You can go on and tell me I'm wrong, but at least quote me identifying my sources while doing so. The training programs might teach them not to develop that mentality, but the job instills a different message (much like your examples describe). I don't think we disagree at all about what the job is or what it entails, it's just that you seem to think the training stops once a cop hits the street and doesn't start again until they re-enter the classroom. As with any other occupation, this is not the case and what is taught in the classroom very often differs from what is learned in the field.
All that info is on the web. It's also available by asking for it directly from the proper entity in each district.
I never said it wasn't. The information is easy to get and I never argued otherwise. Read the first sentence of what you quoted.
Or just have the customer self-declare the tax rate, and forward his declaration to the appropriate tax authority.
You mean the to an entity that has no jurisdiction outside their own locality?
If he's falsely under-declared, big fine, same as when brick-and-mortar stores take cash to help their customers avoid paying sales tax.
And that's why it's on the buyer to declare when they file their local and/or state taxes.
Again, these aren't new laws, nor are they all that difficult to understand. Given that this situation is already covered by existing laws, and in states that actually care to collect that tax, it has been further clarified that, for transactions where both the buyer and seller have a presence within that state's borders, sales tax is to be collected by the seller (and this is fine, as the state does have jurisdiction within its own borders), why do you think it is necessary to make companies comply with the laws of other jurisdictions? It's not up to the companies you do business with to know your local laws and tax rates, it is up to you. Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; again, this is your responsibility unless, of course, the seller also has a presence in that locality, in which case there is jurisdiction and they must collect tax.
It's pretty damn simple, really. Just like I a cop in Nevada can't arrest me because a cop in California found and confiscated a small amount of pot. Were I to bring that pot into Nevada, sure they could arrest me, but I didn't bring it into their jurisdiction and it's decriminalized in the jurisdiction where I did (hypothetically) have it. Taxes work the same way; if they didn't, you'd have to pay income tax for every state in which your employer has a presence, rather than just the one in which you reside. The Federal Government wants their ~20% and 42 other states want an average of 4.519% each (189.798%), for a grand total of 209.798% of your income. Can you pay that? Is that really a can of worms you want to open?
Your first paragraph is spot on (as is your second, but I have no commentary on that at this point) and this is the exact reason s corrupt cop is a bad cop even if he puts away the right guy 99.9% of the time. When a cop is following proper procedures and puts away the wrong guy, all of his prior conviction-bearing arrests hold up and the criminals stay behind bars; but, when a corrupt cop puts away (or kills) the wrong guy and gets found out, all of his prior arrests are called into question and criminals go free.
That's actually how the system should work, though; it's a good thing, in a way. People should only be punished when they're proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be guilty, and nobody arrested by an evidence-planting corrupt cop can be proven guilty to that standard. Even if the arresting officer is one of the majority of good cops, simply having a corrupt cop involved in the investigation puts the whole case in jeopardy. This is the real problem with police corruption.
Are you seriously suggesting that the real problem with police racism is the other way around? LOL.
No, I don't think that was tompaulco's intent at all. In fact, police on the US are trained to believe that they,themselves, are a superior race. The racism is cop vs non-cop, not black vs white. Seriously, if you personally know any cops it becomes quite clear. For reference, my sources for this information include a retired cop, a retired dispatcher, and a US customs agent.
No, not short memory, there wasn't nearly the widespread coverage of that incident that we see every time a white cop shoots a black man. It is just a likely that tompaulco had knot heard about that incident until reading that article after you linked to it. I know this is certainly the first I'm hearing of it. FO it to be a case of short memory, one would have to have prior knowledge.
And it's not even a race issue, it's a media issue. The media is trying to make it into a race issue by over-reporting white-cop-on-black-victim violence and under-reporting black-cop-on-white-victim violence. I'm not sure what agenda they're pushing, but there's no way it will lead to anything positive. We also never hear about police violence involving other races, with the exception of Luis Rodriguez last February; if you specifically search for "mexican beaten to death by police" you do get a few results, but none of them were prominently featured anywhere.
How about you read the consent decree you referenced? Hell, to save you the trouble of opening the PDF, I even quoted the paragraph in question. Again it's the very first paragraph of the document you referenced, for which you provided the link. Notice how I'm no longer arguing? There's a reason for that. Good day to you.
Awesome, now implement rules for all of them. Plus Canada. And Mexico. Don't forget the other several hundred countries with sales tax, and all of the districts therein. Meanwhile, brick and mortar stores only have to charge their local sales tax, which makes sense because they're only using the local resources that sales tax pays for. There is a reason you are supposed to declare non-taxed out-of-state purchases and pay your local sales tax on them each year; because sales tax is intended to be paid to the locality in which the buyer resides and that locality has no jurisdiction over a seller in another state. Its been that way since long before the internet (think mail-order catalogs) but an alarmingly small percentage of the population actually knows they're breaking the law when they don't pay their local sales tax on such transactions, and those who do know largely don't care.
I posted prematurely. Regulatory matters are, in fact, a type of civil matter. Go ahead and nit-pick about the specifics as if they actually matter. And keep assuming I don't know what industry (not technical) terms like CPNI mean when they're defined right in the document you referenced, which also states that CPNI was, in fact, a part of this issue.
The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) has entered into a Consent Decree to resolve its investigation into whether AT&T Services,
Inc. (AT&T or Company) failed to properly protect the confidentiality of almost 280,000 customers’
proprietary information, including sensitive personal information such as customers’ names and at least
the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, as well as account-related data known as customer
proprietary network information (CPNI), in connection with data breaches at AT&T call centers in
Mexico, Columbia, and the Philippines.
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake and are conflicting you own arguments in the process. Buh-bye.
To be quite honest, I didn't read the article so I was making some assumptions. Because of that, the term "civil penalty" never came into play, though I do know what it means, thank you. That being said, show me an instance where a civilian got off with a slap on the wrist violating FCC regulations regarding securing CPNI and I'll agree with you. Trial or no trial, this is a civil matter with actual victims involved; people don't get breaks in these instances like they do on traffic tickets. Or murder, for that matter. My point still stands despite my incorrect assumption.
You understand it was AT&T's corporate policy of displaying social security numbers and billing data in plaintext to tier 1 contracted support who don't need access to that data that lead to it being stolen, right?
Where is this information coming from. It is not in the article.
Knowing, personally, an AT&T support rep who has, on numerous occasions, told me how appalled she is that this information is accessible to anyone from tier 1 on up.
It is funny how people get a break on a first offense but companies don't.
It's funny how this was a civil trial, where people don't get a break for their first offense, but you think it's cool that companies do.
AT&T didn't sell the information this time. Some AT&T employees stole the information and sold it. AT&T is being fined for having lax procedures that allowed the original theft.
Yes, they allowed the data to be stolen. They didn't put in place anything even resembling reasonable access restrictions, no safeguards to keep the low-level employees who don't need customers' social security numbers and banking information (yes, they have access to that, too; it's amazing that wasn't also stolen, or maybe it was) from accessing that information. In fact, not only did they not prevent said access, they fed them the data, they put it right there in the portal they provide their support reps, where it's on display for the duration of the support call. It's not a matter of incompetent security measures, it's a matter of gross negligence in how they handle customer data and they should bear much more liability for that negligence than one might be expected to bear for incompetence.
What is your solution?
Maybe a fine that equates to a liability of more than $100 per person whose data they allowed to be stolen and sold? After all, this trial was about liability, right? And damages? Maybe convincing them to fix the problem? I don't think 0.02% of their annual revenue will do that.
By the way, the use of profanity does not strengthen your argument.
Well, I guess it's a good thing my intent was to express frustration, then.
Well, yes, AT&T is also a common carrier so they can avoid liability for the data they transmit, but not a common carrier so they can throttle. Why would they play the corporation card any differently? They're also expanding their DSL network to cover everyone in the US so they can get government money to do it, but they're not expanding to rural areas because it's too expensive. Oh, and they're a utility provider of telephone services (POTS) so they can get government money to maintain the copper network, but they're not (U-Verse Voice) so they don't have maintain any mandatory minimum service levels. I could go on all day like this; I've never seen a company as two-faced as AT&T.
So they won't do this again, they'll do something else, and it'll be the first time they did that. Will just a slap on the wrist be okay, then, too? This isn't the first time AT&T has fucked their customers, that's SPO for them, but let's look at it in as fine-grained of a manner as possible and say "it's okay, just don't do this exact thing again".
Or, maybe they will do it again but, next time, they'll sell information to criminals using the information for identity theft instead of unlocking stolen phones. Is that different enough to warrant yet another slap on the wrist?
Wake the fuck up and realize that AT&T, Comcast, and the like will simply adjust their behavior just enough that people like you well say "oh, well that's something different" so they never suffer anything amounting to more than a warning shot across their bow, as they've been doing for decades, until people like you stop accepting it.
Nothing in the AC post you were replying to was my original point, as it was not my post.
That being said, the very part of that AC post that you actually quoted is just another phrasing of the part of my post you are claiming was not the original point. That is to say "states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes" because "they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders".
I was smart enough to move to a state without sales tax.
There's nothing in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, or New Hampshire that interests me enough to want to live in any of those places and, while parts of I might like the Portland vibe, I'm not a big fan of Oregon's weather. I'll keep paying my sales tax and enjoying the beauty that surrounds me in California, thank you very much. If "no sales tax" was even a factor in your decision of which state to live in, I don't even want to know what factors you ignored to fool yourself into thinking you were making a wise decision.
While that is true, they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders and, therefore, can not make them collect the tax on your behalf as they can do with local businesses. That is why you are legally required to pay sales tax on all interstate purchases for which sales tax was not otherwise collected.
You think a mom-and-pop internet business should have to deal with tax law in over a hundred different jurisdictions over the world?
It's much worse than that; there are over 70 in Florida alone! It was a nightmare when a client of mine realized they needed to be collecting sales tax based on the buyer's location when shipping to a FL address.
Can you download the kernel code used by Ubiquiti? If so, please tell me where. If not, well... Under the GPL, that source code is the property of anyone to whom they distribute a product that makes use of the code in any format (including binary) and they've simply stolen that code from those people. Personally, I think it's silly to call it stealing, as well, but that's effectively what the GPL does in these instance. It's not right, but it's not stealing, either.
Why yes, if you use Google's apps and services, or have Android's built-in backup functionality enabled, it necessarily has to contact Google's servers. Your point? The Android device I keep in my car for monitoring OBD-II metrics has no Google services installed or enabled and never attempts to phone home; it's not like they're doing it without purpose.
You don't get it; I wouldn't have taken flak for the easter egg but, rather, for actually having tested something. Documenting that would have resulted in disciplinary action. I left for a reason.
Funny, I have complete control over the vanilla Android install on my Nexus 6. A little root here, xposed framework there, and it's off to the races. I disliked CM so much. when I tried it, that I went back to stock firmware on my Atrix. And again on my One X, and my One M7, and yet again my G3; it's not like I haven't given CM a chance, I've given it plenty. And yes, you can uninstall anything from vanilla Android, even the Google apps; getting them back once you've removed Play Store or Play Services is a bit of work if you're not comfortable with your aftermarket bootloader of choice and/or fastboot, but that can be done as well.
Just because you couldn't figure out how to do it (simple, every app on a vanilla Android install is just like every other app) doesn't mean it can't be done.
Slashdot Mirror
You can go on and tell me I'm wrong, but at least quote me identifying my sources while doing so. The training programs might teach them not to develop that mentality, but the job instills a different message (much like your examples describe). I don't think we disagree at all about what the job is or what it entails, it's just that you seem to think the training stops once a cop hits the street and doesn't start again until they re-enter the classroom. As with any other occupation, this is not the case and what is taught in the classroom very often differs from what is learned in the field.
All that info is on the web. It's also available by asking for it directly from the proper entity in each district.
I never said it wasn't. The information is easy to get and I never argued otherwise. Read the first sentence of what you quoted.
Or just have the customer self-declare the tax rate, and forward his declaration to the appropriate tax authority.
You mean the to an entity that has no jurisdiction outside their own locality?
If he's falsely under-declared, big fine, same as when brick-and-mortar stores take cash to help their customers avoid paying sales tax.
And that's why it's on the buyer to declare when they file their local and/or state taxes.
Again, these aren't new laws, nor are they all that difficult to understand. Given that this situation is already covered by existing laws, and in states that actually care to collect that tax, it has been further clarified that, for transactions where both the buyer and seller have a presence within that state's borders, sales tax is to be collected by the seller (and this is fine, as the state does have jurisdiction within its own borders), why do you think it is necessary to make companies comply with the laws of other jurisdictions? It's not up to the companies you do business with to know your local laws and tax rates, it is up to you. Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; again, this is your responsibility unless, of course, the seller also has a presence in that locality, in which case there is jurisdiction and they must collect tax.
It's pretty damn simple, really. Just like I a cop in Nevada can't arrest me because a cop in California found and confiscated a small amount of pot. Were I to bring that pot into Nevada, sure they could arrest me, but I didn't bring it into their jurisdiction and it's decriminalized in the jurisdiction where I did (hypothetically) have it. Taxes work the same way; if they didn't, you'd have to pay income tax for every state in which your employer has a presence, rather than just the one in which you reside. The Federal Government wants their ~20% and 42 other states want an average of 4.519% each (189.798%), for a grand total of 209.798% of your income. Can you pay that? Is that really a can of worms you want to open?
Didn't think so.
This isn't police corruption, it's police brutality
No, it was both. You did see him plant the stun gun on the guy after the fact, right?
Your first paragraph is spot on (as is your second, but I have no commentary on that at this point) and this is the exact reason s corrupt cop is a bad cop even if he puts away the right guy 99.9% of the time. When a cop is following proper procedures and puts away the wrong guy, all of his prior conviction-bearing arrests hold up and the criminals stay behind bars; but, when a corrupt cop puts away (or kills) the wrong guy and gets found out, all of his prior arrests are called into question and criminals go free.
That's actually how the system should work, though; it's a good thing, in a way. People should only be punished when they're proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be guilty, and nobody arrested by an evidence-planting corrupt cop can be proven guilty to that standard. Even if the arresting officer is one of the majority of good cops, simply having a corrupt cop involved in the investigation puts the whole case in jeopardy. This is the real problem with police corruption.
Are you seriously suggesting that the real problem with police racism is the other way around? LOL.
No, I don't think that was tompaulco's intent at all. In fact, police on the US are trained to believe that they,themselves, are a superior race. The racism is cop vs non-cop, not black vs white. Seriously, if you personally know any cops it becomes quite clear. For reference, my sources for this information include a retired cop, a retired dispatcher, and a US customs agent.
No, not short memory, there wasn't nearly the widespread coverage of that incident that we see every time a white cop shoots a black man. It is just a likely that tompaulco had knot heard about that incident until reading that article after you linked to it. I know this is certainly the first I'm hearing of it. FO it to be a case of short memory, one would have to have prior knowledge.
And it's not even a race issue, it's a media issue. The media is trying to make it into a race issue by over-reporting white-cop-on-black-victim violence and under-reporting black-cop-on-white-victim violence. I'm not sure what agenda they're pushing, but there's no way it will lead to anything positive. We also never hear about police violence involving other races, with the exception of Luis Rodriguez last February; if you specifically search for "mexican beaten to death by police" you do get a few results, but none of them were prominently featured anywhere.
It is already too late to go through the judicial process.
Where the hell do you live that there's an SoL on murder?
How about you read the consent decree you referenced? Hell, to save you the trouble of opening the PDF, I even quoted the paragraph in question. Again it's the very first paragraph of the document you referenced, for which you provided the link. Notice how I'm no longer arguing? There's a reason for that. Good day to you.
Awesome, now implement rules for all of them. Plus Canada. And Mexico. Don't forget the other several hundred countries with sales tax, and all of the districts therein. Meanwhile, brick and mortar stores only have to charge their local sales tax, which makes sense because they're only using the local resources that sales tax pays for. There is a reason you are supposed to declare non-taxed out-of-state purchases and pay your local sales tax on them each year; because sales tax is intended to be paid to the locality in which the buyer resides and that locality has no jurisdiction over a seller in another state. Its been that way since long before the internet (think mail-order catalogs) but an alarmingly small percentage of the population actually knows they're breaking the law when they don't pay their local sales tax on such transactions, and those who do know largely don't care.
I posted prematurely. Regulatory matters are, in fact, a type of civil matter. Go ahead and nit-pick about the specifics as if they actually matter. And keep assuming I don't know what industry (not technical) terms like CPNI mean when they're defined right in the document you referenced, which also states that CPNI was, in fact, a part of this issue.
On that note, good day, sir.
By the way, this has nothing to do with CPNI
Paragraph 1 of the consent decree begs to differ.
The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has entered into a Consent Decree to resolve its investigation into whether AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T or Company) failed to properly protect the confidentiality of almost 280,000 customers’ proprietary information, including sensitive personal information such as customers’ names and at least the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, as well as account-related data known as customer proprietary network information (CPNI), in connection with data breaches at AT&T call centers in Mexico, Columbia, and the Philippines.
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake and are conflicting you own arguments in the process. Buh-bye.
To be quite honest, I didn't read the article so I was making some assumptions. Because of that, the term "civil penalty" never came into play, though I do know what it means, thank you. That being said, show me an instance where a civilian got off with a slap on the wrist violating FCC regulations regarding securing CPNI and I'll agree with you. Trial or no trial, this is a civil matter with actual victims involved; people don't get breaks in these instances like they do on traffic tickets. Or murder, for that matter. My point still stands despite my incorrect assumption.
You understand it was AT&T's corporate policy of displaying social security numbers and billing data in plaintext to tier 1 contracted support who don't need access to that data that lead to it being stolen, right?
Where is this information coming from. It is not in the article.
Knowing, personally, an AT&T support rep who has, on numerous occasions, told me how appalled she is that this information is accessible to anyone from tier 1 on up.
It is funny how people get a break on a first offense but companies don't.
It's funny how this was a civil trial, where people don't get a break for their first offense, but you think it's cool that companies do.
AT&T didn't sell the information this time. Some AT&T employees stole the information and sold it. AT&T is being fined for having lax procedures that allowed the original theft.
Yes, they allowed the data to be stolen. They didn't put in place anything even resembling reasonable access restrictions, no safeguards to keep the low-level employees who don't need customers' social security numbers and banking information (yes, they have access to that, too; it's amazing that wasn't also stolen, or maybe it was) from accessing that information. In fact, not only did they not prevent said access, they fed them the data, they put it right there in the portal they provide their support reps, where it's on display for the duration of the support call. It's not a matter of incompetent security measures, it's a matter of gross negligence in how they handle customer data and they should bear much more liability for that negligence than one might be expected to bear for incompetence.
What is your solution?
Maybe a fine that equates to a liability of more than $100 per person whose data they allowed to be stolen and sold? After all, this trial was about liability, right? And damages? Maybe convincing them to fix the problem? I don't think 0.02% of their annual revenue will do that.
By the way, the use of profanity does not strengthen your argument.
Well, I guess it's a good thing my intent was to express frustration, then.
Well, yes, AT&T is also a common carrier so they can avoid liability for the data they transmit, but not a common carrier so they can throttle. Why would they play the corporation card any differently? They're also expanding their DSL network to cover everyone in the US so they can get government money to do it, but they're not expanding to rural areas because it's too expensive. Oh, and they're a utility provider of telephone services (POTS) so they can get government money to maintain the copper network, but they're not (U-Verse Voice) so they don't have maintain any mandatory minimum service levels. I could go on all day like this; I've never seen a company as two-faced as AT&T.
Typo... SPO should be SOP. People, this is why we proofread.
So they won't do this again, they'll do something else, and it'll be the first time they did that. Will just a slap on the wrist be okay, then, too? This isn't the first time AT&T has fucked their customers, that's SPO for them, but let's look at it in as fine-grained of a manner as possible and say "it's okay, just don't do this exact thing again".
Or, maybe they will do it again but, next time, they'll sell information to criminals using the information for identity theft instead of unlocking stolen phones. Is that different enough to warrant yet another slap on the wrist?
Wake the fuck up and realize that AT&T, Comcast, and the like will simply adjust their behavior just enough that people like you well say "oh, well that's something different" so they never suffer anything amounting to more than a warning shot across their bow, as they've been doing for decades, until people like you stop accepting it.
That being said, the very part of that AC post that you actually quoted is just another phrasing of the part of my post you are claiming was not the original point. That is to say "states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes" because "they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders".
I was smart enough to move to a state without sales tax.
There's nothing in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, or New Hampshire that interests me enough to want to live in any of those places and, while parts of I might like the Portland vibe, I'm not a big fan of Oregon's weather. I'll keep paying my sales tax and enjoying the beauty that surrounds me in California, thank you very much. If "no sales tax" was even a factor in your decision of which state to live in, I don't even want to know what factors you ignored to fool yourself into thinking you were making a wise decision.
While that is true, they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders and, therefore, can not make them collect the tax on your behalf as they can do with local businesses. That is why you are legally required to pay sales tax on all interstate purchases for which sales tax was not otherwise collected.
You do do that, right?
You think a mom-and-pop internet business should have to deal with tax law in over a hundred different jurisdictions over the world?
It's much worse than that; there are over 70 in Florida alone! It was a nightmare when a client of mine realized they needed to be collecting sales tax based on the buyer's location when shipping to a FL address.
Can you download the kernel code used by Ubiquiti? If so, please tell me where. If not, well... Under the GPL, that source code is the property of anyone to whom they distribute a product that makes use of the code in any format (including binary) and they've simply stolen that code from those people. Personally, I think it's silly to call it stealing, as well, but that's effectively what the GPL does in these instance. It's not right, but it's not stealing, either.
Why yes, if you use Google's apps and services, or have Android's built-in backup functionality enabled, it necessarily has to contact Google's servers. Your point? The Android device I keep in my car for monitoring OBD-II metrics has no Google services installed or enabled and never attempts to phone home; it's not like they're doing it without purpose.
You don't get it; I wouldn't have taken flak for the easter egg but, rather, for actually having tested something. Documenting that would have resulted in disciplinary action. I left for a reason.
Funny, I have complete control over the vanilla Android install on my Nexus 6. A little root here, xposed framework there, and it's off to the races. I disliked CM so much. when I tried it, that I went back to stock firmware on my Atrix. And again on my One X, and my One M7, and yet again my G3; it's not like I haven't given CM a chance, I've given it plenty. And yes, you can uninstall anything from vanilla Android, even the Google apps; getting them back once you've removed Play Store or Play Services is a bit of work if you're not comfortable with your aftermarket bootloader of choice and/or fastboot, but that can be done as well.
Just because you couldn't figure out how to do it (simple, every app on a vanilla Android install is just like every other app) doesn't mean it can't be done.