50
(USA) IRS website blocks tor users (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [M] to c/exclusive_public_resources@lemmy.sdf.org
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Indeed the IRS website blocks Tor users from accessing tax information, as if tor users don’t need tax information. Important legal guidance exists on irs.gov, so it’s obviously an injustice to block people from becoming informed about their rights and obligations.

(edit)
What’s the fix? Would it be effective to make a FOIA request on paper so the IRS must send the info on paper via USPS? Or would that require compensation to offset their burden?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You keep trying to pull this down to semantics because you don’t have a leg to stand on. Nobody owes you tor access. Nobody is obligated to allow tor access.

You have options, you’re just refusing to use them, probably because you just picked up using tor for the first time out of high school and, like all young idealists, took a hard line on it. Grow up.

Really recommend you go look at a dictionary, thesaurus, and some introductory material on security.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Nobody owes you tor access. Nobody is obligated to allow tor access.

    You continue with this useless claim. There are legal obligations. Then there are moral obligations. It’s an attempt at the equivocation fallacy to state a fact that is true of one meaning while the other is implied to the contrary. But more importantly, the arguement fails to counter the thesis. If someone says McDonald’s burgers are poor quality, and you come along and say “McDonald’s does not owe you good quality food”, it’s as if you are trying despirately and emotionally to defeat the critic with an argument using an claim that misses the thesis (that the burgers are poor quality). Citing incompetent security does not in itself inherently impose obligation. Obligation can be argued either way depending on which side of the meaning under the equivocation fallacy refers to. But the more important thesis remains: that service quality is poor due to a deficiency of competence.

    You have options, you’re just refusing to use them

    Unlike telling the burger consumer they have “options”, tax is not optional. Everyone is obligated one way or another to interact with the tax authority. So when service quality is poor, the option to walk is not there. It’s a mandate that you are trying to dress up as if taxpayers are given autonomy. Autonomy is compromised when forced to choose between lousy or undignified options therein.

    Really recommend you go look at a dictionary, thesaurus, and some introductory material on security.

    You absolutely should not be giving anyone infosec advice; most particularly given these rudimentary and arbitrary information sources, respectively.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You are neither legally owed nor morally owed tor access.

    Not supporting tor does not indicate a security fault.

    The McDonald’s analogy doesn’t apply to the context of this discussion. You’re morally outraged that McDonald’s doesn’t provide plastic straws. Instead of using the straws provided, not using a straw, or bringing your own plastic straws, you’re yelling that they’re poisoning the drinks.

    There are other ways to handle your taxes, if you find them lousy or undignified, that’s a real bummer for you.

    Your opinions on security are worthless. You are clearly an uninformed zealot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Not supporting tor does not indicate a security fault.

    It’s a demonstration of incomptence and it’s embarrassing for the federal government.

    The McDonald’s analogy doesn’t apply to the context of this discussion.

    Wooosh -- how could that go so far over your head? The analogy had similarities and differences both of which demonstrate how indefensive your stance is. The similarity exposes as clearly as possible how your claims about not “owing” quality service misses the thesis entirely. The difference in the analogy contrasts the lack of choice in the tax situation compared to the private market (where you can simply walk when the service is poor). Moral obligation arises out of the mandate.

    There are other ways to handle your taxes, if you find them lousy or undignified, that’s a real bummer for you.

    The moral obligation of treating taxpayers with dignity and respect is an equal obligation to all taxpayers. Undermining data minimization and forcing the needless disclosure of IP addresses of those contributing to the revenue service is indefensible and morally reprehensible. You’ve wholly failed in your effort to support the needless and intrusive practice of reckless forced disclosure of personal information irrelevant to the tax obligation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don’t think anyone is embarrassed to be not supporting tor, bud. What’s embarrassing is throwing a fit about it, misunderstanding basic English, tossing out trash analogies, attacking strawmen, and being a massive whiner because you can’t use your protocol of choice.

    Saying “whoosh” doesn’t make your analogy any less shitty. Further, explaining how your analogy was inaccurate just proves the point.

