The upshot seems to be that the appearance of fairness is the best rreason any one can come up with. The counter argument is that shareholders own the corporation, so why not tax them.
What neighbors was exactly correct. No one lived along the banks of the polluted portion of the stream. Go look at a map and stop being so argumentative.
Down wind is not the same as down stream. There are no neighbors down stream along the Creek before it joins the river.
The stream that ran red was that little stream that runs past the plant, and wanders around in fields before emptying into the river. You couldn't even detect the blood in the river because it was so diluted. You could only see it in that half mile of deserted stream.
Find anyone down wind of any packing plant. They all complain. Yet there wasn't a single complaint of blood in the creek on record until these drone enthusiasts ACCIDENTALLY photographed this stream. They didn't go looking for it. Nobody had any clue.
If they have specific info let them show it to a judge.
This is too wide open for a state government to grant authority to a private company to search your private Internet accounts on nothing more than that same company's say so.
Lapsed time is about on par for this type of crime. Actually 12 months is pretty short, after all once the story hit the mainstream, you can bet they stopped dumping. And pig blood is not exactly a toxic substance leading to fish die offs.
Further, all the prior complaints were about smell. What packing plant DOESN'T smell.
Would you want to live in a society where police could go anywhere and do anything just because there might be a crime happening some day in that location?
Would you like to be taxed enough to pay for all the cops that would require?
Will you change your tune the minute they kick down your door?
Meanwhile: Madoff is in Jail for life 2 Generals and two different cabinet officials have been forced to resign Seattle PD is under Justice Department microscope Book publishers forced to repay customers for price fixing BP pays huge fine and has Executives indicted Entire trading firms under indictment
The only loophole I see is this so called "Legitimate investigation" which appears to allow them to demand your Gmail account login, or what ever. So, want access, simply start an "investigation". Its a small loop hole, just barely big enough to drive a battle ship and an aircraft carrier through, side by side.
Had the authorities demanded to search the plant for no reason, the same conspiratorial whack jobs posting as AC here would have condemned them for that. Had they flown their own drone it would have been government invasion of privacy. Had government posted stream guards at every stream and river it would be a run away gestapo police state.
When made aware of a crime with clear evidence they took action. Yet virtually every AC posting here twists it into some shallow victory of a hundred citizens standing up to city hall.
On the other hand, they don't own the creek, we do. So why can't we sic our elected officials on them? See something say something is democracy in action you clown.
I'm getting really sick of this tiresome rant popping up on every single Slashdot story. Government is corrupt. Corporations rule the world. We are all slaves. blah blah blah!
Can't you guys give it a rest?
Why do you always post your rants as AC anyway?
And why twist any poorly phrased summary into a soap box?
There is only this one guy, Gary Mortimer, stating that "public pressure forced the government to act". More likely it was the first time someone brought them proof sufficient to obtain a warrant to search over private lands. You clowns would be the first to complain if the government started flying their own drones, or trespassing across private lands to sample the creek.
Take you tinfoil hat off for just a few minutes each day.
Sec. 5. (1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any of the following:
(a) Requesting or requiring an employee to disclose access information to the employer to gain access to or operate any of the following:
(i) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer.
(ii) An account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer, or used for the employer’s business purposes.
(b) Disciplining or discharging an employee for transferring the employer’s proprietary or confidential information or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account without the employer’s authorization.
(c) Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation in any of the following circumstances:
(i) If there is specific information about activity on the employee’s personal internet account, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct.
(ii) If the employer has specific information about an unauthorized transfer of the employer’s proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account.
(d) Restricting or prohibiting an employee’s access to certain websites while using an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or while using an employer’s network or resources, in accordance with state and federal law.
(e) Monitoring, reviewing, or accessing electronic data stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer, or traveling through or stored on an employer’s network, in accordance with state and federal law.
(2) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from complying with a duty to screen employees or applicants prior to hiring or to monitor or retain employee communications that is established under federal law or by a self-regulatory organization, as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the securities and exchange act of 1934, 15 USC 78c(a)(26).
(3) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from viewing, accessing, or utilizing information about an employee or applicant that can be obtained without any required access information or that is available in the public domain.
