Financial News

[southsider2k5]

So is it wrong for websites to post the private financial information of my wife, who's a public school teacher? It certainly makes me a bit uncomfortable.

 

Is it wrong, that as a business, I can call experian or dun and bradstreet and buy lists of your names, addresses and phone numbers based upon certain demographics that I give them, that is based upon your credit score? For example, give me a list of everyone in Woodridge, age 35 and over, with personal credit scores of 700+.

 

What private information exactly are you talking about being posted? Salaries?

[NorthSideSox72]

It's illegal to post private financial information of teachers? Then why have I been able to find that information online for public teachers.

 

 

What private information exactly are you talking about being posted? Salaries?

 

I assumed he meant actually private information, which is definitely illegal. If he just means a salary and name, and the teacher is in a publc school, that information is not private or protected.

 

[Balta1701]

I assumed he meant actually private information, which is definitely illegal. If he just means a salary and name, and the teacher is in a publc school, that information is not private or protected.

Yeah, I've gotten salaries, names, seniority info, etc., nothing I'd actually call private, but it surprised me to hear you say that was illegal to give out.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, I've gotten salaries, names, seniority info, etc., nothing I'd actually call private, but it surprised me to hear you say that was illegal to give out.

Sorry, again, I think I misinterpereted what he was saying.

 

[Balta1701]

That is the equivalent of illegal search and seizure being OK, because in the end, evidence of a crime makes it OK. That is also the same as it being OK for people to monitor your communications, because some people use them to commit acts of terrorism. If you don't protect the rule of law for all, you might as well not have it. You don't get to look for something illegally, just because you are pretty sure something illegal has happened. Our justice system doesn't work that way.

Here's the problem though...if a private financial institution is assisting people in breaking the law, and either a government or a set of governments is looking the other way...then we go in a different direction...because now we're going in whistle-blower directions.

 

If there are people using these accounts to bypass tax law, and the bank knows this, then the bank itself is willfully breaking the law, along with the people who are using the accounts.

 

If there are financial firms doing this and this government and other international governments have not stopped them, despite it being reported to them, then those governments are complicit in the scam, and your tax dollars are going to pay for it.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, I've gotten salaries, names, seniority info, etc., nothing I'd actually call private, but it surprised me to hear you say that was illegal to give out.

 

I would hope anything more than pay and positions would be protected information. It certainly should be illegal to attach someone's name to those bits. All though we have salary information for every single office holder in the country, so maybe it is legal.

[Balta1701]

I would hope anything more than pay and positions would be protected information. It certainly should be illegal to attach someone's name to those bits. All though we have salary information for every single office holder in the country, so maybe it is legal.

I've definitely gotten names along with salaries at public universities, quite commonly.

[Jenksismyhero]

they're public employees. pretty sure by law that information is published.

 

edit: actually it looks like they're just deemed public record, so a simple FOIA request would get the info. I think newspapers/websites just post it for the convenience of the public.

 

Why would people be against this? I want to know whatever every public employee makes. Keeps the government accountable for not paying people ridiculous salaries.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

Here's the problem though...if a private financial institution is assisting people in breaking the law, and either a government or a set of governments is looking the other way...then we go in a different direction...because now we're going in whistle-blower directions.

 

If there are people using these accounts to bypass tax law, and the bank knows this, then the bank itself is willfully breaking the law, along with the people who are using the accounts.

 

If there are financial firms doing this and this government and other international governments have not stopped them, despite it being reported to them, then those governments are complicit in the scam, and your tax dollars are going to pay for it.

 

I'm not a fan of deciding and changing laws as you go along. That is a major red flag for sacrificing the rights of individuals. That is slippery slope, ends justifies the means type stuff that everyone was against from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009.

[southsider2k5]

I've definitely gotten names along with salaries at public universities, quite commonly.

 

Honestly, I don't like it at all.

[Balta1701]

I'm not a fan of deciding and changing laws as you go along. That is a major red flag for sacrificing the rights of individuals. That is slippery slope, ends justifies the means type stuff that everyone was against from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009.

So what do you do when the government decides to be in on it? Just put your fingers in your ears and send them a bigger check?

[southsider2k5]

Honestly, I don't like it at all.

 

And to me, it doesn't approach anything like what we are talking about here. #1 if it is legal, it is legal. #2, no ones private banking information and everything that goes along with it is being talked about here.

[southsider2k5]

So what do you do when the government decides to be in on it? Just put your fingers in your ears and send them a bigger check?

 

No obviously you commit more crimes to justify it. Besides there is a massive difference between stealing and releasing private information, and reporting on wrong doing. This could be done a totally different way.

[Balta1701]

No obviously you commit more crimes to justify it. Besides there is a massive difference between stealing and releasing private information, and reporting on wrong doing. This could be done a totally different way.

As far as I can tell, the only reason why this is happening this way is that the governments involved are more than happy to look the other way, if everything alleged is true. Who do you turn to when the government protects the corrupt? You can't turn to some other part of the government.

[southsider2k5]

As far as I can tell, the only reason why this is happening this way is that the governments involved are more than happy to look the other way, if everything alleged is true. Who do you turn to when the government protects the corrupt? You can't turn to some other part of the government.

 

There has to be some sort of respect for law here, otherwise our freedoms are a sham. I know it isn't ideal, but I have said in other situations, that people will die because of our constitutionally protected freedoms. I see this falling under that sort of umbrella. People can't just decide on their own which laws are OK to break, and that be all right either.

[Balta1701]

There has to be some sort of respect for law here, otherwise our freedoms are a sham. I know it isn't ideal, but I have said in other situations, that people will die because of our constitutionally protected freedoms. I see this falling under that sort of umbrella. People can't just decide on their own which laws are OK to break, and that be all right either.

But take note...(again assuming allegations are true) you're quite explicitly choosing which side has to respect the law. By your own standard...if there's no respect for the law then freedoms are a sham...so if a government and a corporation are failing to respect the law, then our freedoms are sham.

[southsider2k5]

But take note...(again assuming allegations are true) you're quite explicitly choosing which side has to respect the law. By your own standard...if there's no respect for the law then freedoms are a sham...so if a government and a corporation are failing to respect the law, then our freedoms are sham.

 

Your logic is circular. If someone like Jared Loughner decides that Obama is committing crimes and breaking the law, should he be able to shoot him to solve that problem? What if he has evidence that Obama is breaking laws that he got from Wikileaks? Where exactly does the line of what you can do when someone else breaks the law end? Who gets to decide that?

[Soxbadger]

There are a lot of different pieces when you discuss legally. Publishing a stolen document may be illegal, it may fall under an exception (newspapers first amendment right to publish.)

 

Thus it starts to get really complicated fast. Is Assanage a journalist. Depending on how you answer that question will take you down different paths of legality.

 

Then you have the whole "whistle blower" idea that could apply. In the end, you also have a surprising amount of jurisdictional questions.

 

Its a hard one.

[Balta1701]

Your logic is circular. If someone like Jared Loughner decides that Obama is committing crimes and breaking the law, should he be able to shoot him to solve that problem? What if he has evidence that Obama is breaking laws that he got from Wikileaks? Where exactly does the line of what you can do when someone else breaks the law end? Who gets to decide that?

Your logic is just as circular here, but we're not going anywhere.

 

I just think it's quite interesting, psychologically, that 2 crimes get committed, you have zero problem with the bank and the government and the people committing the initial crime, and I have no problem if people break the law to expose that crime.

[southsider2k5]

Your logic is just as circular here, but we're not going anywhere.

 

I just think it's quite interesting, psychologically, that 2 crimes get committed, you have zero problem with the bank and the government and the people committing the initial crime, and I have no problem if people break the law to expose that crime.

 

Now that is where your assumption is completely wrong. I NEVER said it was OK. What I said is that illegal means can't be used to justify illegal means. We give all criminals these rights. We can't pick and choose that.

[Balta1701]

Now that is where your assumption is completely wrong. I NEVER said it was OK. What I said is that illegal means can't be used to justify illegal means. We give all criminals these rights. We can't pick and choose that.

You never said it was ok...but you have a problem with any and all reasonable means that could be used to establish that it happened.

 

To me, that's tantamount to acceptance. And if you can afford a government, it's a great way to cover for yourself.

[Soxbadger]

you have zero problem with the bank and the government and the people committing the initial crime,

 

Well its hard to guess when we dont know the accusations, but part of the problem (presumably) is that you are talking about US citizens violating US tax law, through a Swiss company and having a Swiss banker report it to a non-govt entity.

 

The question is, if the guy is doing it purely to report crimes, why was it given to wikileaks exclusively, instead of the IRS, Dept of Justice.

 

I would say if the Swiss banker had turned over the documents to the US, and the US did not take action or completely ignored it, then he would have a good argument that he released it to Wikileaks because of the inaction of the govt. But going directly to wikileaks is concerning.

 

Makes me suspicious.

[Balta1701]

Well its hard to guess when we dont know the accusations, but part of the problem (presumably) is that you are talking about US citizens violating US tax law, through a Swiss company and having a Swiss banker report it to a non-govt entity.

 

The question is, if the guy is doing it purely to report crimes, why was it given to wikileaks exclusively, instead of the IRS, Dept of Justice.

 

I would say if the Swiss banker had turned over the documents to the US, and the US did not take action or completely ignored it, then he would have a good argument that he released it to Wikileaks because of the inaction of the govt. But going directly to wikileaks is concerning.

 

Makes me suspicious.

There's more to this though...as far as I can tell, he has attempted to report it previously but has fallen on deaf ears, which is why he decided to go the data theft route.

[southsider2k5]

You never said it was ok...but you have a problem with any and all reasonable means that could be used to establish that it happened.

 

To me, that's tantamount to acceptance. And if you can afford a government, it's a great way to cover for yourself.

 

"Any and all means", doesn't mean illegal to me. I do not believe in the sacrifice of my rights here.

[Soxbadger]

Well thats why I am going to wait and see before I jump to conclusions. Im just saying that there are circumstances where this is not a crime, there are circumstances where it is a crime.

 

Hard to tell without all of the facts.