Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Secret Service Investigating Romney Tax Hack Claim

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the pay-up dept.

Security 836

A federal investigation has been launched after hackers claimed to have stolen Mitt Romney’s tax returns. The hackers have given Romney until September 28th to pay $1 million in bitcoins or they say they will release the returns. From the article: "The claim was made in a post on the Pastebin site on Sunday that alleged that Romney's federal tax returns were taken from the offices of PriceWaterhouse Coopers in Frankin, Tenn., on August 25 by someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document. The message author threatened to release the files publicly on September 28 and said copies of the files had been given to Democratic and Republican leaders in that county. Democrats have made Romney's refusal to release his tax returns a key point in their criticism that he is not in touch with working class voters."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't worry, Romney... (2, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#41245963)

If there's one thing you can all agree on, it's that leakers must be punished harshly!

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (0, Redundant)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41245999)

"you can all agree on"?

"you all" = "top level plutocrats that don't give a shit about anything but themselves and their buddies" ?

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246151)

sarcasm detector? THAT'S a useful invention..

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (4, Funny)

machine321 (458769) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246353)

"you all" = "top level plutocrats

No, we can't use Pluto any more, it's not a planet. Uranuscrats?

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246193)

Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246249)

Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

Right now, suspected terrorists don't get any privacy. That's why we have people getting molested at airports.

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246415)

Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.

The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information - the lists are made public, and searchable. Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income? What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246439)

Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

Is that the mantra?

Dunno, it seems to flip-flop between "Information should be free, leak everything!" to "Noooo don't give away our personal information!" Just depends on which day of the week it is, and which of the usual Trolls is on their period.

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (2)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246283)

ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

duh duh duh!

That's all it's worth, really?

I would love to see them. I'll bet he hasn't paid taxes in years. They offshore their profits and domesticate their losses.

The government ends up paying them a refund even though it's stealing.

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246305)

Well that guy is an idiot.
1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win. The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means, If they do you can get the republican conspiracy theory linking the democrats to an event similar to Watergate.

2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it. Oh it goes to a PO Box... That is OK, you get an FBI agent waiting right next to that PO Box to arrest anyone who opens it.

3. How politically damaging is the truth anyways? It seems like the only people who really care will not vote for Romney anyways. He already admits that he pays less percentage in tax then most Americans. After months of digging you may find that he missed the rule here and there. But then the other side will find that he could have benefited from other areas where it balanced out.

There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes. This is on the same vane the only people who should opposed to airport searches are people with something to hide. Why would he not want to release taxes? Because his taxes are long and complex, it isn't like our W2 done on the simple form. His opponents will distract his discussion of what he considers important issue and bogged down defending every line item in his taxes that he probably paid a team of accountants to do for him.

I personalty don't care for Romney and I don't think I will vote for him. But I am sick of this extremism partisan crap. Where we actually celebrate politically motivated criminals who brake the law that causes something to favor our political stance.
These hackers are not hero's, they are petty criminals who can't stand a world where people have opposing views to them.

Re:Don't worry, Romney... (0)

craigminah (1885846) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246423)

So Harry Reid was wrong about Mitt Romney not paying taxes? I'm so surprised...

The real story here is... (5, Funny)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#41245973)

Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.

Re:The real story here is... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246069)

You can buy drugs with them... [slashdot.org]

Re:The real story here is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246389)

You can buy drugs with them... [slashdot.org]

Maybe its George Bush then

Re:The real story here is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246341)

Oh yeah, $1 million worth of something is definitely not worth having.

Re:The real story here is... (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246407)

Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.

Exactly, any self-respecting thief will go straight for lupins, that's a no-brainer.

bitcoins are traceable (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#41245975)

idiots

Re:bitcoins are traceable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41245985)

Their description of bitcoins was spot-on - untraceable currency used by criminals.

Re:bitcoins are traceable (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246173)

That's what they want you to think.

Re:bitcoins are traceable (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246029)

They know they there's no chance Romney will pay up. If he pays up, he likely does more damage to himself than the tax returns ever could.

The alternative is to say, "leave $1M dollars in unmarked bills under some overpass". They're hardly going to hang around waiting to see if he pays.

Re:bitcoins are traceable (2)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246209)

Very nice turn of events would be, to leak the location of that overpass to the press instead of picking up the money.

One would hope (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41245979)

that they take the money and release the information anyway. The rebplutocrats deserve worse than we can imagine.

Re:One would hope (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41245997)

with that vitriol, you wonder why public discourse has been destroyed.

