Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

> "One woman who shared her story with the ACLU told the Guardian that in the last year, she has twice had her electronics searched while flying within California. The 64-year-old, who works in nonprofits and requested anonymity for fear that she could face further scrutiny from TSA, said that on one occasion last year, TSA agents pulled her aside to pat her down multiple times and eventually asked to see both her iPhones – a work and personal one."

I suspect it would be very revealing which nonprofit is involved here; this kind of harassment through scrutiny is a classic tactic against progressive groups.

View on HN

It's also a classic tactic against conservative groups.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

What a non story. The real story is that congress passes impossible to enforce legislation that cannot properly define which groups are political and which not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/liberal-groups-got-...

> A federal watchdog has identified scores of cases in which the Internal Revenue Service may have targeted liberal-leaning groups for extra scrutiny based on their names or political leanings, a finding that could undermine claims that conservatives were unfairly targeted under President Barack Obama.

This is the kind of scandal the right clings to -- gov't bureaucrats trying to do their job.

"Classic tactic" for the gov't to target conservatives? You need to provide some real evidence or another example that pans out before making those kind of claims.

> "Classic tactic" for the gov't to target conservatives? You need to provide some real evidence or another example that pans out before making those kind of claims.

In case you didn't notice, that was a repeat of the exact words used in the comment that was being responded to. Unless you're planning to call out the initial comment in the same way, since it actually provided no evidence, whether you think it worthwhile or not, perhaps you should consider why out of the two statements, you felt compelled to respond to the one that actually provided some backing.

It's a little disturbing that I had to vouch for gowld since they were flagged and dead. I may not necessarily agree with them, but voting to oblivion and flagging them does not seem the appropriate response.

People who make outrageous claims need to be prepared to defend them. There is enough disinfo out there already.

Then apply the same standard to all, including members of your own tribe.

You will need to post something of substance if you want a substantial response.

I wouldn't say "classic" since you're referring to fairly recent events. If I had to guess, the OP was speaking about mid-20th century targeting of progressive groups by US law enforcement agencies (e.g. sending MLK fake hate mail whose intent, according to many, was to induce suicide).

Sorry, are you equating needless bureaucratic red tape in a non-profit's application for tax-exempt status to the seizure of a private citizen's phone and laptop?

I think they are equating "this kind of harassment through scrutiny" as stated specifically in the top level comment.

And that point falls down when the "scrutiny" isn't equivalent. The grandparent was clearly jumping in to make a partisan point (e.g. to say that there is no partisan lean to the demographics subject to this harrassment). And the evidence simply doesn't back that up.

The government harrasses minorities and progressive groups with this kind of tactic far more than it does white middle class folks, and trying to pretend that playing games with a 501(c)(3) application is somehow "the same" is just laughable.

> The government harrasses minorities and progressive groups with this kind of tactic far more than it does white middle class folks

How did progressive/conservative turn into minorities and "middle class white folks"? I'm in no way sure that progressive groups face more scrutiny than conservative groups, especially given some of the really odd and extreme conservative groups out there. I say this as someone that considers themselves a staunch progressive (if moderate liberal).

Sorry, are you equating a private citizen having their phone out of their sight for 10 minutes with over a year of delays in permitting an organization to accept tax-exempt donations from thousands of citizens?

Frankly, BOTH are unreasonable and the government should not be engaging in EITHER ONE. I think there is little to be gained by debating which is "worse" -- could we instead agree to cease doing both?

No. There are degrees of "worseness": we have a priority queue of issues that must be addressed given spare time and resources.

In that context: and individual's right to privacy and to be left alone is much much more important than any organization getting tax exempt status.

An organization is allowed to collect donations when it files for tax-exempt status. It's donors are simply not allowed to take deductions for those donations until the exemption is approved. Once approved, the exemption is retroactive to the date of the application.

SO, no, the two situations are nothing similar in nature or scope.

"Tax-exempt" status is completely invented by the government, and carries no natural or Constitutional rights.

Being secure in your personal effects is a natural right and protected by the 4th Amendment.

It's not "classic" since the example used happened less than 10 years ago as well as also being applied to left-wing groups as well. [0]

What is classic about it is right wing media (especially in the talk radio era) hyperventilating and manufacturing a scandal where "conservatives" are the victims.

Furthermore individuals/groups claiming tax exempt status where none exists is one of the things that the IRS should be looking for as an agency.

[0]https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/audit-irs-scrutiny...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com