What are the assurances that they don’t already have the data? This would be the largest data breach in US history that would make the OPM breach look like a stolen garden gnome in comparison.
I doubt there are any real assurances considering this:
> the career official who was in charge of that program resigned rather than grant the request. He was later replaced by a DOGE staffer on assignment to Treasury.
I do my best at work, and if my employer tells me to do something I don't agree with I continue choosing my actions, at the risk of getting fired. Point is, it's on them to fire me.
I've only ever resigned when I don't want to do the work anymore or I'm moving away.
I've never made over ~$60k/year, and I'm fine with that; many ways to be rich.
Also, I like the idea of public luxury, private sufficiency.
The practice of resigning rather than follow illegal/immoral orders seems ill suited to operating in a context where the leadership is an active adversary and can instantly replace you with someone who will just do the thing. I feel like civil servants need to internalize that the old customary practices are based on a context where there are checks and balances in the system, as well as standards of decency and democratic accountability, that make these sorts of formal actions have teeth. When none of that exists a principled resignation is basically just saying “My principles make me a hurdle to your attempts at violating the Constitutional rights of the public, so let me just get out of the way so you can sprint towards that goal more easily.”
Obviously though, it’s the dirty hands problem. 99% of the time we don’t want civil servants to do this because 99% of the time the President isn’t actively trying to unmake the Constitutional order. It’s very problematic to have civil servants thinking their judgement should overrule their leadership, but we’re in extraordinary times and there is no leadership of an opposition movement that can coordinate to set any sort of guardrails around that kind of willful insubordination.
> for the government to have access to government data
It is very much under dispute whether or not the data has been used/shared in a legal manner.
Imagine a new CEO arrives at <b2b platform tech company> and has stated their top goal is to cut costs and improve efficiency.
Then imagine this CEO brings in outside technical people and instructs the existing security team to grant full access to all customer data. They plan to analyze this data to assess how customer’s use of the platform impacts operating costs.
This would be insanely inappropriate and would likely breach customer contracts and break privacy laws. It is of little comfort that the “breach” is wholly “inside” the company.
In almost every large organization, there are numerous internal boundaries that large amounts of data should never cross for any reason. Framing this as “the government having access to government data” is problematic, for the same reason a tech company allowing unfettered access to customer data for some analysis project could not be described in good faith as “the company having access to company data”.
Exactly who it is within the organization that has access to the data and how that access aligns with existing laws/policies is extremely important.
> it's not a data breach for the government to have access to government data
This absurd oversimplification needs to be called out.
The 'government' is not a single individual, nor should 'government data' be treated without regards to specifics.
The exact entity doing the accessing, and the exact data that's being accessed, all need to be accounted for, and the appropriateness of the access will change depending on the context.
DOGE hasn't been transparent in any of this, which is my chief complaint at the moment.
Then why do we have different levels of security clearance?
Obviously we have an extensive framework for data security within the government that is built upon the idea that compartmentalization of data and limiting access is incredibly important.
Even in situations where it is unavoidable that someone have access to data as a function of their job requirements, we very frequently have strict logging and auditing of access to that data. You might not be able to reasonably prevent a DBA from having access to the information in a database and allow them to still perform their work, but plenty of places will log and audit every action they take and review them accessing that data.
We know there are people in DOGE that clearly would not pass security screenings for access to the data that they have - one of them was recently fired for leaking data from their previous employer!
Acting like the fact that they are nominally part of the government so it is OK for them to have basically unfettered access to all sots of sensitive information is bizarre to me.
It can very much so be a data breach for government to "have access to" other agencies' data. Check whether U.S.C. § 3552(b)(2) contains any exceptions or carve-outs for government agencies!
One of the main points of privacy legislation is to functionally limit the government's ability to collect, use, disclose, and retain personal information in the first place. That's entirely contrary to the idea that government departments can share or access it pell-mell.
you have a lot of faith that Big Balls hasn't been compromised. Because surely none of them are using their personal smartphones or laptops and are following strict access protocols. Seeing that they are so so careful with everything else they've been doing.
I feel like this is a bad episode of the Twilight Zone.
"the front door and all windows are open, but don't worry. No one robbed the house yet so it's not a robbery "
I wouldn't discount such reckless vulnerabilities happening here. Any decent IT department would faint imagining the overtime needed to fix such issues.