Re:One would hope (0)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246007)

It was also right on that I'm sure the idiots in the Romney camp, in their little sealed off corporate reality bubbles, probably never heard of bitcoins and, on top of it, need direction in figuring out what they are (go to google).

Re:One would hope (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246053)

Most people on the street have never heard of bitcoins - hell, most people in IT have never heard of them. I wouldn't call them idiots for that particular reason (not to say there aren't plenty of others). As it is, I barely have an understanding of exactly how they're supposed to work.

Re:One would hope (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246225)

Funny is now Romney needs to buy $1M of bitcoins. With such demand, the bitcoin market would bubble quickly. $20 per 1btc? Sure. Then the blackmailers have to unload $1M in btc and ... the price drops like hell.

Re:One would hope (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246281)

If they've never heard of bitcoins that alone is to their credit.

Re:One would hope (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246097)

What's worth a public discourse based on the under table handling?

In USSR, you know, we had a proper and organized public discourse. Replace communism with the capitalism and you'd get the GOP's version of it.

Re:One would hope (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246077)

And what is it going to change?

Re:One would hope (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246137)

"rebplutocrats"

What are you 12?

"deserve worse than we can imagine"

Really? Do tell. What do we deserve chump?

Re:One would hope (5, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246143)

Possible, but I am thinking this is actually part of a larger ploy.

Since anyone of even a modicum of technological capability, who actually uses BitCoins, knows that they are somewhat traceable, I wonder why someone would demand such an outlandish sum in them. Let's see here...we have the key words BitCoins, hackers, and all of it tied to a presidential election.

We all know that for the last several months, the press has been falling over themselves to paint BitCoins in the darkest light possible, playing up every rumoured instanced of malfeasance even remotely tied to them. We also know that the military, for lack of enemies, has recently decided that their next shipment of bread and butter will have to come from the 'cyber-crime' division, and that they are desperate to find a playmate, domestic or otherwise, to justify the purchase orders already signed and dated, in top brass's top drawers. And seeing how the BitCoin community has been relatively effective in educating people with regards to the f*cked up claims the press loves to make, perhaps someone decided to take it to the next level. By launching an attack on a presidential campaign, you are guaranteed coverage in the press, at decibel levels well above the normal white noise; you also guarantee that the attacked opponent will respond with a calculated defence (denial, followed by revenge if / when elected), with the added bonus that since you went after a minor but incredibly irritating election issue (his tax returns, and it is), he will take it personally. If he is elected, he will willingly sign any law that mentions this incident and 'justice'; if he loses, the other guy will do the same, as he doesn't like the idea of what happened to his opponent possibly happening to him or his friends. It's the equivalent of a Morton's fork, where the tech industry is damned if they do, damned if they don't. The military gets paid either way, though they won't be invited to any tech parties for a few years.

Hackers (unknown enemy, up there with the boogey-man these days, hiding under your bed and in your computer, going to get you), BitCoins (another unknown, a 'competing' currency to the US dollar, so it's 'patriotic' to be against it; plus 'hackers' and drug dealers use it, unlike the US Dollar, so it must be bad), and a presidential election (when politicians make a black list, and begin adding names).

The best part is, even if the hackers are arrested, we may never get the people behind it all. Sounds a little conspiracy-ish, but it is in the CIA handbook, that you 'groom' someone else to do the dirty work, then get rid of them.

Re:One would hope (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246227)

A mere one week ago there was a discussion about how the Republican party was the party of hate, vitriol, and all the rest. This, in a discussion started by someone saying that the entire GOP convention deserved to drown in a hurricane.

My mind is just boggling right now at the utter hypocrisy.

Re:One would hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246349)

It's almost like political groups made up of individuals with a diversity of beliefs and personalities.

But remember, that's only true of your own party. Everyone with any sense knows that other party is universally a bunch of hypocrites and dicks. Our idiots should be forgiven and shuffled aside. Theirs are the truest representation of their side's moral bankruptcy and intellectual feebleness.

Re:One would hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246429)

that they take the money and release the information anyway.

Which is why this whole thing reeks of a Watergate style job. No chance of getting real money, even asking for bitcoins is a joke.

Romney waived a red flag (4, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41245983)

I don't know about the veracity of the claim that came in yesterday, but one of the things that I thought about when Romney started trying to surpress this information was that is was a just about the same thing as waiving a red flag in front of a bull. It's bound to make a "hacker" go for the ultimate crack and get this information (that most of us think should be public anyway) out of the electronic vault and onto the net.

It also, IMHO, shows that Romney and his band of followers live in a bubble of corporate reality and not in the real world. Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246015)

actually it sounds like a 'hacker' used the 'sneak in and photocopy a physical document' loophole out of a filing cabinet vault, not an electronic one. I know it's naive to expect someone to read the article, but this point is right in the summary.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (0)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246049)

Apparently the reason hacker was in quotes flew right over your head. If you don't get it I am not going to explain it to you.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246115)

just another rambling retard with diarhettic fingers shitting all over slashdot.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246091)

Except there was no electronic vault. As the summary quite clearly states, someone broke/snuck into the building and made copies. I'm not even sure where the term "hacker" comes in here... maybe just because they want to be paid in bitcoins?

"Romney’s 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room. During the night, suite 260 was entered, and all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied. A package was sent to the PWC on suite 260 with a flash drive containing a copy of the 1040 files, plus copies were sent to the Democratic office in the county and copies were sent to the GOP office in the county at the beginning of the week also containing flash drives with copies of Romney’s tax returns before 2010. A scanned signature image for Mitt Romney from the 1040 forms were scanned and included with the packages, taken from earlier 1040 tax forms gathered and stored on the flash drives."

Re:Romney waived a red flag (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246253)

So they've already been released?

Re:Romney waived a red flag (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246313)

Broke in? Unlikely. It was probably an inside job.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246105)

Hate to be a spelling nazi, but "waived" means something very different from "waved", and you seem to be confused on that point. "Waive" means to give up something you are due or have a right to, e.g. "The CEO waived his bonus in light of the poor performance of the company."

Re:Romney waived a red flag (4, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246155)

Interesting. One of the things I thought when Romney stated he wasn't going to release the information was that he was trying for a rope-a-dope, much like the President did to McCain with the birth certificate issue.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246261)

Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.

I am unaware of any requirement that a presidential candidate reveal his tax return, or his will, or what he had to eat last thursday.

The IRS gets to look it over, so Im really not clear here what there is to gain anyways; maybe theres some benefit Im unaware of.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246325)

There may be a sense of losing one's privacy by releasing one's tax records. Is it really appropriate to make such a request? Where is the line? What about opening up one's e-mail contacts to the world? Not the messages, but just the contacts.

In all fairness, it probably is a distraction. As much as I think Romney can't identify with most Americans, maybe this should just be dropped. Maybe they should discuss the issues.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not voting for Romney. I'm not planning on voting for Obama either. I'm not totally sure Obama can identify with most people. Listen to them talk about the "middle class" like it's all that there is. I don't buy into the "class system". Instead talk about high-income earners, middle-income earners, and low-income earners, and of course, those totally without any income whatsoever.

When I say they should discuss the issues, I mean just that. Talk about solutions. There are many different ideas out there, and there can be more than one solution to any given problem. There might not even be a "best" solution.

Re:Romney waived a red flag (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246397)

It sounded to me like there wasn't an electronic trace of a hacking break-in, but that someone just social-engineered their way into the accounting office, scanned the 1040s to .pdf, copied them to flash drives and walked out. I haven't RthisFA but another one that I read yesterday made it sound like that was what likely (if anything) happened. However, from most accounts, Romney's 1040s would be hundreds of papers each year, so maybe there was no scanning by the intruder at al, and they just sneakernet the stuff off someone's computer inhouse.

They'd release page 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246435)

If they had Romneys tax return, they'd release a portion of it, so they don't and they don't expect 1 million bitcoins, because nobody would pay it.

So it's a script kiddie hoax.

Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41245987)

I remember when Bush II was being attacked as a draft dodger. Someone released faked documents, which the news media picked up as real. When they were discredited, no one would touch the issue anymore, whether it was legitimate or not.

This could turn out to be a similar ploy to help Romney - by associating the tax returns with criminal activity, it might get too hot for the Dems to touch, making an otherwise legitimate issue go away.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (1)

drewco (1631735) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246027)

Tell that to Orly Taitz [wikipedia.org] and her Kenyan birth certificate.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246089)

Naming yourself after a mocking Internet meme doesn't help her case any.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246163)

Naming yourself

Who the OP, or that woman? I think you mean herself.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (2)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246219)

Reading through the claims this woman makes, I can only respond with "Oh really?".

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246317)

Don't you mean, "Oh really, Orly?" She should have changed her last name to O'Rielly.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246037)

Makes sense. The hacker will "release" some obvious fakes and then Romney won't need to worry about anyone finding out he took the FBAR amnesty back in '09.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (4, Insightful)

furytrader (1512517) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246051)

Your conspiracy theory seems like another example of the well-recognized cognitive dissonance that Democrats have about Republicans: We're all really stupid, except when we're able to hatch these amazingly sophisticated conspiracies to steal elections. Move on, indeed!

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (5, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246133)

No one is saying that Republicans are stupid in terms of playing politics. They have stupid policies such as force-feeding creationism in science class, but they are geniuses at fear-mongering, name-calling, and just flat-out lying in order to get what they want. You want to talk about leaving Iraq? Well, you're a cut-and-run coward who hates America. You want to help the poor and middle class? You're engaging in class warfare, and you hate success. These guys are freaking geniuses at political gamesmanship. Look at ObamaCare. They were able to stop even a single Republican representative from voting in favor of the bill. Are you telling me that not one of them thought the bill was a good idea or was the leadership that absolute? Hint: it's the latter.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (1, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246147)

I'm not sure how you can call that cognitive dissonance in this era. The Republicans have a very massive public front that is filled with idiots and a very smart back room that is using those idiots to their advantage.

Secondly, the "conspiracies" that are affecting voter turnout and possible mis-counting of votes aren't that sophisticated at all. It doesn't take much to come up with a rule that affects how the poor can get to polls (plus it wouldn't be a conspiracy because it's done right out in the open in the legislatures. Conspiracies are secret.)

It also it doesn't take much to get something nefarious into computer code when you're going to make it closed source and unavailable for neutral experts to examine it.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (4, Interesting)

Creedo (548980) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246285)

I don't think that anyone is accusing the big dogs of the GOP of being idiots. Sure, some of the mouthpieces are real pieces of work(Palin, Bachmann, Akin, Perry), but the real movers are not. The common accusation is that they are selfish plutocrats who are willing to sell the country out to the religious right while pushing the middle class and poor under in the bus. Sure, the general stance in regards to science that is associated with the GOP as a whole paints them in a dim light, but I think that that is largely just pandering to ignorant voters(with some obvious exceptions, such as are listed above).

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246311)

Stupid people still create complicated and ridiculous solutions to problems. Often it is also stupid. Consider using lead as an octane booster in gasoline (a burn regulator), when we've always used low-lead pewter for holloware and no-lead pewter for flatware because we've known lead is highly poisonous since the beginning of time. Yes that's right, for a millennium or three we've known not to use more than 4% lead in beer tankards and 0% in plates and knives to make pewter (otherwise pewter is 14% lead), and then we go and stick lead powder in something we're going to burn and belch into the air as a way to solve a complex chemical problem in which a chemical occasionally ignites too early from heat build-up during compression.

Clever, but stupid. Clever enough to use a high density metal dust to slow the reaction, too stupid to think about the implications of belching toxic heavy metals into the air. You think politicians can't think up complicated PR fuckery and still be morons?

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246379)

Actually, both democrats and republicans are amazingly stupid. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, free speech zones, pointless wars, the TSA, etc.

Honestly, who is still voting for these clowns? Wait...

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246187)

Nice way to spin that. Are you suggesting that Bush himself was behind the claim? If you are I'd like to know what evidence you have to support that.

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (2, Interesting)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246217)

It could also be the other way around. Obama's past campaigns have a history of getting private information disclosed, like opponents' divorce records. It's as plausible that the Obama campaign illegally obtained the records from the IRS, and when public pressure wouldn't force Romney to release the records, decided to stage a burglary to get them out in the public without the campaign's fingerprints on them. I doubt that happened, but it's as or more likely than that Romney was attempting to take them out of the discussion by making them "too hot ... to touch."

Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246241)

The thing is I don't really see tax returns as all that interesting or a 'legitmate' issue.

We mostly know what sort of business Romeny was in and we known plently about the caracteristics and behavior of those businesses. That said Bain Capital's tax returns would be of far more interest than Romeny's personal returns. They would provide lots of detail about the business and the kind of action Romeny voluntarily engagues in.

Personal returns won't tell us much. How much money did he make. Well we already know it was dumptruck loads, from most of our personal prespectives. Honestly does it matter if it was 3M or 5M?

What part of it was salaray and what was investment income? We know from what has been released most of it is going to be investment income.

Did Romney use tax advantaged vehicles to protect as much of his personal wealth from the tax man as possible? I am sure he did, just as I do and I am sure you do as well. Got a 401k, IRA, one of the college savings plans for your kids, did you chose to buy a home rather than rent to get the advantage of the Intrest deduction? I bet you did and that does not make you a tax cheat. Romeny did not get to make the rules. I don't think its fair to expect him to leave anything one the table when you and I don't and won't.

Now had he been a sitting Senator or House Rep and actually voted on tax rules that he himself could take advantage of there might be some scandal there but that is not true of his case. McCain and Obama were a different story.

I think this noise about individual tax returns is just that noise.

research research my friends (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246001)

The original release and on pastebin makes no mention of the money. Speculation at the moment is that someone took the original release and "added" a ransom and resubmitted it to pastebin.

$1 million in bitcoins (4, Funny)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246009)

"$1 million in bitcoins" ... and they say *Romney's* out of touch with the real world?

Re: $1 million in bitcoins (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246073)

IIRC, the current exchange rate is about $10 for 1. They only have to hold that for a little while.

Also, how are prosaic thieves who raided a cabinet "hackers"? Unless they got through the office door with a hatchet.

In any case, they claim to have given a copy to county party officials, so it should be easy enough to verify.

Re: $1 million in bitcoins (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246233)

They should have demanded Smurfberries.

Re: $1 million in bitcoins (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246307)

they hold their value better, that is for sure.

Re: $1 million in bitcoins (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246363)

Maple Syrup!

Re: $1 million in bitcoins (1)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246339)

It makes more sense when you say "$1 million" using a Doctor Evil voice.

Hackers making copies? (2)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246035)

Is there some reasoning why thieves that broke into a building and supposedly made copies of a document(why not just take the actual papers instead of making copies?) would be labeled hackers? The whole thing sounds suspect to me.

Re:Hackers making copies? (2)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246269)

...why not just take the actual papers instead of making copies?

Not raising suspicion. If stuff vanishes there's a higher probability that it gets noticed too early.

Re:Hackers making copies? (1)

Kit Cosper (7007) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246361)

Everyone knows "hacker" == "technology + evil" and it gets more play than a headline that reads "Accountant Office Burglarized: Romney Tax Returns Stolen"

Re:Hackers making copies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246391)

If I put on my tinfoil hat I could suggest they would be labeled hackers to keep the word "hacker" in the media as a negative thing so it can later be used to justify internet regulation. Of course, that's only if I'm wearing this stylish chapeau.

What's the point? (0, Offtopic)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246061)

OMG, he's rich! Yeah, we kinda know that already.

Reminds me of the time in high school when someone ran down a corridor yelling that the math teacher was bald. His response was, [sarcasm]"Why didn't anyone tell me???"[/sarcasm] Of course, hypertext markup language hadn't been invented yet.

Re:What's the point? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246211)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2009+FBAR+amnesty

tl;dr: In early 2009, the Swiss bank UBS was indited in a massive tax-evasion scheme and as part of their settlement with the American IRS, they revealed thousands of names of account holders (to the IRS, but not to the public). The IRS then instituted an amnesty program, where if you came clean about your previously undisclosed offshore accounts in your 2009 tax returns, your penalty would be reduced and you wouldn't go to jail for tax evasion.

Romney is only releasing his tax returns from 2010 or later.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246213)

The suspicion is that he might have taken amnesty for Swiss accounts in 2009.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246265)

The point isn't that he's rich; the contention is that he did not pay his fair share in taxes because of loopholes that exist for the rich. He has already released the last two years.... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-stands-his-ground-to-release-only-two-years-of-returns/
More likely than not, because everybody fudges on their taxes to some degree he doesn't want to come under IRS scrutany. By the way, can we see Obama's tax returns for the past 10 years? Oh yeah, I thought not. He's not exactly poor himself nor is he above using the system that exists to his own advantage.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246267)

There's more to it than "he's rich". There's nothing wrong with being rich. The relevant question is "How much in net taxes did he pay while being rich?" If it's, say, somewhere between 0% and 15%, then a lot of people are going to say "Well, there's your tax revenue problem." It would make it pretty hard for someone like Romney to make a case for leaving the Bush era tax cuts in place for the top of the income scale, while most middle-income people are paying a larger fraction of their income as taxes.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246295)

Who cares about him being rich? The issue is whether or not he has broken the law, and assuming that he has not, whether the effective tax rate he has paid and is paying is acceptable.

It's... (1)

DenaliPrime (6153) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246067)

Franklin, TN, no Frankin. It's a suburb of Nashville.