Sec. 6. (1) This act does not prohibit an educational institution from requesting or requiring a student to disclose access information to the educational institution to gain access to or operate any of the following:
(a) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the educational institution.
(b) An account or service provided by the educational institution that is either obtained by virtue of the student’s admission to the educational institution or used by the student for educational purposes.
Unfortunatly, TFA was not any clearer on this issue. It used the same sentence:
There is one exception, however: 'However, accounts owned by a company or educational institution, such as e-mail, can be requested.'"
Without digging up the legislation itself, I suspect it meant asking for the login information to a Corporate Facebook account by the owning corporation would be permitted, In effect to prevent an employee from holding the account hostage.
Similarly, a university or high school might demand a student surrender their password. (Although you would have to be a pretty clueless sys admin to need such authority.
I'm pretty sure it didn't mean that when being hired at company B, they would be authorized to demand your account credentials at company A, your former employer.
Here on Slashdot, any excuse to point out anything, anywhere, which is better than what is available in the US is relished. Its the only reason EU people visit Slashdot at all.
Thankfully governments realize this, even when the naive tax payer doesn't. A 10% tax on global revenue by every country you do business in means zero revenue left for companies that have offices in 10 different countries.
If the idea was to eliminate multi-national corporations this would be the tool of choice. There are a lot of people to whom this sounds just fine. But some of us like using Google even if we don't live in the US, and some of us like driving German cars even though we don't live in Germany.
How about we just close the loopholes? If you have a US based company that is clearly operating a subsidiary, that subsidiary (even foreign) will be subject to US taxation. Far simpler strategy.
You miss the whole point of the story. This story isn't JUST about US tax being avoided.
paid Irish taxes of about $4.64 million on its entire non-U.S. profits of $1.344 billion
The problem here is that Ireland offers ridiculously low tax rates to attract investment and employment. They realize that the spending and the taxes Ireland gains from income taxes and sales taxes paid by the employees and the jobs that are created helps Ireland more than the corporate tax. So they set crazy low rates cor corporate taxes and Facebook and Google set up data centers there.
I'm hard pressed to declare this a totally bad idea. If it works for Ireland, good for them. If it works for Facebook and Google, how can you blame them for doing exactly what the law was set up to encourage?
The US can fix their tax laws too. They could easily make it more profitable to keep the investment mostly at home. Irish tax and legislation isn't exactly secret sauce. Washington State gives Boeing and Microsoft and Amazon astounding tax breaks just to keep its citizens employed. So do a lot of other states.
Side note: There is a school of thought that says taxing corporations is counter productive, and taxing the compensation AND THE PERKS of people that work for the corporations makes more sense. (Lets not start the corporate owned cars, planes, yachts and houses rant m'Kay? I said "compensation"). When you get right down to it, the reasons corporations are taxed is to gain some measure of government control over them, not to gain any real tax revenue that would not otherwise be collected from shareholders or employees.
It was also pointed out to me when I took delivery, because that's how you start it when the key fob battery dies. Apparently enough users have the dead fob problem that dealers point this out.
Well, no ignition key slot in the car. Its pushbutton start, as long as a fob is in the car.
But again, if the radio transmitter interfered with that, the fall back is to press the fob against the start button. (probably RFID or something, the Chrysler manual is unclear on this). In this case, the alarm would still be armed.
If the radio transmitter interfered with that method as well, I'd be screwed. The actual physical key only unlocks the doors and locks the glove box. There is no keyed engine start option in many (dare I say most?) Keyless entry and Start systems.
Lanier seems to cavalierly disregard the potential for being locked up simply for expressing the truth in open discourse.
I wonder if he, in his wisdom, foresaw a time where government agents or Islamic assassins appear at one's door step simply for expressing an opinion. I can't imagine someone with even a modicum of historical hindsight would dismiss this so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Its an open question as to whether corporations should be taxed at all, a question that even economic theory can't agree on.
I can see both sides of the issue.
There is an interesting article on this issues located here http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CorporateTaxation.html
The upshot seems to be that the appearance of fairness is the best rreason any one can come up with. The counter argument is that shareholders own the corporation, so why not tax them.
In any event its s fairly good read.
What neighbors was exactly correct. No one lived along the banks of the polluted portion of the stream. Go look at a map and stop being so argumentative.
Down wind is not the same as down stream. There are no neighbors down stream along the Creek before it joins the river.
You can read a map can't you?
The stream that ran red was that little stream that runs past the plant, and wanders around in fields before emptying into the river. You couldn't even detect the blood in the river because it was so diluted. You could only see it in that half mile of deserted stream.
Find anyone down wind of any packing plant. They all complain. Yet there wasn't a single complaint of blood in the creek on record until these drone enthusiasts ACCIDENTALLY photographed this stream. They didn't go looking for it. Nobody had any clue.
If they have specific info let them show it to a judge.
This is too wide open for a state government to grant authority to a private company to search your private Internet accounts on nothing more than that same company's say so.
Great idea.
You've done the hard part.
Now run out and have every country pass the same law. Post back when you are done.
Go look a the aerial photos. Nobody lives near that Creek. It's farm land. No houses.
When was the last time you walked out to some random Creek across farm land with no reason to do so?
Lapsed time is about on par for this type of crime. Actually 12 months is pretty short, after all once the story hit the mainstream, you can bet they stopped dumping. And pig blood is not exactly a toxic substance leading to fish die offs.
Further, all the prior complaints were about smell. What packing plant DOESN'T smell.
Would you want to live in a society where police could go anywhere and do anything just because there might be a crime happening some day in that location?
Would you like to be taxed enough to pay for all the cops that would require?
Will you change your tune the minute they kick down your door?
Way to Cherry Pick.
Meanwhile:
Madoff is in Jail for life
2 Generals and two different cabinet officials have been forced to resign
Seattle PD is under Justice Department microscope
Book publishers forced to repay customers for price fixing
BP pays huge fine and has Executives indicted
Entire trading firms under indictment
Its a mixed bag. It always is.
The only loophole I see is this so called "Legitimate investigation" which appears to allow them to demand your Gmail account login, or what ever. So, want access, simply start an "investigation". Its a small loop hole, just barely big enough to drive a battle ship and an aircraft carrier through, side by side.
Who gets to decide "Legitimate investigation"?
Yeah, so what?
You do know what the word "indictment" means don't you? It means it didn't work.
Exactly.
Had the authorities demanded to search the plant for no reason, the same conspiratorial whack jobs posting as AC here would have condemned them for that. Had they flown their own drone it would have been government invasion of privacy. Had government posted stream guards at every stream and river it would be a run away gestapo police state.
When made aware of a crime with clear evidence they took action. Yet virtually every AC posting here twists it into some shallow victory of a hundred citizens standing up to city hall.
On the other hand, they don't own the creek, we do. So why can't we sic our elected officials on them?
See something say something is democracy in action you clown.
I'm getting really sick of this tiresome rant popping up on every single Slashdot story. Government is corrupt. Corporations rule the world. We are all slaves. blah blah blah!
Can't you guys give it a rest?
Why do you always post your rants as AC anyway?
And why twist any poorly phrased summary into a soap box?
There is only this one guy, Gary Mortimer, stating that "public pressure forced the government to act". More likely it was the first time someone brought them proof sufficient to obtain a warrant to search over private lands. You clowns would be the first to complain if the government started flying their own drones, or trespassing across private lands to sample the creek.
Take you tinfoil hat off for just a few minutes each day.
The law states:
Sec. 5. (1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any of the following:
(a) Requesting or requiring an employee to disclose access information to the employer to gain access to or operate any of the following:
(i) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer.
(ii) An account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer, or used for the employer’s business purposes.
(b) Disciplining or discharging an employee for transferring the employer’s proprietary or confidential information or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account without the employer’s authorization.
(c) Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation in any of the following circumstances:
(i) If there is specific information about activity on the employee’s personal internet account, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct.
(ii) If the employer has specific information about an unauthorized transfer of the employer’s proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account.
(d) Restricting or prohibiting an employee’s access to certain websites while using an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or while using an employer’s network or resources, in accordance with state and federal law.
(e) Monitoring, reviewing, or accessing electronic data stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer, or traveling through or stored on an employer’s network, in accordance with state and federal law.
(2) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from complying with a duty to screen employees or applicants prior to hiring or to monitor or retain employee communications that is established under federal law or by a self-regulatory organization, as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the securities and exchange act of 1934, 15 USC 78c(a)(26).
(3) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from viewing, accessing, or utilizing information about an employee or applicant that can be obtained without any required access information or that is available in the public domain.
Sec. 6. (1) This act does not prohibit an educational institution from requesting or requiring a student to disclose access information to the educational institution to gain access to or operate any of the following:
(a) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the educational institution.
(b) An account or service provided by the educational institution that is either obtained by virtue of the student’s admission to the educational institution or used by the student for educational purposes.
Unfortunatly, TFA was not any clearer on this issue. It used the same sentence:
There is one exception, however: 'However, accounts owned by a company or educational institution, such as e-mail, can be requested.'"
Without digging up the legislation itself, I suspect it meant asking for the login information to a Corporate Facebook account by the owning corporation would be permitted, In effect to prevent an employee from holding the account hostage.
Similarly, a university or high school might demand a student surrender their password. (Although you would have to be a pretty clueless sys admin to need such authority.
I'm pretty sure it didn't mean that when being hired at company B, they would be authorized to demand your account credentials at company A, your former employer.
Well said.
Except this bit:
So comparison/contrast is a waste of time.
Here on Slashdot, any excuse to point out anything, anywhere, which is better than what is available in the US is relished. Its the only reason EU people visit Slashdot at all.
THIS.
Thankfully governments realize this, even when the naive tax payer doesn't.
A 10% tax on global revenue by every country you do business in means zero revenue left for companies that have offices in 10 different countries.
If the idea was to eliminate multi-national corporations this would be the tool of choice. There are a lot of people to whom this sounds just fine.
But some of us like using Google even if we don't live in the US, and some of us like driving German cars even though we don't live in Germany.
How about we just close the loopholes? If you have a US based company that is clearly operating a subsidiary, that subsidiary (even foreign) will be subject to US taxation. Far simpler strategy.
You miss the whole point of the story. This story isn't JUST about US tax being avoided.
paid Irish taxes of about $4.64 million on its entire non-U.S. profits of $1.344 billion
The problem here is that Ireland offers ridiculously low tax rates to attract investment and employment.
They realize that the spending and the taxes Ireland gains from income taxes and sales taxes paid by the employees and the jobs that are created helps Ireland more than the corporate tax. So they set crazy low rates cor corporate taxes and Facebook and Google set up data centers there.
I'm hard pressed to declare this a totally bad idea. If it works for Ireland, good for them. If it works for Facebook and Google, how can you blame them for doing exactly what the law was set up to encourage?
The US can fix their tax laws too. They could easily make it more profitable to keep the investment mostly at home. Irish tax and legislation isn't exactly secret sauce. Washington State gives Boeing and Microsoft and Amazon astounding tax breaks just to keep its citizens employed. So do a lot of other states.
Side note: There is a school of thought that says taxing corporations is counter productive, and taxing the compensation AND THE PERKS of people that work for the corporations makes more sense. (Lets not start the corporate owned cars, planes, yachts and houses rant m'Kay? I said "compensation"). When you get right down to it, the reasons corporations are taxed is to gain some measure of government control over them, not to gain any real tax revenue that would not otherwise be collected from shareholders or employees.
True, but then I'm THAT guy that read the manual.
It was also pointed out to me when I took delivery, because that's how you start it when the key fob battery dies.
Apparently enough users have the dead fob problem that dealers point this out.
Well, no ignition key slot in the car. Its pushbutton start, as long as a fob is in the car.
But again, if the radio transmitter interfered with that, the fall back is to press the fob against the start button. (probably RFID or something, the Chrysler manual is unclear on this). In this case, the alarm would still be armed.
If the radio transmitter interfered with that method as well, I'd be screwed. The actual physical key only unlocks the doors and locks the glove box. There is no keyed engine start option in many (dare I say most?) Keyless entry and Start systems.
Key-less is wonderful. Until it isn't.
Chrysler 300.
Same as any high end Dodge Chrysler product.
2012.
Lanier seems to cavalierly disregard the potential for being locked up simply for expressing the truth in open discourse.
I wonder if he, in his wisdom, foresaw a time where government agents or Islamic assassins appear at one's door step simply for expressing an opinion.
I can't imagine someone with even a modicum of historical hindsight would dismiss this so easily.