What is the data classification of the data that they're accessing? Are they authorized to view it? Did they follow the normal procedures for accessing that data? Was their access limited to the information they needed to perform their stated function and nothing else? Was the data stored on or transferred through any systems that were not adequately secured?
It is entirely possible for an insider or internal data incident to be a "breach," regardless of whether the data leaked outside the org or they had the permission of the President. If someone came in to my office with an employee badge, said that they had been personally hired by the CEO, and demanded super admin access to all systems, I would laugh in their face. If anyone actually agreed to that person's demands, it would be a massive, all-hands-on-deck incident to figure out what they touched and how much we were going to get fined for the breach in security controls.
If the Treasury gets access to the CIA’s data that’s a data breach. Treasury does not have a compelling need to use that data and if they do, there are processes to determine that need and agreements to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to handle and manage that data.
Yeah in theory they’re both parts of “the government” but “government” is a big umbrella that comprises a bunch of separate entities, each with varying degrees of independence from each other. We’re used to thinking of it all as one entity because we’re used to operating under political leadership that isn’t actively trying to destroy the government. But now that they are, the separation of duties matters a lot more. All of this stuff is happening either in violation of, or indifference to the actual law.
We can be all but certain that the CCP has its tendrils into Big Balls' phone and computers. A bunch of idiots with no opsec skills makes for easy pickings.
I was pretty nervous about voterfile / irs data merges. I sensed this was headed towards building retribution tools for those who didn't vote for the admin.
Why bother when you can delete all the organizations responsible for ensuring a valid election then rig it using the same methods as the Russians do. Only thing in your way are state level officials, but they are easy enough to steamroll with "Federal Investigations" by your newly appointed investigators.
Who cares how someone voted at that point. Voting just becomes an exercise in futility.
Could you provide me some links or background on this? I did a couple of lazy searches and didn't find anything. I knew they tracked that you voted, but not who/what you voted for, if that's what you're saying, unless you mean party affiliation.
Join that with Drivers license -> Voter registration number.
Search the voter records (if the states still have them) with the issued ballot number to that voter registration number and bingo. You got voting records.
Think most states discard actual ballots over time though so maybe old data might be gone. Republican states garbage as they are probably stored this election for some reason. I bet you can guess what that reason is.
I think it's premature to rule this out. Trump has previously abused government agencies to harass his opponents, so why wouldn't he and Musk use IRS data for this purpose?
Replace DOGE with any subcontractor or executive pen authorization in the last 20 years. What makes you think what you are afraid of happening right now has not already happened? Too late may have left the room a long time ago and we are just wasting our breath fearing the corpse of the boogie man
contractors are given limited access within a clearly defined scope and procedures in place to ensure that they don't do anything they shouldn't. This is _not_ what is happening here, where DOGE has unfettered access, with those who offer resistance being fired or resigning.
Well, contractors are typically not hellbent on destroying everything they touch, for one. Oh, and they have actual clearance, and consequences if they deliberately ruin something.
Good. If, however, DOGE gets access, then, like some Nordic countries, I think we should demand public disclosure of all of it.
The public deserves seeing what the richest rich pay in taxes, the middle class, and the poor. There’s so much fud and fog in the political discourse around tax burden.
Current POTUS famously, notoriously, refused to disclose his, as has been tradition.
Actually the kernel of a good idea. Over a certain level of wealth taxpayers have a right to know why you're denying them millions of dollars of income, so your tax returns are a legitimate public interest.
Basically if you're paying close to the "full amount" of your tax rate in say the $5 million dollar range, then no disclosure required. If you're substantially under that your deductions should be public.
My issue with this is that it still won't make people happy, because ultimately people care about wealth too. Like say some big CEO's income is $100M/year. And they pay half of it in taxes. Then after a decade they have half a billion dollars. Will people be content seeing that? Or still be unhappy at the obscene wealth?
But you're just defining the "full amount" as what you think they should pay. If they're abiding by the tax code, they are paying what the law considers "the full amount".
It would not be discriminatory to say "we're going to publicize the returns of anyone who commits tax fraud". It would be discriminator to publicize the returns of anyone the Marxist hive mind thinks should pay more taxes than they are legally required to.
If the rich commit tax fraud, put them in jail. If they don't "pay their fair share of taxes" but don't commit any crime in so doing, be mad at the people who wrote the tax code.
Oh god you're right. I heard that some vendors are already buying data from credit card companies and joining that with their data on you to do price discrimination but this will enable price discrimination on a country wide level. :/
The multiple daily submissions about DOGE are getting a bit tiresome and are offtopic for HackerNews IMO. Unless they're doing something technically interesting I'm not sure why it has to be posted here. Judging by the fact that they make the front page daily I seem to be in the minority though, so whatever.
HN's in for some rough waters as far as typical de-facto (or community) editorial policy, since half of SV and even PG himself have declared for the fascists, one of whom (another SV darling, and also a fascist, that is) is the richest man on the planet, twice gave an entirely unambiguous nazi salute at the inauguration (in case anyone was still confused about what kind of people we're dealing with) and is now running roughshod over the government while every word that comes out of his mouth, somehow, (even the prepositions and articles!) is brain-meltingly stupid to anyone who has half a clue about anything in this realm.
On the front page there is 1 DOGE article. I didn't even find this on the front page. So at the very best this is 3% of the front page at any given time, when people aren't flagging the stories.
^Judging by the fact that they make the front page daily I seem to be in the minority though, so whatever.
Yes, but it'd be nice if there were insights in the comments not present in the original text on these sorts of political articles. I have not seen that lately, and frankly "anything that good hackers would find interesting" has become so tortured as to become meaningless. People are missing the "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic" line that follows.
The real issue is that there are too many articles on the front page that everyone can participate in (news, 150 word anecdotes on AI, language/editor wars, ...). If there is too much pent up demand for those topics, it should just be moved to a certain day of the week. I think you could more or less violently suppress it while having very limited collateral damage on actual technical discussions. And by allowing politics to remain on the front page for many days, you basically slowly change the composition of the community to people who want to debate politics all the time, which is explicitly not the intent of HN. I'm probably violating the guidelines by complaining instead of silently flagging the article, but hoping this inspires other people to start flagging as well.
I have mixed feelings. It's a potentially great manifestation of zero-trust and insider risks, and why you should collect less data to begin with. Or maybe not, idk. Could see interesting discussions in theory, but I'm not sure I have so far.
It's a historic tech-related government coup, which I'd think is of great interest to "Hackers". It's very rare that a bunch of tech whiz-kids are so directly embedded in current events. For better or worse, Musk and his minions are very much at the forefront of tech related news for the forseeable future.
https://lobste.rs seems to still have technical focus. The issue I have with the comments is that a lot of them don't go into technical issues per se, and are not based on first hand information. What would be useful is if somebody in the government could post specifics about their abuses.
you might want to have a few special agents swing by big balls' apartment and go through whatever hard drives can be found. ive got to think they've already made an offsite backup.
https://archive.is/fEtbi
What are the assurances that they don’t already have the data? This would be the largest data breach in US history that would make the OPM breach look like a stolen garden gnome in comparison.
I doubt there are any real assurances considering this:
> the career official who was in charge of that program resigned rather than grant the request. He was later replaced by a DOGE staffer on assignment to Treasury.
I do my best at work, and if my employer tells me to do something I don't agree with I continue choosing my actions, at the risk of getting fired. Point is, it's on them to fire me. I've only ever resigned when I don't want to do the work anymore or I'm moving away.
I've never made over ~$60k/year, and I'm fine with that; many ways to be rich.
Also, I like the idea of public luxury, private sufficiency.
The practice of resigning rather than follow illegal/immoral orders seems ill suited to operating in a context where the leadership is an active adversary and can instantly replace you with someone who will just do the thing. I feel like civil servants need to internalize that the old customary practices are based on a context where there are checks and balances in the system, as well as standards of decency and democratic accountability, that make these sorts of formal actions have teeth. When none of that exists a principled resignation is basically just saying “My principles make me a hurdle to your attempts at violating the Constitutional rights of the public, so let me just get out of the way so you can sprint towards that goal more easily.”
Obviously though, it’s the dirty hands problem. 99% of the time we don’t want civil servants to do this because 99% of the time the President isn’t actively trying to unmake the Constitutional order. It’s very problematic to have civil servants thinking their judgement should overrule their leadership, but we’re in extraordinary times and there is no leadership of an opposition movement that can coordinate to set any sort of guardrails around that kind of willful insubordination.
3 replies →
Again, it's not a data breach for the government to have access to government data. If it gets outside then it's a data breach.
DOGE has enough real problems that we don't need to cry wolf about its hypothetical (although maybe "inevitable") future actions.
> for the government to have access to government data
It is very much under dispute whether or not the data has been used/shared in a legal manner.
Imagine a new CEO arrives at <b2b platform tech company> and has stated their top goal is to cut costs and improve efficiency.
Then imagine this CEO brings in outside technical people and instructs the existing security team to grant full access to all customer data. They plan to analyze this data to assess how customer’s use of the platform impacts operating costs.
This would be insanely inappropriate and would likely breach customer contracts and break privacy laws. It is of little comfort that the “breach” is wholly “inside” the company.
In almost every large organization, there are numerous internal boundaries that large amounts of data should never cross for any reason. Framing this as “the government having access to government data” is problematic, for the same reason a tech company allowing unfettered access to customer data for some analysis project could not be described in good faith as “the company having access to company data”.
Exactly who it is within the organization that has access to the data and how that access aligns with existing laws/policies is extremely important.
2 replies →
> it's not a data breach for the government to have access to government data
This absurd oversimplification needs to be called out.
The 'government' is not a single individual, nor should 'government data' be treated without regards to specifics.
The exact entity doing the accessing, and the exact data that's being accessed, all need to be accounted for, and the appropriateness of the access will change depending on the context.
DOGE hasn't been transparent in any of this, which is my chief complaint at the moment.
Then why do we have different levels of security clearance?
Obviously we have an extensive framework for data security within the government that is built upon the idea that compartmentalization of data and limiting access is incredibly important.
Even in situations where it is unavoidable that someone have access to data as a function of their job requirements, we very frequently have strict logging and auditing of access to that data. You might not be able to reasonably prevent a DBA from having access to the information in a database and allow them to still perform their work, but plenty of places will log and audit every action they take and review them accessing that data.
We know there are people in DOGE that clearly would not pass security screenings for access to the data that they have - one of them was recently fired for leaking data from their previous employer!
Acting like the fact that they are nominally part of the government so it is OK for them to have basically unfettered access to all sots of sensitive information is bizarre to me.
It can very much so be a data breach for government to "have access to" other agencies' data. Check whether U.S.C. § 3552(b)(2) contains any exceptions or carve-outs for government agencies!
One of the main points of privacy legislation is to functionally limit the government's ability to collect, use, disclose, and retain personal information in the first place. That's entirely contrary to the idea that government departments can share or access it pell-mell.
you have a lot of faith that Big Balls hasn't been compromised. Because surely none of them are using their personal smartphones or laptops and are following strict access protocols. Seeing that they are so so careful with everything else they've been doing.
I feel like this is a bad episode of the Twilight Zone.
13 replies →
"the front door and all windows are open, but don't worry. No one robbed the house yet so it's not a robbery "
I wouldn't discount such reckless vulnerabilities happening here. Any decent IT department would faint imagining the overtime needed to fix such issues.
What is the data classification of the data that they're accessing? Are they authorized to view it? Did they follow the normal procedures for accessing that data? Was their access limited to the information they needed to perform their stated function and nothing else? Was the data stored on or transferred through any systems that were not adequately secured?
It is entirely possible for an insider or internal data incident to be a "breach," regardless of whether the data leaked outside the org or they had the permission of the President. If someone came in to my office with an employee badge, said that they had been personally hired by the CEO, and demanded super admin access to all systems, I would laugh in their face. If anyone actually agreed to that person's demands, it would be a massive, all-hands-on-deck incident to figure out what they touched and how much we were going to get fined for the breach in security controls.
It's a data breach because DOGE is a bunch of random people chosen by Elon Musk, who act arbitrarily and completely outside the law.
If the Treasury gets access to the CIA’s data that’s a data breach. Treasury does not have a compelling need to use that data and if they do, there are processes to determine that need and agreements to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to handle and manage that data.
Yeah in theory they’re both parts of “the government” but “government” is a big umbrella that comprises a bunch of separate entities, each with varying degrees of independence from each other. We’re used to thinking of it all as one entity because we’re used to operating under political leadership that isn’t actively trying to destroy the government. But now that they are, the separation of duties matters a lot more. All of this stuff is happening either in violation of, or indifference to the actual law.
[dead]
It's not really a breach if it is from the same organization (i.e. the executive branch). It may lead to one.
We can be all but certain that the CCP has its tendrils into Big Balls' phone and computers. A bunch of idiots with no opsec skills makes for easy pickings.
13 replies →
Although authorised by some members of the executive branch, it is missing some of the oversight the executive branch is supposed to have.
14 replies →
It's like if your CEO sent you an email saying you should give the production DB credentials, and any encrypted at rest keys to their cousin.
Probably you wouldn't do that.
3 replies →
You can have data breaches within an organization.
1 reply →
It is if it's actually to a foreign adversary.
4 replies →
[dead]
[dead]
Technically yes. I'd still be just as worried as a breach given the context though.
I was pretty nervous about voterfile / irs data merges. I sensed this was headed towards building retribution tools for those who didn't vote for the admin.
Why bother when you can delete all the organizations responsible for ensuring a valid election then rig it using the same methods as the Russians do. Only thing in your way are state level officials, but they are easy enough to steamroll with "Federal Investigations" by your newly appointed investigators.
Who cares how someone voted at that point. Voting just becomes an exercise in futility.
Could you provide me some links or background on this? I did a couple of lazy searches and didn't find anything. I knew they tracked that you voted, but not who/what you voted for, if that's what you're saying, unless you mean party affiliation.
Join SSN column with Driver License table
Join that with Drivers license -> Voter registration number.
Search the voter records (if the states still have them) with the issued ballot number to that voter registration number and bingo. You got voting records.
Think most states discard actual ballots over time though so maybe old data might be gone. Republican states garbage as they are probably stored this election for some reason. I bet you can guess what that reason is.
9 replies →
Germany, 1933.
Year's not over.
I think it's premature to rule this out. Trump has previously abused government agencies to harass his opponents, so why wouldn't he and Musk use IRS data for this purpose?
It certainly seems to be the goal. Military purges will be starting soon.
This, they don't care about normal citizens, they just need to purge democrat military personnel
5 replies →
That's the point. That has always been the point.
Too late. You think DOGE is going to go back in and uninstall whatever hooks they put into the system? Nobody would even be able to verify that.
Replace DOGE with any subcontractor or executive pen authorization in the last 20 years. What makes you think what you are afraid of happening right now has not already happened? Too late may have left the room a long time ago and we are just wasting our breath fearing the corpse of the boogie man
contractors are given limited access within a clearly defined scope and procedures in place to ensure that they don't do anything they shouldn't. This is _not_ what is happening here, where DOGE has unfettered access, with those who offer resistance being fired or resigning.
1 reply →
Well, contractors are typically not hellbent on destroying everything they touch, for one. Oh, and they have actual clearance, and consequences if they deliberately ruin something.
Do you really think all your data hasn’t already been for sale for years? Cmon now
Thank goodness for small mercies.
I wasn't looking forward to Musk posting my tax return on a twatter rant.
Do you actually believe all your financial and personal data hasn’t already been leaked and sold online numerous times already?
[flagged]
Based on what? There's no guarantee that moron (yes, moron) wouldn't do it if he could.
2 replies →
Given what happened with the ISS recently, how do you know?
I give this less than 72 hours before reversal
Why do they need to see any tax returns?
They don't, thus why they're not.
Treasury didn't want DOGE having access so agreeing to block DOGE access seems like weird wording here.
Indeed.
The new Trump head of Treasury is just making a statement confirming what already was.
Works where archive.is is blocked:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/treasury-agrees-to-blo...
Text-only:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1ztoSy
Good. If, however, DOGE gets access, then, like some Nordic countries, I think we should demand public disclosure of all of it.
The public deserves seeing what the richest rich pay in taxes, the middle class, and the poor. There’s so much fud and fog in the political discourse around tax burden.
Current POTUS famously, notoriously, refused to disclose his, as has been tradition.
Actually the kernel of a good idea. Over a certain level of wealth taxpayers have a right to know why you're denying them millions of dollars of income, so your tax returns are a legitimate public interest.
Basically if you're paying close to the "full amount" of your tax rate in say the $5 million dollar range, then no disclosure required. If you're substantially under that your deductions should be public.