    There is no moral obligation to support tor. I get it. You’re a zealot. Nobody gives a shit. Sucks to fall hard on a niche utility. Grow up and move on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I don’t think anyone is embarrassed to be not supporting tor, bud. … misunderstanding basic English

    Your 1st statement would actually be reasonable enough if we disregard the meaning you are trying to convey and treat the words at face value. If you had a good grasp on English and weren’t misusing the phrase tor support to begin with, your literal words are fair enough in that phrase. This is because supporting Tor requires deploying an onion host. Yet no one here has brought up the lack of onion host. The embarrassment is indeed not about lack of Tor support. It’s that they cannot handle fully serving clearnet traffic.

    The Tor network needs no support because it is self-supporting. The Tor community bent over backwards to maintain gateways on the clearnet to accommodate the clearnet server without requiring any server-side support whatsoever. The Tor community is generally content as long as services do not go out of their way to sabotage the Tor network.

    It’s of course not an embarrassment that the IRS does not support Tor. The embarrassment arises from the lack of competency that led them to proactively block segments of clearnet based on the crude and reckless practice of relying on IP reputation; which led to disservicing the Tor community.

    There is no moral obligation to support tor.

    I realize that you have dropped the direct and accurate language (tor blocking) in favor of indirect, vague, weasel words of “tor support” because you believe this choice of words will somehow serve you by deceiving your audience. By intent, your comment is perversely naive. But it’s arguably sensible enough in the literal sense of the words because moral obligation to add an onion server is debatable. Although a case could be made for a government’s moral obligation to respect and embrace data minimization, and even to the extent of deploying onion services. But when the bar of digital rights is so low, it would be premature to have that discussion particularly when you’re not even in a position to accept the idea that a tax administration owes taxpayers any dignity or respect. Which, to be clear the lack thereof is demonstrated by this messaging:

    There is not even enough respect to tell Tor users that service is refused as a consequence of their IP address. Nor do they extend enough dignity to explain to those users why they block the Tor community, or which oversight office the excluded taxpayers may complain to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You keep beating on this phrase because your zealotry has pushed you to a singular idea of what “support” means. Another word you might consider looking up in the dictionary.

    They don’t support tor. They aren’t obligated to, morally nor legally. Any argument that they are is founded on zealotry and ignorance. If you feel undignified or a lack of respect because you can’t use your favorite browser, then you’re an idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You’re just recycling defeated drivel. There are no new arguments here and unless you figure out how to attack the arguments that defeated yours, using sound logic, this drivel of personal attacks only exposes the weakness of your indefensible position further. Relying on rudimentary information sources like a general purpose dictionary is consistent with the lack of English nuance from which your misuse of terms and obtuse language manifests.

    Your fixation on insults indicates no formal background in debate. You’ve used the most common logical fallacy (among others) while naming it to call out multiple situations where it did not apply. This shows you’ve picked up common buzz phrases without grasping them (implying ad hoc hot-headed cloud fights without basic formal debate training). In the very least you could benefit from studying logical fallacies and taking a debate class. But to be clear that will only improve the quality of your dialog, it won’t compensate for the infosec deficit. In any case, none of that is going to happen in time for you to dig yourself out of your embarrassing position in this thread.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There haven’t been any new arguments for a while. You repeat the same junk about how you’re a victim because you’re not able to access the IRS in the fashion you zealously demand. You continue to be hilariously upset about getting called out on basic definitions. And you continue to talk about classes and school. I’m 100% certain you’re a child. Maybe fresh out of college.

    Grow up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Your continued failure to grasp the fact that the Tor community does not need server-side support is the main reason you have failed to understand why your main thesis has been defeated. Not understanding how Tor works to at least the most basic extent has ensured you’ve based everything in your position on misinformation (which most certainly comes from poor assumptions). Then you wonder why you think you see repititon as you repeat defeated claims because you don’t understand the facts that make your claims indefensible. Until you learn enough about To to realise there is no need for server-side support, you have no hope of even understanding the silly absurdity of your thesis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •