Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Florida to Tax Home Networks
Wired News ^ | 02:00 AM Jun. 24, 2004 PT | Michelle Delio

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: computer; network; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Dead Corpse
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.

What would be "reasonable suspicion" that someone is using a home network? Do you seriously believe that the State Of Florida would issue such warrants? Really?

Further, the Patriot Act applies to terrorism cases (and in other realms, to drug and RICO cases). Are you asserting that the Florida Department of Revenue would even attempt to make a Patriot Act case against the owner of a home network, and that they would do so on the basis of terrorism or RICO infractions?

As for "Hacking a router or a switch on a NAT really isn't all that hard," I can assure you that even corporate nets can be masked behind a single IP, and @stake, Securityfocus, and the rest of them will not find a single NAT'd IP. Not one. Even cheapo Linksys home routers can be configured to resist virtually all hacking/discovery attempts.

So in the end your case rests on the State Of Florida either (a) egregiously violating federal law as established in Kyllo or (b) issuing individual search warrants for each and every instance in Florida where the DoR believes someone has a home network.

These are not plausible scenarios, and the cost/benefit to the Florida DoR is precisely zero at best.

41 posted on 06/24/2004 8:10:02 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
 When you too spineless to cut spending, stick it to the taxpayers and tell them it's for their own good.

 

 

42 posted on 06/24/2004 8:10:51 AM PDT by SheLion (Please register to vote! We can't afford to remain silent!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
Do you seriously believe that the State Of Florida would issue such warrants? Really?

Are you seriously so naive to think they would not put in clauses for enforcement?

The Patriot Act sets precedent. Precedent that is already being used by local law enforcement. "Fishing expeditions" have been OK'ed by the USSC.

I've hacked my own Linksys cable router from my work machine. Do not presume to think you know jack sh*t about what can be found. A quick Google search will come up with dozens of pages listing exploits for doing EXACTLY what you are saying cannot be done. An Asta La Vista search will point up even more and give you links to the tools to DIY.

I also notice you dodged the question of whether or not you approved of this tax. Would you also be supportive of any regulatory measures they would want to put in place to monitor compliance?

43 posted on 06/24/2004 8:21:14 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
The tax would go, in part, toward school construction and other projects.

I can remember when the Texas Lottery created, and it was claimed it would be for the schools..eventually the politicians got their hands on the money and God only knows how much actually goes towards the schools these days(apparently not much).

44 posted on 06/24/2004 8:25:43 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Do you have any clue how many computers you can cram into a garage or basement for a LAN gaming party?

The scenario being discussed here is the typical home network as a target of the Florida DoR. Not a garage stuffed for a "home gaming party." Even your mention of a webserver doesn't make the case, it's electrical usage will again be in the 250 Watt range (same as a lightbulb) and a webserver is in itself no proof of multiple computers (even if it is in fact networked and made available via port forwarding).

Your example of the wireless network again makes no case for DoR attention, since all that's being used is a wireless router, and this would bring no special attention if NAT is being employed.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with all of these implausible and technically unfeasable scenarios, none of them make any practical or legal sense.

Of course the attempt to tax home networks is completely idiotic, but what you're not catching is that the DoR's plan is technically unenforcable.

It's kind of hard to believe that you as a computer person don't understand that.

45 posted on 06/24/2004 8:25:53 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pete'sWife
HOW CAN THEY TELL IF YOU HAVE ONE COMPUTER OR 50?

Taxes don't work like that. The government will assume then you'll have to prove otherwise.

Here in Connecticut, they tax personal assets like cars. You get a new car, they know about it right away. You get rid of a car and they could know just like when you buy one, but they keep on taxing you until you prove to them you don't owe the taxes.

46 posted on 06/24/2004 8:26:37 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
How would this be inforced? How would the state even know you had more than one computer?

Although Florida can be pretty liberal, I have a feeling that most wouldn't want the state inspecting houses for these (although I've run into FReepers who wouldn't have a problem being searched because they "have nothing to hide").

