Corporations are people, right? When a person lives and works overseas, even though the money is earned overseas, they're still supposed to file a return and pay taxes on those earnings, right? How can Microsoft claim legal personhood, and then neglect to pay taxes on their offshore earnings?
IANAL but I believe it's because each company is a separate person. The company MS USA is not the same 'person' as the company MS Bahamas.
But shouldn't that be up to the foreign countries where the money is earned? If a country doesn't want to tax earnings in its borders, that's their business. It doesn't mean the US or any other country should have a claim on it.
It hasn't been earned in those countries though, just shifted there after having been earned elsewhere (i.e. in the US or other high tax countries) by a shady loophole mechanism. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
The summary, of course, missed Microsoft's legitimate response to people's enquiries:
The company says it has "not provided deferred U.S. income taxes" because it says the earnings were generated from its "non-U.S. subsidiaries” and then "reinvested outside the U.S.”
It's almost like the editors wanted to publish a biased article or something. Scandalous.
Would be interesting to know how much of those earnings generated from non-US subsidiaries were fees paid by Microsoft America themselves, one way or another (i.e. licensing fees) to get the money offshore to start with.
I wonder how that plays with the measurements taken with relation to sea levels rising due to the same global warming melting the glaciers in the first place.
Dude. You are a completely ignorant kid, with no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that anything connected to the internet is by definition insecure when by your own definition everything is insecure. Now you are finally talking about degrees of security. If you do a little research you can start throwing around some more terms you don't understand, but you can't undo the posts that show how completely clueless you actually are. You can't even figure out that the cost of what you are proposing is astronomical, and the approach almost guarantees that any implemented system will be less secure. You are the reason why the world is dangerous and insecurity is rampant. Just accept that you need to learn what you are talking about before opening your mouth and the internet will be a better place for it. Also, stay out of the security field. It doesn't need more clueless bafoons.
Kid. Continuing to show your complete ignorance, as usual.
Let's go point by point to see how much substance you've actually managed to scrape off your tongue or if it's all just fungus from you not brushing.
" You claimed that anything connected to the internet is by definition insecure when by your own definition everything is insecure." Yes. I claim this. If you disagree you're free to make some substantial remarks on how exactly this is incorrect. You know, like an adult would Point value = 0 = no substance in your remarks.
"You can't even figure out that the cost of what you are proposing is astronomical, and the approach almost guarantees that any implemented system will be less secure." As I already told you in a previous mail, the cost would be a negligible percentage of the business revenue in the medical, insurance and related industries and as such it would be a cost they would not even feel. Consider the billions of USD currently being paid by banks as fines to the US. Many billions each bank. Billions are only a huge amount of money that someone who thinks small chokes on. Try and get your head around what I said last time you mentioned cost. Billions in costs are nothing compared to trillions in revenue. BNP is paying 9 billion USD. You know what that is for them? 1% (one percent in case the numbers are too complicated for you) of their yearly revenue. Point value for your comments = 0 = no substance in your remarks. Going to have to scrape that tongue a little harder jerky.
Now why don't you pull something else out of your ass and tell me how a system or network disconnected from the Internet is going to be less secure than one that is connected, all other factors being equal, as all of the Internet related attack vectors have gone away. Of course you cannot, because it cannot actually be more secure, and so you revert to more personal attacks and further load claims without substance, rather stating any actual counter arguments that might actually mean something. Big surprise - yet again nothing of value in your answer = Point value = 0 = STILL no substance in your remarks. That tongue must be really nasty with fungus.
Total value of what came out of your mouth = 0
Come play with the big boys when you get your shit together, 'Kid'.
This from an idiot that thinks that disonnecting a network from the internet magically makes it secure:-) Later loser. Plonk
Obviously it isn't magic, though at your level of comprehension (or lack thereof) it might seem like it.
Not connecting a system or a network to the Internet removes the vast majority of possible attack vectors, so yes it's inherently more secure than any system or network connected to the Internet.
