Posted on 06/24/2004 6:17:54 AM PDT by avg_freeper
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:10:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Florida state officials are considering taxing home networks that have more than one computer, under a modified 1985 state law that was intended to tax the few businesses that used internal communication networks instead of the local telephone company.
Officials from Florida's Department of Revenue held a meeting on Tuesday to see whether the law would apply to wired households, and exactly who would be taxed. About 200 people attended, including community and business representatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at wired.com ...
For the computer-challenged among us, I need to know:
HOW CAN THEY TELL IF YOU HAVE ONE COMPUTER OR 50?
They can't.
Since the SC just ruled that not telling the police your name can be considered a criminal offence, instead of getting technical, maybe they can add that to the list of questions asked under penalty of law.
ISPs are seeing a cash cow too. Some would like to charge you extra based on the number of computers you have sharing one internet connection. They would do this through manageable routers, which would report to them how many devices are using the connection. I'm sure the government would love to take advantage of this, especially if it means more taxes.
If I had fifty computers going here, I'd be stomping butt on the Free Republic SETI@Home team. :-)
I suspect they'll just try to tax any equipment that allows networking. A hub with 2 ports, pays the comm tax. 8 port? Higher tax. etc. To which most folks would buy stuff over the internet to avoid the tax.
There is no way this tax will occur.
Just by looking at your IP traffic, probably not if you are running NAT.
However, they can look at electrical usage, EM bleed through the walls of your house, thermal imaging, the aforementioned "sneak and peek" searches, ect...
It is naive to think they can't. Sorry, but that is the truth.
Do you think the state would go to that expense to recover what probably won't be a huge amount of revenue anyway?
NASA. Social Security. The War on Drugs. Farm Subsidies. Foriegn Aid.
It is only partially about the taxes. The rest is about CONTROL.
That's some pretty expensive equipment to be driving all over the state with. It seems that to be effective, they would need a lot of these mobile devices, I can't see the state of FL putting up the money for this level of return.
There are ways and then there are "ways". when it comes to expanding its sphere of influence, government ALWAYS finds a way.
I know there are ways, but with funds as tight as they are, it seems like a big outlay, for little return.
Sorry, I've been a computer engineer for 20 years, and none of what you've posited is (a) practical (b) legal (c) technical proof of multiple computers in a single residential location.
Even if we accept that the taxman had access to the snooping technologies your mention (and the wherewithal to use them), those technologies could still not prove that those computers were being used on a single network.
BTW, the whole notion of "scanning" is patently illegal, e.g., "The Supreme Court today, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment." - ABCNews.com, June 11, 2001
They can't.
You forgot the Computer Detector Van !!
"That's a dog license with the word "Dog" crossed out and "Computer" written in in crayon."
"Man didn't have the right form . . ."
Leni
First, what is a "big offender"? This discussion is about residential use of computer networks, not business use.
The typical PC consumes less than 250Watts/hr of electricity, identical to a 250 Watt lightbulb.
So you're asserting that the State Of Florida is going to initiate warrants or complaints on the basis of 3 or 5 or 6 instances of "unexplained" 250 Watt usage?!?!? A single window air condition uses 1,000 to 1,200 Watts, so how to determine whether this "unusual" electrical usage is PCs, lightbulbs, or AC?
Your position is technically (and legally) absurd.
All they need is enough "reasonable suspicion" to get a search warrent. Under the Patriot Act, they've got that power despite Kyllo v. US. Hacking a router or a switch on a NAT really isn't all that hard. You can brute force even Ciscos BIOS in a weekend. That is why security gurus get paid so much to do their jobs. The hard part is covering your tracks and not getting busted. Think the government is gonna care if you know they were scanning you?
Fine. Hide your head in the sand. People thought it stupid that the Brits would be able to monitor TV usage for their tax.
One day using bluetooth practically every appliance will communicate with each other and a computer you wear. For example, the light comes on when you go in the room, the tv loads your favorite channel set, the toaster knows how you like your toast, and they all submit usage reports to a central system. This law is written so broadly that in essence the day will come where it isn't really a network tax so much as a cleverly-written additional property tax.
And your typical grow light uses much less than your air conditioner. Yet they can still use that for searches for dope.
Absurd? You almost sound like you approve of this tax.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.