My issue with this is that it still won't make people happy, because ultimately people care about wealth too. Like say some big CEO's income is $100M/year. And they pay half of it in taxes. Then after a decade they have half a billion dollars. Will people be content seeing that? Or still be unhappy at the obscene wealth?
9 replies →
But you're just defining the "full amount" as what you think they should pay. If they're abiding by the tax code, they are paying what the law considers "the full amount".
It would not be discriminatory to say "we're going to publicize the returns of anyone who commits tax fraud". It would be discriminator to publicize the returns of anyone the Marxist hive mind thinks should pay more taxes than they are legally required to.
If the rich commit tax fraud, put them in jail. If they don't "pay their fair share of taxes" but don't commit any crime in so doing, be mad at the people who wrote the tax code.
20 replies →
Only if pricing information is also made public. Otherwise, a person with relatively high income, but who also wants to be frugal, will get gouged.
Discriminatory pricing could become a private income tax.
Oh god you're right. I heard that some vendors are already buying data from credit card companies and joining that with their data on you to do price discrimination but this will enable price discrimination on a country wide level. :/
Sure, you want to be thoughtful about disclosure and unintended consequences.
A bit late for that
The multiple daily submissions about DOGE are getting a bit tiresome and are offtopic for HackerNews IMO. Unless they're doing something technically interesting I'm not sure why it has to be posted here. Judging by the fact that they make the front page daily I seem to be in the minority though, so whatever.
HN's in for some rough waters as far as typical de-facto (or community) editorial policy, since half of SV and even PG himself have declared for the fascists, one of whom (another SV darling, and also a fascist, that is) is the richest man on the planet, twice gave an entirely unambiguous nazi salute at the inauguration (in case anyone was still confused about what kind of people we're dealing with) and is now running roughshod over the government while every word that comes out of his mouth, somehow, (even the prepositions and articles!) is brain-meltingly stupid to anyone who has half a clue about anything in this realm.
Like, HN's in an awkward position.
On the front page there is 1 DOGE article. I didn't even find this on the front page. So at the very best this is 3% of the front page at any given time, when people aren't flagging the stories.
^Judging by the fact that they make the front page daily I seem to be in the minority though, so whatever.
I sure wish they'd slow down as well.
Like any other "algorithm" feed, if you dislike what is engaging the masses then switch to a chronological view and sip from the feed as you will.
ie: https://news.ycombinator.com/newest
Yes, but it'd be nice if there were insights in the comments not present in the original text on these sorts of political articles. I have not seen that lately, and frankly "anything that good hackers would find interesting" has become so tortured as to become meaningless. People are missing the "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic" line that follows.
The real issue is that there are too many articles on the front page that everyone can participate in (news, 150 word anecdotes on AI, language/editor wars, ...). If there is too much pent up demand for those topics, it should just be moved to a certain day of the week. I think you could more or less violently suppress it while having very limited collateral damage on actual technical discussions. And by allowing politics to remain on the front page for many days, you basically slowly change the composition of the community to people who want to debate politics all the time, which is explicitly not the intent of HN. I'm probably violating the guidelines by complaining instead of silently flagging the article, but hoping this inspires other people to start flagging as well.
I have mixed feelings. It's a potentially great manifestation of zero-trust and insider risks, and why you should collect less data to begin with. Or maybe not, idk. Could see interesting discussions in theory, but I'm not sure I have so far.
It's a historic tech-related government coup, which I'd think is of great interest to "Hackers". It's very rare that a bunch of tech whiz-kids are so directly embedded in current events. For better or worse, Musk and his minions are very much at the forefront of tech related news for the forseeable future.
https://lobste.rs seems to still have technical focus. The issue I have with the comments is that a lot of them don't go into technical issues per se, and are not based on first hand information. What would be useful is if somebody in the government could post specifics about their abuses.
What's getting tiresome is the insane shit DOGE is pulling every day, not the submissions
It's not their fault for doing it, it's your fault for pointing it out.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
you might want to have a few special agents swing by big balls' apartment and go through whatever hard drives can be found. ive got to think they've already made an offsite backup.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Hilarious. IRS is all worried about $601 I'm paying to a friend but they themselves don't want any transparency.
Honestly tired of the overreach by the federal government.