As obviously, you have nothing of substance to say so you hide behind insults and obnoxiousness - so please, unless you actually come up with something other than some childish level of discourse just stop answering.
No answer from you, as expected based on your previous posts showing that you don't actually know much of anything and try and get by on an acerbic sense of humor that really just comes across as obnoxiousness.
So you go right ahead and ROTFLYAO because it's obviously all that you're truly capable of doing. Well, that and defecating from your mouth.
"You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure."
I didn't read past that phenomenally ridiculous statement other than to read the second sentence, almost accidentally. Also,.mil. Make sure you explain to the military that the vast majority of the computers they use are insecure. ROTFLMAO
I'm sure they're quite aware that anything connected to the Internet isn't secure.
Do you think otherwise? Do you really think that anything that IS connected to the Internet can be completely secure?
I'm putting up with your obnoxiousness for now just to see where you take this, if anywhere.
I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.
Let me know how your IT can remote in from home without having an Internet connection at some point. Remoting in is nearly a requirement of all information systems.
'Remoting' is not in and of itself a requirement. Getting the job done, whatever that job is, is the requirement. If you need 24x7 coverage for whatever job needs to get done, then hire enough people to have onsite 24x7 coverage.
I understood your point. At least I thought I did. I thought you were proposing that each hospital have a seperate physical LAN for patient data. Now I see your poroposal is even more absurd. You propose that a seperate WAN be created just for hostpitals. In order to make this secure, it would obviously mean running seperate physical connections, which couldn't be run to the same endpoints, meaning of course the investment of billions of dollars including the cost of new buildings, land, construction, security personnel, etc.
I suppose if by "not much of a cost difference" you mean embark on a multi-billion to trillion dollar project that will take decades to complete, then yes. The best part of your idea? It would mean people attack a diffent network, which also would have the same heartbleed style issue, since having a different network doesn't make things magically secure. Great idea though!
You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure. This is why the military has networks that are not connected to the Internet.
To address your point about heartbleed still being an issue - it would be an 'internal' issue and as such, on a network not connected to the Internet, would not be an entrance point for anyone outside the network and it's much easier to police who does what on your own network than across the Internet.
You think only in terms of cost and not in terms of requirements. On top of that you are, of course, pulling the costs out of your ass but whatever - obviously you feel that whatever the cost would be it wouldn't be worth it to have the level of security provided, even comparing those out of your ass estimates versus the mufti-trillion dollar a year medical industry in the US.
"Should such data be on a network accessible from the Internet (even secured)?"
Should they even use computers? Maybe they shouldn't even use paper. The most secure system would be to just memorize it all, but then someone might come by with a wrench! Security is now, and always has been, a trade off. It is a delicate balancing act. They could keep all records in a vault, and only allow the President to access it. OTOH, people might die because they get a medication that would be fine for most, but is deadly to them because the information wasn't readily available to staff. Would you rather have someone find out you are allergic to a drug, or die because the hospital made damn sure nobody knew?
You've said a lot but you haven't actually addressed the point I'm making. Perhaps you've misunderstood.
Let me try and be more clear.
The medical establishment can have it's own internet - call it medinet or whatever, that does not need to be connected to the Internet.
I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.
Medical records are insecure... so it's time to migrate to a system like the UK where they contain comprehensive information about each person? Am I actually reading this?
Until patient confidentiality is enshrined into laws with real teeth and my insurance company, employer, or local black market guru can't get their hands on them I think I'll pass.
So instead your info is leaked one way or the other anyway and you have what, exactly, as a benefit that you would lose going to a single payer system?
Some hospitals are taking photos of patients with higher cost proceedures as early as 6 years ago. My photo is in my medical records. A stolen ID would be spotted by any staff reviewing my medical history.
Presumably not if the imposter went somewhere in the country where you've never been.
Even better, buy it on the way to the protest. Using cash of course.
I didnt bother reading the EFF advice but if you take your own stuff to a demonstration, you are a fool. You never know what may happen, you go with a minimal amount of items with you. ID ( required to avoid many vagrant arrest laws ), a few bucks in cash for a burger if you are stuck waiting on a ride from jail ( or the hospital ).. Hide your car keys ON your car.. No jewelry or a watch. A few contact numbers in your pocket, in case you are unconscious when found.
Don't you have to give ID even if you buy a prepaid (cash) ?
Here's what I don't get: why are so many college and school police officers applying for militarized gear? I could understand the police wanting a SWAT team in case of a school shooting, but giving college campus police military-grade firearms sounds like a very good way to have a second Kent State Massacre occur. Why can't they just leave the military stuff in the hands of the SWAT teams?
I don't see your point. They publicize the collection before they start, and those areas can be avoided. I'm not trying to avoid the collection of my information tinfoil-hat style, I've already given it to the government willingly twice. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong. Nobody is currently, or proposing to do what you say, and those with a US passport are exempt from the lines of collection in the US.
You are FUDing things which haven't happened. That makes it seem like you are OK with everything else, as if you weren't, you'd have something "real" to complain about.
I see - I must have confused your post with another. I thought you were trying to avoid having your metrics taken by anyone, including the Government, as they could subsequently be (mis)used / lost / whatever and could not be changed / reset.
If you've given them willingly then yes, we're on a different thread altogether.
First off, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm saying things as I see them. What I see is that governments collect biometric information at their borders and that, separately, countries tend to share private information with other countries including the countries of the citizens involved. Combining the two it does not seem unlikely that a country that takes someone's biometric information might share it with that person's own country.
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
You'd feel more comfortable in a (licensed, etc) taxi with a driver that has obviously just fallen off the boat, doesn't speak the language doesn't know the roads (relying on GPS) and may or may not actually have earned their driver's license (easy to buy such in some countries, then exchanging them legally for a local license depending on the agreements in place between states/countries)?
All of which, of course, could apply to Uber/Lyft drivers...
Could and do - but since trying Uber I've had more locals than imports as compared to taxis.
To be able to correctly understand this piece of news, I'd need a definition on the criteria to identify a corporation's action as "dirty tactic".
Then maybe you should take 30 seconds and RTFA.
"...over the past few weeks, Uber employees have been posing as pedestrians, creating Gett accounts for the sole purpose of scheduling and then canceling Gett rides. The result is clear: wasted time for Gett drivers, fewer available rides for Gett users, and general disarray for the whole service."
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
You'd feel more comfortable in a (licensed, etc) taxi with a driver that has obviously just fallen off the boat, doesn't speak the language doesn't know the roads (relying on GPS) and may or may not actually have earned their driver's license (easy to buy such in some countries, then exchanging them legally for a local license depeing on the agreements in place between states/countries)?
I've used Uber a few times and so far the experience has been just fine.
Hm, haven't traveled through the UK. But I don't see anything to indicate that they take anything biometric upon entering. I'm due to go there next month, so I'll see what happens then.
Okay but do you see my point? It's only a matter of time before some border agency somewhere collects your biometrics. Given that western spy agencies seem to be coordinating efforts (to get around constitutional protections for example), I think it's only a matter of time before the US has your data along with everyone else's.
That's why it's nice having a US passport. I don't have to get recorded if I visit/transit.
For now.
Also, having a US passport won't stop other countries (ie the UK) from taking your biometrics when you cross their borders and then sharing it with the US government.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a minute. Let's follow legal reasoning.
Corporations are people, right? When a person lives and works overseas, even though the money is earned overseas, they're still supposed to file a return and pay taxes on those earnings, right? How can Microsoft claim legal personhood, and then neglect to pay taxes on their offshore earnings?
IANAL but I believe it's because each company is a separate person. The company MS USA is not the same 'person' as the company MS Bahamas.
because they don't pay tax on it there either.
