Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 05 2017, @10:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-bad-deed-goes-unrewarded? dept.

The IRS will pay Equifax $7.25 million to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud under a no-bid contract issued last week, even as lawmakers lash the embattled company about a massive security breach that exposed personal information of as many as 145.5 million Americans.

A contract award for Equifax's data services was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities database Sept. 30 — the final day of the fiscal year. The credit agency will "verify taxpayer identity" and "assist in ongoing identity verification and validations" at the IRS, according to the award.

The notice describes the contract as a "sole source order," meaning Equifax is the only company deemed capable of providing the service. It says the order was issued to prevent a lapse in identity checks while officials resolve a dispute over a separate contract.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/03/equifax-irs-fraud-protection-contract-243419


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:46PM (12 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:46PM (#577458) Journal

    There is nothing, nothing, the government controls that is not intentionally made worse for a buck, screwed up through incompetence, or maliciously and deliberately used against the American people.

    So, according to you, is it better or worse that the IRS has outsourced this task instead of doing it internally?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:04PM (11 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:04PM (#577577) Homepage Journal

    Depends on your perspective. Me, I prefer the IRS to be as incompetent as possible, so it would have been better if they'd kept it in-house.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:32PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:32PM (#577648) Journal

      I dunno: with eqifux, it seems one of those "six of one" sitiations.

      Methinks they both can fuck it up equally, but now the gov can blame someone else while paying them enough to settle any lawsuits equifux will need to settle if any lawsuits result from blah blah blah.
      The new gov trough.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday October 05 2017, @10:07PM (9 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Thursday October 05 2017, @10:07PM (#577667) Journal

      So, basically, you want the government to not have any money to spend?

      Let me suggest that you move to one of any number of failed and almost failed states in Africa or South America. They are all shitholes, but I am sure that the government fulfills your desired level of organization. If you are lucky, you might even get Internet service there.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 06 2017, @12:52AM (8 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 06 2017, @12:52AM (#577734) Homepage Journal

        Yes. It can't fuck things up as badly if it's neutered. See the pre-Civil-War United States if you want a successful example of a limited federal government.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Whoever on Friday October 06 2017, @02:26AM (1 child)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday October 06 2017, @02:26AM (#577762) Journal

          See Somalia for a modern-day example of a limited government.

          • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday October 06 2017, @01:31PM

            by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday October 06 2017, @01:31PM (#577990) Homepage

            As much as people like to beat up on Libertarians and small government people by using Somalia as an example it turns out that in fact no government was better [peterleeson.com] than what they had. When a number of metrics used to judge how a country is doing improve when a government collapses maybe it isn't all bad. Also like most you are falsely equating that no government is the same as small or smaller government.

            --
            T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday October 06 2017, @02:30AM (5 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday October 06 2017, @02:30AM (#577763) Journal

          It's important to realize that the world has changed since the Civil War. What worked then doesn't work today. What's so hard to understand about that?

          What you are asking for is something like Brazil is heading into. A country that's great to live in if you are in the very few wealthy elite, and crap for everyone else. You aspire to have a crap life. Why is that? Stupidity, or blinded by ideology?

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 06 2017, @02:34AM (4 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 06 2017, @02:34AM (#577764) Homepage Journal

            Even granting you everything you say as true, entirely for the sake of argument, yes, I would still rather have liberty than security. As would every American worth the name.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday October 06 2017, @03:04AM (3 children)

              by Whoever (4524) on Friday October 06 2017, @03:04AM (#577774) Journal

              Paying reasonable taxes does not reduce your liberty. Living in poverty does.

              Living in a country where the government stands aside while powerful people take your liberty away is the end result of what you want.

              • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 06 2017, @03:22AM (2 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 06 2017, @03:22AM (#577785) Homepage Journal

                One of these days you'll grok that I believe protection of your liberties is one of the very few legitimate functions of government. Well, no, probably not. That would interfere with the narrative you have to keep spinning in your head to justify using 1984 as an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @04:01AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06 2017, @04:01AM (#577793)

                  And to provide that protection, the government will need money and best that collection be done competently or it cannot be collected fairly. So you're an idiot for wanting the IRS to be incompetent.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 06 2017, @10:47AM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday October 06 2017, @10:47AM (#577927) Homepage Journal

                    You really don't grok snark, do you? I'm not going to explain it completely but let me put your feet on the path of wisdom at least: it's less important that it be utterly logical than it is that it convey your displeasure with the target.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.