deaf ears in the U.S. We are now the police state plutocracy we've always wanted. Good luck getting your privacy back.
(Sorry if that sounds like a shameless political plug, but I'm starting to think that's what really needs to happen.)
The US Government needs to get the problems at that agency fixed, now.
What problem? The issues you are referring to are features of the IRS that led to it being chosen for its role as the key enforcer of the Affordable Care Act, not bugs that would lead those who passed that law to consider it unwise to give it that additional power.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The data was handed over after the IRS threatened to rip the servers out. A move like that can seriously impact a business. The did what they felt they had to do and decided to let the courts sort it out.
Sadly, the guys who idolize President Obama don't care about this story, or the many others. To them, it's just the conservatives/GOP showing their hatred of the first black president, nothing more.
So, I've given up hope that they will see the light of what this administration is like. They'll keep voting for guys like him, who will bring this country down very soon. There is no avoiding that fate. I'm not clamoring for revolution, but I think a civil war is coming.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
and, At this point what difference does it make?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You clearly have no idea how such systems work. My guess is that the IRS served their warrant and then demanded read only ODBC/API access to the companies systems. The company's DBAs likely balked at the idea... I know I would... and said "listen, if you have that sort of access, you could violate Hipaa if you submit the wrong query. We're very stringent on what we allow to be run against our tables" But the IRS being the IRS said "Fuck you, we're the IRS" and went right ahead. Once you have a legit login and password the data is no longer encrypted for you.
Knowing the ramifications of what the IRS were doing, the company likely logged their queries. The IRS's DBAs likely were worried the company in question could potentially get a court injunction to stop their access so their first query was likely "Select * from customers;" and dumped the entire table to a local table. Then company in question likely saw this, freaked out, but realized any lawsuit they filed would likely be quashed by "We have an ongoing investigation" yada yada... so they kept quiet about it until the original case was over.
I'm just guessing but I've been in similar situations and the governments admins are pricks and usually don't have a clue what they are doing. Violating hipaa is VERY easy to do if you don't know what you're doing. So much so that many people don't even want to work in departments that have access to such information. Make a typo in your query and you're getting walked out the door.
Check my previous comments. I voted for a "third party" candidate with morals. One that would make you feel like a kid who was caught stealing a candy bar in comparison.
Also, check my sig. No political party should get a pass on corruption and deceit, yet both of the two main parties manage to do so because of people like you.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I assume they will be passing that money to affected Americans?
Suing the government for massive amounts of money, in terms of society as a whole, is about as productive as sending yourself a wire transfer. A bunch of fees and no net gain.
Any money the IRS would pay out, would simply have to be collected back from the people.
The suit seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages, per violation.
* 10 million violations is 250 billion dollars? Holy fuck.
The only company that I can think of that has that large of a database of health records would be either one of the government agencies... or Epic. Time to buy some stock.
It's not about Republican versus Democrat. Everywhere it counts they are the same. When it comes to fucking over the country they are bipartisan. They differ only on peripheral issues that, while important to the public, are irrelevant to the things which really matter to those who rule. Things like abortion, religion, racism, affirmative action, and gay marriage are just hot button issues used to divide the public so that the elite can rule us better. As long as we're hating each other over things that don't matter to our rulers then it's all good. You can give up though, it's hopeless. Every single time I pointed out how bad GW Bush was all any of his supporters had to say was "he's not as bad as those evil Democrats" and when I point out the fallacies of the Obama administration all I get is "at least he's better than those evil neo-cons!" People have their side and they are oblivious to anything other than how bad the other side is.
After all those years of the current anti-Obama crowd desperately defending the shamefully illegal shenanigans of GWB's administration, I just don't quite know how to react to seeing them implode over this Obama-related stuff.
Why couldn't you get this angry at Bush Corp when it was doing similar or worse stuff? Why did you try so hard to dismiss any criticism of the unlawful (and almost always far worse) behavior of people such as GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al?
I'm not suggesting it is wrong for you to be critical of current events, because we should all be crying foul. But it would be nice if you objected when everyone does it, and not just when it's the other team.
When will the IRS start issuing jack boots to all agents?
Why not jackboots? ATF and Secret Service are also part of Treasury.
ATF has been the classic "jackbooted thugs" for most of their existence - ever since they got spun out of Internal Revenue in . They're "the revenuers" that enforced alcohol taxes with machine guns even before they and the FBI burned down a church camp in Waco over a $200 tax bill and shot a man's son and wife on Ruby Ridge over a $500 claim, inspiring the original NRA "Jackbooted Thugs" ad.
Secret Service has a history of incarcerating people and holding them incommunicado if they think they might be possibly be a threat to a high government official. (I knew one '60s radical who BECAME a '60s radical, a nice Jewish girl who, when still underage, was playing spy/counterspy with a friend in Grosse Point using their new toy CB walkie-talkies, totally unaware that JFK was passing through the Detroit area on his way to speak at a university graduation ceremony 50 miles away. Scooped off the street, thrown in a cell overnight, no mention of why, no phone call, no notice to parents, ...) They also harassed someone who, during the Vietnam protests, wrote "Piss on JFK" on a postcard. Reason given: "If enough people pissed on him it would kill him."
Why should the IRS be left without appropriate footwear?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why couldn't you get this angry at Bush Corp when it was doing similar or worse stuff?
Lots of us were down on Bush, too.
You just probably thought we were lefties. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Would you like some bread to eat while you're watching the circus?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Yep. Which means the only real solution, and deterrent, is to place personal responsibility upon those who ordered and implemented these activities. Start firing people and taking away their cushy government pensions and benefits, instead of letting them resign into comfy retirement, and you'll start seeing change.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It certainly appears that the Obama administration went after political opponents with the IRS. Can you point out when the Bush administration did that with either the IRS or FBI against political opponents? I don't recall that happening.
You may recall the Obama administration going after Fox News repeatedly. What comparable thing happened under the Bush administration? I don't recall that happening.
Nixon was actually right about the war in Vietnam, and extracted the US from it. There isn't much doubt that the US was correct about going to war in Afghanistan, and all of the causes of action against Iraq were correct (banned long range missiles, obstruction, crimes against humanity, etc.) except the active WMD programs. The WMD programs were in stasis, just waiting for Saddam to complete his breakout of sanctions using the Oil for Food money to bribe UN members and politicians around the world. If Iraq was able to break out of the sanctions regime, there is no doubt those WMD programs would restart. Oh, and don't forget, Saddam had the government mime as if they still had WMD material to fool the Iranians. He didn't think the West in general, and the US specifically, would act. He guessed wrong.
Since the IRS under the Obama administration was asking extremely intrusive questions of conservative political groups, and then forwarding that information to liberal groups, I guess that counts as spying too. You think the Bush administration did that? Not so much.
Other than working in the White House, I don't recall that either Cheney or Rumsfeld were ever implicated in any part of the Watergate scandal. So unless you have something, you have nothing as the basis for a smear.
I don't think you nailed this one other than successfully identifying where two people worked for a short period.
That's unlikely, President Obama was born in 1961, by the time he was 18, the Vietnam conflict was already over.
I'm curious where you got the evidence that he was palling around with terrorists when he was still in grade school.
That's not true. Bush got over 5 years before the media stopped kissing his ass after 9/11. Clinton spent most of his Presidency explaining as the press dug into things which weren't reasonable related to Presidency.
Face it, the media sucks up to the GOP because if they don't, the GOP cries about the "liberal" media, never mind that the media itself is already right of center.
Maybe I'll just have some cake.
Disclaimer: I am a former Washington Post journalist
First of all, TFA is at The Washington Times. That alone makes its credibility dubious. The Washington Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon (crazy "Unification Church" cult leader) who stated that the purpose of the "newspaper" was to be "the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world." Moon was convicted that same year of filing false federal income tax returns and conspiracy and served 13 months in prison. The Times has long been known as a conservative shill (although it has a decent sports section) that had to be financially supported by Moon's "church" to survive. Moon spent nearly $2 billion of his followers' money over 20 years to keep the paper afloat.
Second, The Washington Times article doesn't even claim to have done any reporting on its own... it cites some article from UPI that isn't readily available on UPI's home page or even by searching UPI for "IRS." Ultimately found the "article" here. It's a 9-paragraph blog posting. UPI was once a respectable news agency like AP or Reuters, but its relevance diminished to the point where it was bought out in 2000 by... you guessed it: Sun Myung Moon. UPI's White House correspondent retired the next day after 57 years with the organization. These days UPI doesn't even have a White House correspondent, and its finances have gotten so bad that it relies on free articles contributed by college students.
The UPI blog posting cites a Courthouse News Service article: John Doe Company sued 15 John Doe IRS agents in Superior Court. The plaintiff's attorney alleges that the records affected may include those of "politically controversial members of the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild, and prominent citizens in the world of entertainment, business and government, from all walks of life." He goes on to complain that the unnamed IRS agents "decided to use John Doe Company's media system to watch basketball, ordering pizza and Coca-Cola, to take in part of the NCAA tournament," but "Plaintiff's attorney Robert E. Barnes declined to elaborate on the complaint's allegations, saying he will have more information 'in a few months.'"
Why publish a story no one can verify, since all you can say for now is that that unnamed people at the IRS are illegally snooping on unnamed politically controversial people through an unnamed medical firm? Because it helps fuel the fire driving the current Republican party line of "the IRS is evil and Obama is responsible." Because some ignorant blogger might pick it up and run with it, thinking that The Washington Times and UPI are real news organizations, and not even bother to look for the source of this story. Great job Timothy.
That's not true. Bush got over 5 years before the media stopped kissing his ass after 9/11.
So you're saying that Bush really only had opposition in the media for the last 2-3 years of his term? I think you have a different recollection than I do, and what the facts might suggest.
Face it, the media sucks up to the GOP because if they don't, the GOP cries about the "liberal" media, never mind that the media itself is already right of center.
Two things. First, I haven't noticed the media bend all that much to that objection.
Second, "right of center" media? It might look that way to you, but that is because you are probably running into a parallax problem which is exacerbated by your left of left of center politics.
Do journalists' political donations (mostly Democratic) = news bias?
All of this prompted Investors Business Daily to publish a trenchant op-ed by William Tate that reported on his examination of Federal Election Commission records for donations by journalists.
You'll never guess what he says he found -- 235 journalists donating to Democrats while only 20 gave to Republicans for a total of $225,563 to Democrats and $16,298 to the the GOP-inclined.
That's small potatoes moneywise in terms of the nearly $1 billion collected so far in this election cycle. But Tate sees a valuable built-in bias among Democratic journalists for candidates of their party.
Last summer Bill Dedman at MSNBC did a massive research project, examining political donations by journalists over several years and found a similar overwhelming number of Democratic journalists (125 of 143 political donors while only 16 gave to Republican candidates
Journalists as a group tend toward progressive or liberal, not center, or center right. If they look right of center to you, you might want to think about recalibrating your mental peg of where your politics are on the continuum.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Sorry, but there is no "there," there. US Attorneys are political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President. Normally practically all of them, if not all of them, are replaced when a new administration comes in to office, especially from a different party. As I recall the standard is that they offer their resignation, and it is normally accepted. If that is all you have to hang your hat on, that is pretty weak tea indeed. And they weren't spied upon inappropriately, just fired, as was administration's right.
Leaving them in the positions to begin with was probably ill-considered by the Bush administration since they didn't really support the administration. Not really helpful. President Bush may have been thinking that he would be able to work with Democrats at the national level as he was able to in Texas. That didn't appear to work out in a lot of areas.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Allegations are cheap. Facts are more worthwhile.
What Really Happened in the U.S. Attorneys Mess
Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The IRS went after the political opponents on legit tax grounds. Any time a type of tax shelter becomes a fad they lock things down.
Look here: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/501c4-vs-501c3-vs-527/
A 501c4 is not a "charitable organization" it's a political party-lite organization. It has a very arrow acceptable focus versus using a 527 for your organization. With a bunch of groups all got bad tax instructions from the Internet, or somebody DELIBERATELY put those groups to filing in the wrong categories. Given people calling the shots in the Tea Party are high paid lawyers and accountants that are paid to know about this stuff, I would believe the later. "Corporate" logic doesn't work on a tax form filed for farmers co-op political org in Illinois... The people at the IRS aren't stupid, their job isn't to be a blind rubber stamp on whatever is filled in the blanks... That's the Patent Office.
Because in the REST of the word those things you listed are NORMAL EXPECTATIONS of government, they don't count as being "left". The last true "Left" discussion in the USA was between the 1890 depression and the 1930 depression... At least we got National Parks out of the deal.
This was not about the 80% spending rule. This was about the financial data on one individual, that just happened to be an employee at this company. If he worked at McDonalds, they'd have been pulling records on 60 million hamburgers.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Here's what I thought the story was:
- Obama avoided going to Vietnam, just like those cowardly Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore.
- He moved from where he was born in Kenya to Indonesia to study how to become a secret Muslim terrorist.
- At the tender age of 6 years old, he helped Bill Ayers bomb the Pentagon.
- As soon as he got back to the US, he started doggedly following Jeremiah Wright's hatred of America, but remained somehow a secret Muslim.
- All policies Obama has ever made as president have been about trying to take away everyone's guns.
- In 2012, he had the gall to not show up to a debate with Clint Eastwood.
I could go on, but these are the kinds of things a significant portion of the US says they believe about him. (And, for the record, absolutely none of them are true)
I am officially gone from
It would have meant health care rates would have fallen after the GOP voted in the health care reforms they were asking for, like caps on malpractice and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.
The GOP had 8 years to pass health care reform under Bush. You don't really believe they would have passed anything, do you? You're not that much of a sucker, are you?
BTW, if you cap malpractice, who pays for the health care of someone who was injured by malpractice? If the slip of a knife causes someone to require tens of thousands of dollars of health care, where is that going to come from? This wouldn't be a problem under single payer, btw. What's the conservative solution? Let the market sort it out?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's wonderful that you're finally concerned about the Fourth Amendment!
NOW WHERE WAS ALL THIS WORRY WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEFORE CONGRESS?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Doesn't the federal government enjoy the privilege of being one of the few entities that cannot be sued unless they allow you to sue them?
Are you stupid enough to believe that Republicans wouldn't use "a $20million suit to punish a nurse for cracking ribs while providing CPR" as an excuse to indemnify doctors against all their wrongs? They have proven that they will deregulate everything, no matter who it hurts, just for the sake of deregulation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The issue is in the title of your second link. You can fire all US Attorneys, and no one blinks an eye, because they are political appointees. However, if you fire 8, the assumption is that they have been selected. Couple that with the fact that the fired attorneys were a thorn in the side of republicans, and now you need to explain why singling out 8 AGs is NOT a political decision.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.