I'm thinking tax the hell out of the hardware/software. They could always examine financial transactions as well (credit card sales, etc.). Florida maybe one of those states in the MATRIX database program where they keep an eye on the citizens (on what they buy and stuff).

They could also get ISPs to release records (if they don't have access to them already) of people and easily find multiple machines in one house (by looking at MAC addresses that are accessing the internet).

47 posted on 06/24/2004 8:30:04 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Are you seriously so naive to think they would not put in clauses for enforcement?

Doesn't matter how many clauses they use, it's not technically viable to enforce this law.

"Fishing expeditions" have been OK'ed by the USSC.

And you seriously believe the USSC would approve of the Florida DoR scanning for "uncompliant" home networks while expressly denying law enforcement the "right" to scan for home pot farms? Really?

I've hacked my own Linksys cable router from my work machine.

You should enlist the help of a competent IA professional to lock that baby up.

Besides we're talking about the general principle of the DoR doing it's own hacking operations against citizens, not the specific case of which router is or isn't vulnerable. Red herring.

I also notice you dodged the question of whether or not you approved of this tax.

No, I didn't "dodge" it. I think the idea is so patently ridiculous from a technical and legal perspective that it doesn't warrant discussion "on the merits" (which there are none).

The Florida DoR is not going to use the Patriot Act or "probable cause" or search warrants or scanning of hacking or anything else to enforce this "law".

As I said, it is absurd. Laughable.

48 posted on 06/24/2004 8:36:48 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
easily find multiple machines in one house (by looking at MAC addresses that are accessing the internet).

Your cable/DSL router masks MAC addresses. One router=one MAC.

49 posted on 06/24/2004 8:40:01 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper

Floridians can't figure out how to vote; but they want to tax my computers? I think I'll go back to the quill pen and abaccus.


50 posted on 06/24/2004 8:50:00 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
And using embedded html in an e-mail to replicate a virus was once considered "absurd".

I really hope your company isn't paying you much. With your attitude, its a wonder your network is still up.

51 posted on 06/24/2004 8:51:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper

"Paging George Orwell. Mr. Orwell, please pick up the white courtesy phone."


52 posted on 06/24/2004 8:54:44 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angkor
No where near as secure as you think. And brute force attacks still work.
53 posted on 06/24/2004 8:55:40 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
In 2001, that law was expanded to make "any system that is used for voice or data that connects multiple users with the use of switching or routing technology" taxable up to 16 percent.

I have a home network with 5 machines attached, but I am the only "user" of that network, at least according to my definition. Those of you with families (hence, multiple users) are screwed, however.

54 posted on 06/24/2004 8:56:03 AM PDT by spodefly (This post meets the minimum daily requirements for cynicism and irony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
"But this tax is not fair and could turn senior citizens into criminals, ..."

It would definately turn me into one.

55 posted on 06/24/2004 8:57:31 AM PDT by Skooz (My Biography: Psalm 40:1-3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper; nutmeg
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would have to approve any rule the tax department suggests. Bush has said he isn't in favor of the tax,

I would be very surprised if Gov Bush approved this tax.
56 posted on 06/24/2004 9:02:44 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

a Government employee will be stationed at every house to make you don't cheat on your taxes, to make sure you don't smoke pot, have sex in unapproved positions and the list goes on. It's for our own good, and most importantly it's for the children.


57 posted on 06/24/2004 9:07:06 AM PDT by I_killed_kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: avg_freeper
"Florida state officials are considering taxing home networks ...Officials from Florida's Department of Revenue"

WHO EXACTLY! I WANT FRIGGIN' NAMES!

58 posted on 06/24/2004 9:19:02 AM PDT by subterfuge (Liberalism is, as liberalism does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_killed_kenny

Since FL doesn't have a state income tax, they would have to start a whole new department of router revenue collection...boy, the costs just keep going up!!


59 posted on 06/24/2004 9:32:55 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
With your attitude, its a wonder your network is still up.

If you're on the Internet, you're on at least one of my networks.

60 posted on 06/24/2004 11:26:10 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson