mister_monster on Nostr: This is interesting, I hadn't heard about this. Do you have more information about ...
This is interesting, I hadn't heard about this. Do you have more information about this? I'd like to know the details, what information they're handing over and what not.
I know that the IRS is not allowed to report to other agencies without a court order, because otherwise mandatory reporting to the IRS can be construed as self incrimination, so if they are giving information to other agencies as requested or in a blanket order, people can refuse to report income on the grounds that it might incriminate them. This is a very big deal for the IRS, if they do things that might cost them their ability to demand mandatory reporting from the populace, they lose their entire role, so I am skeptical that they're handing over private reported information, but if it's happening it's happening and I'd like to know exactly what is going on. If you know the details I'd love to know them too.
I wouldn't call this an increase in financial surveillance, we are already required to report this stuff, the increase in surveillance happened long ago. I firmly believe all mandatory reporting requirements violate the 4th and are an unlawful search, but that's the world we live in.
As far as the $200 reporting requirement along the border, that's weird. I thought the $10k requirement was a legislative action, is it lawful for the treasury to do that? Again, I'd love details on this because I don't see how they can get away with that if it is happening.
Also on the french guy and other deportation and entry denials of non citizens, I wouldn't call refusal to allow entry, or deportation "prosecution". They're not being punished, just being told to go home. I don't think it's morally wrong for a group of people to decide who's welcome amongst them, in my mind that his nothing but free association, nor do I believe that they owe anybody an explanation as to their criteria. Americans own America and get to decide who they let into their clubhouse, and Americans elected this guy by the rules they created about how to elect presidents. To me that's not controversial at all, is well established and widely accepted everywhere on earth.
I know that the IRS is not allowed to report to other agencies without a court order, because otherwise mandatory reporting to the IRS can be construed as self incrimination, so if they are giving information to other agencies as requested or in a blanket order, people can refuse to report income on the grounds that it might incriminate them. This is a very big deal for the IRS, if they do things that might cost them their ability to demand mandatory reporting from the populace, they lose their entire role, so I am skeptical that they're handing over private reported information, but if it's happening it's happening and I'd like to know exactly what is going on. If you know the details I'd love to know them too.
I wouldn't call this an increase in financial surveillance, we are already required to report this stuff, the increase in surveillance happened long ago. I firmly believe all mandatory reporting requirements violate the 4th and are an unlawful search, but that's the world we live in.
As far as the $200 reporting requirement along the border, that's weird. I thought the $10k requirement was a legislative action, is it lawful for the treasury to do that? Again, I'd love details on this because I don't see how they can get away with that if it is happening.
Also on the french guy and other deportation and entry denials of non citizens, I wouldn't call refusal to allow entry, or deportation "prosecution". They're not being punished, just being told to go home. I don't think it's morally wrong for a group of people to decide who's welcome amongst them, in my mind that his nothing but free association, nor do I believe that they owe anybody an explanation as to their criteria. Americans own America and get to decide who they let into their clubhouse, and Americans elected this guy by the rules they created about how to elect presidents. To me that's not controversial at all, is well established and widely accepted everywhere on earth.