But shouldn't that be up to the foreign countries where the money is earned? If a country doesn't want to tax earnings in its borders, that's their business. It doesn't mean the US or any other country should have a claim on it.
It hasn't been earned in those countries though, just shifted there after having been earned elsewhere (i.e. in the US or other high tax countries) by a shady loophole mechanism.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
The summary, of course, missed Microsoft's legitimate response to people's enquiries:
The company says it has "not provided deferred U.S. income taxes" because it says the earnings were generated from its "non-U.S. subsidiaries” and then "reinvested outside the U.S.”
It's almost like the editors wanted to publish a biased article or something. Scandalous.
Would be interesting to know how much of those earnings generated from non-US subsidiaries were fees paid by Microsoft America themselves, one way or another (i.e. licensing fees) to get the money offshore to start with.
Large portions of North America and Europe are currently rising because the weight of glaciers that once pushed them down has been removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I wonder how that plays with the measurements taken with relation to sea levels rising due to the same global warming melting the glaciers in the first place.
Because there's nothing quite like a nice cup of hot java....
Dude. You are a completely ignorant kid, with no idea what you are talking about. You claimed that anything connected to the internet is by definition insecure when by your own definition everything is insecure. Now you are finally talking about degrees of security. If you do a little research you can start throwing around some more terms you don't understand, but you can't undo the posts that show how completely clueless you actually are. You can't even figure out that the cost of what you are proposing is astronomical, and the approach almost guarantees that any implemented system will be less secure. You are the reason why the world is dangerous and insecurity is rampant. Just accept that you need to learn what you are talking about before opening your mouth and the internet will be a better place for it. Also, stay out of the security field. It doesn't need more clueless bafoons.
Kid. Continuing to show your complete ignorance, as usual.
Let's go point by point to see how much substance you've actually managed to scrape off your tongue or if it's all just fungus from you not brushing.
" You claimed that anything connected to the internet is by definition insecure when by your own definition everything is insecure."
Yes. I claim this. If you disagree you're free to make some substantial remarks on how exactly this is incorrect. You know, like an adult would
Point value = 0 = no substance in your remarks.
"You can't even figure out that the cost of what you are proposing is astronomical, and the approach almost guarantees that any implemented system will be less secure."
As I already told you in a previous mail, the cost would be a negligible percentage of the business revenue in the medical, insurance and related industries and as such it would be a cost they would not even feel. Consider the billions of USD currently being paid by banks as fines to the US. Many billions each bank. Billions are only a huge amount of money that someone who thinks small chokes on. Try and get your head around what I said last time you mentioned cost. Billions in costs are nothing compared to trillions in revenue. BNP is paying 9 billion USD. You know what that is for them? 1% (one percent in case the numbers are too complicated for you) of their yearly revenue.
Point value for your comments = 0 = no substance in your remarks. Going to have to scrape that tongue a little harder jerky.
Now why don't you pull something else out of your ass and tell me how a system or network disconnected from the Internet is going to be less secure than one that is connected, all other factors being equal, as all of the Internet related attack vectors have gone away. Of course you cannot, because it cannot actually be more secure, and so you revert to more personal attacks and further load claims without substance, rather stating any actual counter arguments that might actually mean something.
Big surprise - yet again nothing of value in your answer = Point value = 0 = STILL no substance in your remarks. That tongue must be really nasty with fungus.
Total value of what came out of your mouth = 0
Come play with the big boys when you get your shit together, 'Kid'.
This from an idiot that thinks that disonnecting a network from the internet magically makes it secure :-) Later loser. Plonk
Obviously it isn't magic, though at your level of comprehension (or lack thereof) it might seem like it.
Not connecting a system or a network to the Internet removes the vast majority of possible attack vectors, so yes it's inherently more secure than any system or network connected to the Internet.
As obviously, you have nothing of substance to say so you hide behind insults and obnoxiousness - so please, unless you actually come up with something other than some childish level of discourse just stop answering.
No answer from you, as expected based on your previous posts showing that you don't actually know much of anything and try and get by on an acerbic sense of humor that really just comes across as obnoxiousness.
So you go right ahead and ROTFLYAO because it's obviously all that you're truly capable of doing. Well, that and defecating from your mouth.
I didn't read past that phenomenally ridiculous statement other than to read the second sentence, almost accidentally. Also, .mil. Make sure you explain to the military that the vast majority of the computers they use are insecure. ROTFLMAO
I'm sure they're quite aware that anything connected to the Internet isn't secure.
Do you think otherwise? Do you really think that anything that IS connected to the Internet can be completely secure?
I'm putting up with your obnoxiousness for now just to see where you take this, if anywhere.
I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.
Let me know how your IT can remote in from home without having an Internet connection at some point. Remoting in is nearly a requirement of all information systems.
'Remoting' is not in and of itself a requirement. Getting the job done, whatever that job is, is the requirement. If you need 24x7 coverage for whatever job needs to get done, then hire enough people to have onsite 24x7 coverage.
I understood your point. At least I thought I did. I thought you were proposing that each hospital have a seperate physical LAN for patient data. Now I see your poroposal is even more absurd. You propose that a seperate WAN be created just for hostpitals. In order to make this secure, it would obviously mean running seperate physical connections, which couldn't be run to the same endpoints, meaning of course the investment of billions of dollars including the cost of new buildings, land, construction, security personnel, etc.
I suppose if by "not much of a cost difference" you mean embark on a multi-billion to trillion dollar project that will take decades to complete, then yes. The best part of your idea? It would mean people attack a diffent network, which also would have the same heartbleed style issue, since having a different network doesn't make things magically secure. Great idea though!
You have to decide if you want security or not. If you connect something to the Internet, it is not secure. This is why the military has networks that are not connected to the Internet.
To address your point about heartbleed still being an issue - it would be an 'internal' issue and as such, on a network not connected to the Internet, would not be an entrance point for anyone outside the network and it's much easier to police who does what on your own network than across the Internet.
You think only in terms of cost and not in terms of requirements. On top of that you are, of course, pulling the costs out of your ass but whatever - obviously you feel that whatever the cost would be it wouldn't be worth it to have the level of security provided, even comparing those out of your ass estimates versus the mufti-trillion dollar a year medical industry in the US.
With 200+ facilities it kind of has to network accessible if they're using a centralized system.
Yes but not a network that needs to be connected to the Internet.
Should they even use computers? Maybe they shouldn't even use paper. The most secure system would be to just memorize it all, but then someone might come by with a wrench! Security is now, and always has been, a trade off. It is a delicate balancing act. They could keep all records in a vault, and only allow the President to access it. OTOH, people might die because they get a medication that would be fine for most, but is deadly to them because the information wasn't readily available to staff. Would you rather have someone find out you are allergic to a drug, or die because the hospital made damn sure nobody knew?
You've said a lot but you haven't actually addressed the point I'm making. Perhaps you've misunderstood.
Let me try and be more clear.
The medical establishment can have it's own internet - call it medinet or whatever, that does not need to be connected to the Internet.
I see no good reason for this separate infrastructure to connect to the Internet.
Should such data be on a network accessible from the Internet (even secured)?
It's not like having a second network dedicated to medical enterprise inter-connectivity would make much of a cost difference in the US system.
Medical records are insecure... so it's time to migrate to a system like the UK where they contain comprehensive information about each person? Am I actually reading this?
Until patient confidentiality is enshrined into laws with real teeth and my insurance company, employer, or local black market guru can't get their hands on them I think I'll pass.
So instead your info is leaked one way or the other anyway and you have what, exactly, as a benefit that you would lose going to a single payer system?
Some hospitals are taking photos of patients with higher cost proceedures as early as 6 years ago. My photo is in my medical records. A stolen ID would be spotted by any staff reviewing my medical history.
Presumably not if the imposter went somewhere in the country where you've never been.
Even better, buy it on the way to the protest. Using cash of course.
I didnt bother reading the EFF advice but if you take your own stuff to a demonstration, you are a fool. You never know what may happen, you go with a minimal amount of items with you. ID ( required to avoid many vagrant arrest laws ), a few bucks in cash for a burger if you are stuck waiting on a ride from jail ( or the hospital ).. Hide your car keys ON your car.. No jewelry or a watch. A few contact numbers in your pocket, in case you are unconscious when found.
Don't you have to give ID even if you buy a prepaid (cash) ?
Here's what I don't get: why are so many college and school police officers applying for militarized gear? I could understand the police wanting a SWAT team in case of a school shooting, but giving college campus police military-grade firearms sounds like a very good way to have a second Kent State Massacre occur. Why can't they just leave the military stuff in the hands of the SWAT teams?
The Kent State Massacre was done by the army national guard, not school police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
I guess now the school police don't have to call in the army to 'get the job done'.
I don't see your point. They publicize the collection before they start, and those areas can be avoided. I'm not trying to avoid the collection of my information tinfoil-hat style, I've already given it to the government willingly twice. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong. Nobody is currently, or proposing to do what you say, and those with a US passport are exempt from the lines of collection in the US.
You are FUDing things which haven't happened. That makes it seem like you are OK with everything else, as if you weren't, you'd have something "real" to complain about.
I see - I must have confused your post with another. I thought you were trying to avoid having your metrics taken by anyone, including the Government, as they could subsequently be (mis)used / lost / whatever and could not be changed / reset.
If you've given them willingly then yes, we're on a different thread altogether.
First off, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm saying things as I see them. What I see is that governments collect biometric information at their borders and that, separately, countries tend to share private information with other countries including the countries of the citizens involved. Combining the two it does not seem unlikely that a country that takes someone's biometric information might share it with that person's own country.
Whatever -
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
You'd feel more comfortable in a (licensed, etc) taxi with a driver that has obviously just fallen off the boat, doesn't speak the language doesn't know the roads (relying on GPS) and may or may not actually have earned their driver's license (easy to buy such in some countries, then exchanging them legally for a local license depending on the agreements in place between states/countries)?
All of which, of course, could apply to Uber/Lyft drivers...
Could and do - but since trying Uber I've had more locals than imports as compared to taxis.
To be able to correctly understand this piece of news, I'd need a definition on the criteria to identify a corporation's action as "dirty tactic".
Then maybe you should take 30 seconds and RTFA.
"...over the past few weeks, Uber employees have been posing as pedestrians, creating Gett accounts for the sole purpose of scheduling and then canceling Gett rides. The result is clear: wasted time for Gett drivers, fewer available rides for Gett users, and general disarray for the whole service."
For example.
Between this nonsense and the fact that the ride sharing services don't have the proper licensing and proof of insurance, I wouldn't feel comfortable using any of them.
You'd feel more comfortable in a (licensed, etc) taxi with a driver that has obviously just fallen off the boat, doesn't speak the language doesn't know the roads (relying on GPS) and may or may not actually have earned their driver's license (easy to buy such in some countries, then exchanging them legally for a local license depeing on the agreements in place between states/countries)?
I've used Uber a few times and so far the experience has been just fine.
Hm, haven't traveled through the UK. But I don't see anything to indicate that they take anything biometric upon entering. I'm due to go there next month, so I'll see what happens then.
Okay but do you see my point? It's only a matter of time before some border agency somewhere collects your biometrics. Given that western spy agencies seem to be coordinating efforts (to get around constitutional protections for example), I think it's only a matter of time before the US has your data along with everyone else's.
Have you received my email?
That's why it's nice having a US passport. I don't have to get recorded if I visit/transit.
For now.
Also, having a US passport won't stop other countries (ie the UK) from taking your biometrics when you cross their borders and then sharing it with the US government.