Sleepless in Midland

First the good news: IRS has made progress in correcting security weaknesses

The bad news? 69% of the problem found by the GAO in 2008 remain unresolved. An article titled Taxpayer data at risk from IRS security flaws pointed us to the GAO Report (PDF) where the deficiencies are laid out. Here are just a few:

-Weak passwords;
-employees having too much access to files;
-info sent across the IRS network unencrypted; and
-running outdated and unsupported software.

"As a result, IRS is at increased risk of unauthorized disclosure, modification, or destruction of financial and taxpayer information," the GAO says.

But, we are living in an age of openness. Privacy is a thing of the past, something grandma worries about, not something a modern, connected person concerns him/her self with, although the airways are filled with commercials for identify theft protection. So either there's a demand for those services, or there's a lot of money wasted on advertising.

Final thought. The other day we asked: Census questions: What are you REQUIRED to answer? Here's another question: Do you suppose the Census Bureau is more or less concerned with information safety than the IRS?

WWII photos -- Pacific Theater

The Denver Post has an amazing collection of WWII photos from the Pacific Theater beginning with the attack at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/1941 and ending 110 photos later on 9/2/1945 as Gen. Douglas MacArthur signs the Japanese surrender documents.

Click Pacific Theater Photos to see them. It's worth the trip.

A tip of the hat goes to Susie Mauldin and her NASA connection for the link.

Census questions: What are you REQUIRED to answer?

Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution describes the House of Representatives and how members are chosen, and it says this about a census:

"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.." -- Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. Link.

Basically it's asking for a head count to determine the number of members the House of Representatives should have. However, the census form that we are all asked to fill out requests much more information than just a head count. So are we required to answer all those questions?

There are those weaselly words in that article in the Constitution: "in such manner as they shall by law direct." And wouldn't you know, our lawmakers wrote some laws with even more weaselly words. See 13 U.S.C. § 141(a): "In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary."

And 13 U.S.C. § 221 addresses refusal or neglect to answer questions and false answers. The fine for refusing or neglecting to answer can be up to $100, and the fine for lying on the form can be as high as $500.

The government has the law on its side, so the question is whether to comply or defy.

Those in the "comply" camp might take comfort in 13 U.S.C. § 214 which makes it illegal for the census employees to divulge your personal information. However, we hear all too often about some personal information escaping through misplaced or stolen government laptops, and the threat of cyber-attacks is all over the news these days. So the information is only as secure as the government is able to make it secure.

Some people opine that we don't have to answer all those questions because it seems to go beyond the requirement set out in the Constitution. For example, esteemed George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams says "Unless a census taker can show me a constitutional requirement, the only information I plan to give are the number and names of the people in my household." I would like to think a person could take one step back from that and provide only the number of people in the house with no names.

Here's a little bit of useful info for those in the "defy" camp, or like Professor Williams, have one foot in the "comply" camp and one foot in the "defy" camp. 13 U.S.C. Sec. § 241 says that "registered or certified mail or telegram, the return receipt therefor or other written receipt thereof shall be prima facie evidence of an official request in any prosecution under such section." So if your notice came through regular mail then they would have to prove that you actually got it before a fine would be upheld. On the other hand, if a notice comes by registered or certified mail, they may be getting ready to assess a fine.

Disclaimer: This is a blogger rant containing some cites to relevant statutes, but it isn't legal advice. There is safety in numbers, I suppose, but anyone taking the "defy" route will be taking the risk that the government will throw a fine at them.

Related: First the good news: IRS has made progress in Correcting Security Weaknesses.

They finally charged James O'Keefe with something

There was a big to-do in the news when James O'Keefe along with some others were arrested in New Orleans for pretending to be telephone repair persons in Senator Landrieu's office. We never learned for sure what they were up to, other than that they said they planned to talk with some of Ms. Landrieu's staff to find out why constituents couldn't get through to her.

But the big question was what law did they allegedly break? We learn that from NOLA.com which tells us that Assistant U.S. Attorneys filed a Bill of Information dated March 26, 2010, with the U.S. District Court. Here's the charge:

On or about January 25, 2010, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the defendants, Joseph Basal, Stan Dai, Robert Flanagan, and James O'Keefe, did, by false pretenses. enter and attempt to enter real property belonging in whole or in part to the United States; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1036(a)(1)and (2).

Entering by false pretenses. That would be like someone telling the guard at a federal courthouse that he/she was going to check some court records when the true intent was to file for bankruptcy.

Here is the law cited in the Bill of Information:

§1036. Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport
(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—
(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; ...

It was the same crime committed by Tareq and Michaele Salahi to get into that White House dinner, and they got their own reality tv show, The Real Housewives of D.C .

Maybe Mr. O'Keefe can get his own show once he's paid his debt to society.

Previously: Why isn't Michael Moore defending James O'Keefe?.

Federal Judge: OK for lawyers to chase ambulances

The Texas Penal Code contained provision which made it illegal for lawyers, doctors, chiropractors, or private investigators from soliciting business from someone who has been arrested or who was in an accident within 31 days of that arrest or accident.

Last week a Federal Judge in Austin struck down that law, specifically subsections (d)(2)(A) and (d)(2)(C) of the Texas Penal Code Section 38.12, as violating the First Amendment.

It was a joke before, but in the future that car you see chasing the ambulance could be a hungry lawyer.

To read the case Download McKinley & Villasana vs Abbott, cause number 1:09-cv-00643-LY, in PDF right here.

Via Tex Parte Blog.

P.S. If you are driving a Toyota and get the sense that someone may be following you. Relax, it's probably just a lawyer hoping the car will runaway on you.