Google and Microsoft promote password-less web logins

[ik9000]

No thanks, I will stick with passwords, I think it is safer. I mean, like what if there is a exploit or a bug that people can take advantage of. You guys can use it first and once it is fully stable I might move xD

stable? Stuff stable, secure is what you want too. things can be stable and leaky as a sieve. This is not something I want any company knowing about me. They simply don't need to.

[Saracen]

Arrest anyone who doesn't pay what Govt records say they should...?
Breaking the law is one thing, but having to submit paperwork by which you forcibly confess to it as well is just so medieval...!!

If you haven't broken tax laws, you aren't confessing to anything.

If you have, you presumably have no qualms about lying it on paperwork. Otherwise, even bank robbers and murderers would confess the first time a cop asked them.@

The grey area, of course, is where the line is between avoidance and evasion. Fortunately, at least for now, it's where law says it is, not where pontificating politicians pretend it is. It's also a good job that, generally, English legal principles prevent changes in such things being applied retrospectively.

[Ttaskmaster]

If you haven't broken tax laws, you aren't confessing to anything.

If you haven't paid the tax you should, you've broken the law.
Stating otherwise on a tax return, you've still broken the law but now you're lying about it too.
But supposedly this all-knowing government can tell if you've broken the law in the first place, so there's no need for this bit of paper asking you to confirm that you've broken it..... or at least that's the argument against the all-knowing government idea, anyway. I know it's not quite the case in reality.

The grey area, of course, is where the line is between avoidance and evasion.

Which is why the paper is needed, to prove you haven't broken the law, because the government doesn't know everything... yet.

[Saracen]

If you haven't paid the tax you should, you've broken the law.
Stating otherwise on a tax return, you've still broken the law but now you're lying about it too.
But supposedly this all-knowing government can tell if you've broken the law in the first place, so there's no need for this bit of paper asking you to confirm that you've broken it..... or at least that's the argument against the all-knowing government idea, anyway. I know it's not quite the case in reality.


Which is why the paper is needed, to prove you haven't broken the law, because the government doesn't know everything... yet.

Well, if you :-

a) Haven't paid tax you should have, AND
b) Didn't lie about income on your tax form, I'd conclude you either

1) Didn't intend to underpay, and theretore made an honest mistake, OR
2) Are a right moron.

If the taxman concludes that you underpaid but made sn honest mistake, the likely result is that you'll be required to pay unpaid tax, plus mandatory interest.

If, on the other hand, you underpay, and then lie on your form, the taxman is likely to conclude that your intent was to evade tax, and that's when they hit you with every punitive charge they can. And oh boy, they sure can, especially over VAT.

The tax form has two main functions.First, for honest (*) people, it passes the burden of working out taxes from HMRC to us, and all they do is a checking exercise. Second, it provides evidence of intent to defraud should you underpay, and thdn get caught lying. In other words, the same function as a police statement and/or interview .... get your version officially on-record.



(* Note - In Income tax terms, at least unofficially, "honest" means "doesn't fiddle too much".

They'll never admit it officially, but unofficially, they are entirely aware that many people pad expenses, get a bit creative with mileage claims, 'accidentally' omit the odd cash receipt, etc. All such actions are illegal, but extremely difficult to evidence, and prove, and frankly, it's not worth trying.

But, take the mickey and you may well find yourself subject to an intensive tax audit. Really irritate them and you'll get it several years running.

The above was gleaned directly from IR inspectors, off the record, during my accountancy days.)



As for "all-knowing governnent" we agree, the reality is different. There's a lot they can find out, given sufficient incentive, like a terrorism or serious criminal investigation, but short of that, they neither know nor care about the minutiae of our hum-drum lives.

[peterb]

As for "all-knowing governnent" we agree, the reality is different. There's a lot they can find out, given sufficient incentive, like a terrorism or serious criminal investigation, but short of that, they neither know nor care about the minutiae of our hum-drum lives.

Unlike Googlebook and so on, to who the minutiae of our lives - where we shop, what videos and comments we like are the stuff advertises love.

I stated seeing adverts for for the cats protection league - because I once like a cute cat video. It’s all recorded for marketing and it’s worth big bucks - which is why I’m far more concerned about commercial organisations mining data about me than government.

[Ttaskmaster]

As for "all-knowing governnent" we agree, the reality is different. There's a lot they can find out, given sufficient incentive, like a terrorism or serious criminal investigation, but short of that, they neither know nor care about the minutiae of our hum-drum lives.

Je disagree, mon-sewer...

More than once I've known people receive tax rebates completely unexpectedly, and often for quite small amounts (less than £100) covering several years of overpayment... Someone is clearly watching!!
Myself, I've twice been specifically asked to submit all payslips, P60s and so on for several years, each receiving more than £1,000 in rebate, but I'd expected something along those lines. Either way, they still knew to ask for it, so that same someone is watching me, too!!

[Saracen]

Je disagree, mon-sewer...

More than once I've known people receive tax rebates completely unexpectedly, and often for quite small amounts (less than £100) covering several years of overpayment... Someone is clearly watching!!
Myself, I've twice been specifically asked to submit all payslips, P60s and so on for several years, each receiving more than £1,000 in rebate, but I'd expected something along those lines. Either way, they still knew to ask for it, so that same someone is watching me, too!!

I've known such unexpected rebates too. Not personally, but the wife has.

You'll usually find that it's people with simple tax affairs, who have done something like change job, and been put on the wrong tax code for a while. Or, a change of circumstances that led to an overpayment, that self-corrects over time.

If you're on PAYE, then every period (week/month/4 weeks, etc) your payslips show accumuluted tax paid, tax due, etc, and the returns companies send automatically will generate a rebate, often a few weeks after year-end, if accum.tax exceeds tax due for period.

The rest of the time, such glitches work themselvss out in the normal course of the YTD tax paid and tax due.

Those rebates, or at least all those I've seen, are just the result of the standard reporting to HMCE. Just remember, indivuduals aren't the only ones sending dsra back to HMCE. So do companies, for PAYE, NI Contribs, etc. i.e. standard systems operating, not some over-arching mass surveilllance.

Of course, there are numerous situations where a tax rebate is due but won't happen automatically, but only when and if you claim it. One would be trsnsferring part of one spouses PA to the other when the first has an income low enough to not exhaust PAs themselves. Another might be where you have unearned income from investments, like shares, taxedcat source, but low earned income and again, unused PAs. So, if you claim, you get the "deducted at source" tax back, as the deduction assumed standard rate taxpayer.

[Saracen]

Unlike Googlebook and so on, to who the minutiae of our lives - where we shop, what videos and comments we like are the stuff advertises love.

I stated seeing adverts for for the cats protection league - because I once like a cute cat video. It’s all recorded for marketing and it’s worth big bucks - which is why I’m far more concerned about commercial organisations mining data about me than government.

Indeed.

Government generally has a valid reason for data collection, like tax, benefit entitlement, pensions, etc. It's about standard operation of the mechanisms of the state .... mechanisms most of us approve of, rely on and would bitch like a crazy person if they were withheld.

Corporates, on the other hand, just want to sell us sh.... erm, stuff.

Personally, MOST data government requests, I don't mind providing .... not least because not doing so is often an offence. There are exceptions. Census before last I very temporarily converted my religious belief to Jedi Knight. My conversion lasted about an hour, while I filled in the form, and the bit that asked for religious belief. As far as government is concerned, my religious beliefs are "NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS, YOU NOSY BLEEPS".

Since they turned that question optional, I opted to not answer. But I'll dig my light sabre out again if they ever mandate an answer.


As for corporate data gathering, I object to unnecssary data gathering extremely strongly. Other than those companies I've opted to do business with, and even then only for account management and to provide goods/services I actually asked for, I don't want ANY unsolicited marketing, be it by (postal) mail, email, telephone or in-site advertising. Which I why I have a phone screener on my home phone (extremely effective, by the way), and why I'm ultra selective in who gets my home or mobile number. For instance, utility companies don't get my phone number. I very rarely give out an email address and, in fact, don't currently have one. I change periodically, and haven't renewed for, oh, a year or so. It's why I never do online banking, and have such options locked OFF by my bank, since some scumbag tried to activate it. I rarely use debit or credit cards, preferring to pay for most things by cash. So, for now at least, shops know transaction detailes but not who they are for, and my bank knows I withdraw cash, but not what I do with it. Most shops I use don't know they have me as a customer, and that's how I like it. Oh, and I never, EVER use store reward cards. The benefits are nowhere near high enough to induce me to give up the data.

Also, I have more than one bank account so that :-

a) no one bank has the whole picture, in as far as they have any, and
b) I can dump any bank that gets on my nerves without major hassle.

Oh, and I don't and never have had social media accounts, haven't used Google in years, have never "liked" anything and never will.

My ideal scenario is that the likes of Google have ZERO data on me, and preferably don't even know I exist. That may be optimistic, but years of dedication to absolute minimisation of my data profile does ensure they know as little as I can achieve.

And the implementation of the new EU-based GDPR in a month or so (just under, IIRC, about May 25th, or 28th, -ish) should help considerably in keeping it that way.


Of course, there's a potential downside. As more and more companies rely on social media searches, not having a profile, or having minimal data on it, might be viewed negatively. But, seeing as I don't need, or want, credit, or loans, mortgages, etc, and am certainly not applying for jobs, it doesn't bother me.

I don't expect this attitude to be commonplace, or popular, and probably not even understood by much of the younger generation, especially those born into the internet age, but for me, all I want is for companies to leave me the bleep alone unless I contact them, and not for any purpose to pester me with blasted adverts, junkmail, junk-email, phone calls, etc.

[badass]

I’m the reverse. The Government have legitimate reasons for holding data about me, and by and large how that data is used is well regulated (in the UK).

Whilst it is well regulated, it is still completely incompetently managed, stored and secured. Both from the standpoint of identity and access control and through cyber security.

The problem here is I can't provide specific examples without revealing far too much. What I will say is that it's not just about lacking security. It's about confirmed - completely undeniable breaches. That management then argue aren't breaches.

[badass]

So if they already know this stuff, why do we still need to fill in tax returns?

Because HMRC's IT is so unbelievable rubbish. They have no clue how to manage a project, hire talented staff or produce anything that works.

For several years now, payroll data is sent directly to HMRC every time you are paid. If you don't believe me, set up a government gateway account and look at your tax records.

Yet still they never get my tax right. I can't submit my return right now because a bug in the system is randomly deciding that people owe unpaid tax despite that not being the case. If I submit they will start demanding over £1000 when in reality they actually owe me about that much.

[Saracen]

Whilst it is well regulated, it is still completely incompetently managed, stored and secured. Both from the standpoint of identity and access control and through cyber security.

The problem here is I can't provide specific examples without revealing far too much. What I will say is that it's not just about lacking security. It's about confirmed - completely undeniable breaches. That management then argue aren't breaches.

Now with that, I entirely concur.

I would maintain government has reasonable, acceptable reasons for much (though not all) of the data they like to acquire, store and maintain, that being that it's necessary for provision of the services society expects them to provide.

Their competence and professionalism in securing it, well, that's another story, even ftom some well-publicised incidents that are well and truly in the publuc domain, such as sending millions of taxpayers unencrypted data through the post, or leaving intelligence service laptops on trains.

My suspicion, and it's no more than that, is that those with the power (politicians and very senior civil servants) don't fully understand the issues, and as a result, we don't have sufficient numbers of sufficiently expert people doing it.

I'd sure hope that measures have been in place for some time now preventing a recurrence of the sorts of idiocy and incompetence that the examples I cited couldn't happen now. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. And even if the have, preventing idiocy and outright incompetence is a pretty low bar to set, and it ought to be a dsmn sight higher than that. But is it?

[peterb]

Now with that, I entirely concur.

I would maintain government has reasonable, acceptable reasons for much (though not all) of the data they like to acquire, store and maintain, that being that it's necessary for provision of the services society expects them to provide.

Their competence and professionalism in securing it, well, that's another story, even ftom some well-publicised incidents that are well and truly in the publuc domain, such as sending millions of taxpayers unencrypted data through the post, or leaving intelligence service laptops on trains.

My suspicion, and it's no more than that, is that those with the power (politicians and very senior civil servants) don't fully understand the issues, and as a result, we don't have sufficient numbers of sufficiently expert people doing it.

I'd sure hope that measures have been in place for some time now preventing a recurrence of the sorts of idiocy and incompetence that the examples I cited couldn't happen now. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. And even if the have, preventing idiocy and outright incompetence is a pretty low bar to set, and it ought to be a dsmn sight higher than that. But is it?

Some departments certainly don't get security (policemen carrying protectively marked information in plain sight for a photographer to pick up) but on the other hand, some departments are VERY security aware and in my experience the Cabinet Office which has overall responsibility for security policy is very clued up. The failure comes down to individuals who either aren't aware or don't care of the implications of privacy/security breaches - and that comes down to a failure in training and security awareness in departments that have never had to deal with particularly sensitive information.

[Saracen]

I must admit to wondering if some of the papers getting photographed, usually outside Number 10, were done accidentally-on-purpose.

Cynic? M'oi?