Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SilverElfin 7 days ago
The government should not be able to outsource things they cannot do themselves. This is a loophole in our laws.
4 comments

We already have a tool for dealing with this as it pertains to cell tower data.

SCOTUS determined that merely having a cellphone, which is a modern necessity, creates too much privately held data that the telcos shouldn't be allowed, even when they want to, to hand it over to the government without a warrant.

Basically all we have to do is expand the types of data that land in this zone.

Wouldn't that just lead to a whole parallel economy of government-owned infrastructure & manufacturing?
I don't think they mean "cannot do" as in "don't have the capability." But rather "cannot do" as in "are not allowed to do." If the government can't (is not allowed to) surveil me without a warrant, it shouldn't be able to (be allowed to) buy surveillance of me from a private party either.
Ah, ok, I wildly misread/misunderstood that. Thanks!
Not a bad thing at all.

When the government buys a piece of steel, a chunk of that is property taxes of the owner of the factory building, a huge chunk of that is business taxes, a huge chunk of that is income taxes of the workers that work there.

If the government can own that infrastructure as a fully nonprofit entity that pays zero taxes, the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100. That means our income taxes can also be much lower, because the government can be more efficient.

Right now a huge chunk of the taxes you pay to the government go toward paying second-order taxes.

Would the government be buying that steel, if they own the infrastructure for it? When I grab a cucumber from my garden, I'm not exactly paying myself for it.

And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.

That's the point. Instead of buying it, they can just have it. By $50 I meant that they're buying everything at-cost internally. Only $50 of taxpayer money is needed to procure that steel, instead of $100.

> And the property, business and income taxes still need to get paid.

Not if the government owns it and they decide it's tax exempt. They can also build it on government land, and decide that government land is property tax free.

Buying state owned enterprises and running them more efficiently to double their valuation (or more) has been a reliably profitable business in many countries. This suggests to me that government bureaucracy, lack of accountability etc. could result in “at cost” trending to $100 or more if government buys private companies, or starting close to $100 if government starts a new one.
This scheme didn't pan out for the Soviets.
> ... the government can buy the steel for $50 instead of $100.

And also lose $50 of tax revenue. I do not see how the government is any better off here.

$50 of gross revenue discounted is not $50 of tax revenue lost.
They shouldn't buy socks for the army, they should make the socks themselves?
I believe the original commenter meant "The government should not be able to outsource things they are not allowed to do themselves."
Has the army been restricted from making socks?
I meant that they can’t circumvent legal limitations on the government by simply making a private party do those same things the government is prevented from doing. Buying data from private companies is one such issue.
Buying, making, and owning socks are not against the law in the usa, so socks are already compliant with the suggestion.
The suggestion is very poorly worded, if you are correct.
Can't buy the wool second-hand, gotta have government-owned sheep.
Thankfully, the pentagon should already have some sheep specs on hand
I believe that's covered under MIL-SPEC-M00-BAAA
Could they do CPU chips?