Re:It's... (1)

DenaliPrime (6153) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246081)

And then I make a spelling error that I missed in the preview. Yay me. *grumbles and goes for coffee*

Bah (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246083)

This blackmail makes pretty clear the need for improvement in the US education system , 1M$??????, even to be a criminal education is essential.

This is not the hack I was looking for (0)

erikwestlund (1003368) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246109)

I was hoping for information on the tax hack that allows me to pay 13% in taxes.

Re:This is not the hack I was looking for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246293)

I was hoping for information on the tax hack that allows me to pay 13% in taxes.

I think it is the section called 'capital gains' :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

If we don't want anyone to use/abuse that section anymore, then we should start a grassroots movement to have it removed/amended.

Re:This is not the hack I was looking for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246371)

Paul Ryan's proposed budget wants to remove it. And by "remove it" I mean set the capital gains tax rate to 0%.

Not a hacker (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246117)

by someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document

This person is called a thief, not a hacker.

Re:Not a hacker (1)

laron (102608) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246221)

Nothing was taken away (well, manybe if they used the office copier they stole paper, toner etc.) I'm sure I've read that copying != stealing somewhere around here.
Actually that might make it an even worse crime than trespassing, burglary or theft: copyright infringement!

Bitcoins (0)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246179)

Let's say your sitting on lots of bit coins from one of the recent exchange robberies. How you do you liquidate those since people actually trying to sell bitcoins in any kind of quantity tend to lower the lower the market value of bitcoins pretty quickly?

Scam! Small scale break in at an office building and you solve your problem. Cash out for a fair chunk of a million dollars when you unload your bitcoins because /someone/ will buy 1 million dollars in bitcoins (FBI sting operation, well meaning rich Mormon, whoever) without losing market value.

It's brilliant because you know the FBI hasn't got a million dollars in bitcoins just sitting around that they can use in a sting operation and you can get away.

/proving once more that bitcoins are the currency of thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles and gun runners. Their just begging for governments to declare open war on bitcoins....

Re:Bitcoins (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246259)

/proving once more that bitcoins are the currency of thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles and gun runners. Their just begging for governments to declare open war on bitcoins....

Are you suggesting that government are opposed to those things?

whats he worried about? (1)

johnsnails (1715452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246181)

According to Wikipedia... "As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million" Im not kidding... 2 people I admire greatly are collectively worth about $150M, and I can tell you that most of us live just like us day to day (although by choice). One drives a Holden Statesmen and the other a Mazda MX5. They eat plain meals, "meat and 3 vege", show at "Lowes" and live a simple life. Maybe Romney is still in touch even as a successful business man, maybe that helped him get to where he is?

Re:whats he worried about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246299)

The problem is that he doesn't pay enough tax by far and doesn't spend his cash, effectively vacuuming fiscal life blood from the economy.

Multiply by a bunch of rich guys, and you get the situation as it stands today. Starvation in America.

Re:whats he worried about? (1, Interesting)

Tora (65882) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246411)

What do you think is "enough"?

I suspect he pays more in taxes than you, based on $$ amount alone.

Re:whats he worried about? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246347)

You should go read the Rolling Stone story about Romney and Bain. Romney is as far as from the simple, honest businessman persona as he can get if even a part of the history is true.

Re:whats he worried about? (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246409)

Romney is an asshole. [rollingstone.com] To be fair, the Stone doesn't like Romney at all; but there's not a lot to like. He's a Republican John Kerry.

Hackers? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246289)

Back in my day we used to call people who snuck into buildings and stole things "burgalers". Now days I guess they're called hackers. I guess I should get used to telling the neighborhood kids to get off my lawn.

Balances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246315)

Stop https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW8XVsE8
Promote https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL6RaNgB

Two pastebin post - same people? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41246337)

There were two separate pastbin posts.

The first stated papers had been physically copied during a burglary at PWC. There was no randsom demand. They simply stated the papers would be released Sep 28th.

The second paste said they had accessed the file servers during a break in at PWC and accessed the information this way. The second asked for a randsom.

There is no evidence the two posts were by the same people.

This is all too much complexity for most jounalists it seems.

Idiots... (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246405)

Using a Xerox IS NOT HACKING. Seriously, people. Calling a THIEF a HACKER? Making real hackers look bad.

Helping no one... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 2 years ago | (#41246419)

These hackers are helping no one - except maybe Romney. They make hackers look bad, they give more fuel to the fire that Bitcoins are a criminal haven, and they give rise to suspicions that the Dems are behind this. Thanks for nothing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?