• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Done with Newegg.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
My issue is this; I choose to buy something from a particular place. My money, my choice. Now a government says "We're entitled to a piece of everything you do." They didn't provide any facilitation for the sale, ie, they didn't set the standards for the business' structure, they offer no protection or remedy if the sale goes bad. They have no financial outlay to recoup. That makes it theft by extortion, not taxation.

As for the potential criminal actions of newegg, turning over personal data that should only be delivered upon reception of a subpoena, means I will never buy from them again. It isn't just CT residents got screwed, it's the fact that newegg demonstrated they can't be trusted. I won't do business with someone I can't trust. If they're shady in that respect they'll be shady every time it's convenient for them. Adios, newegg.
Ehh, the warehouse is in that state, or store, or whatever. That is why.

Newegg is not remotely criminal in all of this. YOU are supposed to report and pay your own taxes on things like this (not that I do either...but just saying)! Now that it is finally catching up with people, they are labeled "criminals" and people are shopping at other places? You act like a bunch of spoiled millenials, LOL!

Is your beef they handed over the information? Aren't they obligated to do so if asked?
 
Last edited:

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
Is your beef they handed over the information? Aren't they obligated to do so if asked?

No. They are obligated to respect their paying customers. By requiring sensitive data from their customers to do business, an implied trust and obligation is created to safeguard that data. If a government requested information that they are not legally entitled to without a subpoena, and newegg gives it to them absent due process, both are liable for the violation of civil rights, but at different levels of guilt. Newegg is complicit, CT is guilty of the act itself. I don't have an issue with collecting back taxes, I have a large problem with a government in America using the "ends justify the means" argument for anything. I believe it was taxation concerns that got our previous government overthrown by force of arms. "Taxation without representation". If we are denied due process, we are denied representation.

Otherwise we end up with crazy abuses of power like the NSA covertly recording every cell transmission in North America. And the President lying about it.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
They aren't???

They are obligated to respect their paying customers.
They are?

I feel like I'm stuck in a Brady Bunch episode! :p


By requiring sensitive data from their customers to do business, an implied trust and obligation is created to safeguard that data.
It is safe. They turned it over by request of the state of Connecticut. It wasn't hacked in any way, shape, or form.

If a government requested information that they are not legally entitled to without a subpoena, and newegg gives it to them absent due process, both are liable for the violation of civil rights, but at different levels of guilt.
You are assuming quite a bit here...yes?

Tell me why you think the state didn't have a right to request the information of people essentially evading taxes? While you are at it, please also explain why Newegg, shouldn't turn that over to anyone (state) who asks??? Newegg would be closer to a "criminal" NOT handing over the list than to hand it over!!!

If they simply handed it over, then I question the reasons behind it. What I am not questioning now is the legality of them doing so. From what FACTS we have so far, Newegg is not a "criminal" in this. Now if more information comes out damning them, sure, I'll go along with it. But calling Newegg a criminal with the 'evidence' displayed so far in this thread, is premature at best. :)

Its just funny to me that because Newegg isn't complicit in tax evasion with you(me...all who order there and do not claim), THEY are criminal. Da Heck kind of logic is that???!!!!

EDIT: After reading a bit more, it appears they may have handed over TOO MUCH information which is the main issue here... is that correct?
 
Last edited:

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
Ignoring a subpoena would be criminal. A state requesting personal information as a blanket request (fishing expidition) in the hope that they may catch someone guilty of wrongdoing is a clear violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Violating the civil rights of an entire group "just in case" is a criminal offense in America. Personal information is property, with a value easily determined by the marketing of such by numerous corporate examples. And if Newegg is going to do business in America, they are obligated to know the relevant law. Just because someone says "I want" doesn't mean they are entitled to have.

A private (non government) request for information can easily be denied. A request by government has the implied force of authority behind it, whether or not it has legal authority. Therefore, governments do not have that right, they must afford due process. It's the principle (and law) that makes the playing field level in an adversarial justice system.

Newegg can enter in to a legal agreement with states to collect tax for said states. It is then entered in to their Privacy Statement, becoming part of the contract between buyer and seller or broker. They did not do so with CT, and in fact declined that action, taking a route consistent with disregard for their customers. Being owned by a Chinese company they can make the argument that management cannot conceive limits to governmental authority, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Seriously, the state of CT cheated. When a government in this country cheats it is a criminal act. That is exactly the purpose of the Constitution-to limit the rights of government. They didn't go to court to secure a subpoena because it would have been flatly denied as a search without probable cause as spelled out in the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

As a final insult, they (CT) didn't specify "puchases from, and shipped to, CT". They wanted every invoice with CT on it. This is borne out by the people who sent things to other states, thereby being exempt from any taxation by the state according to the state's tax code. And there is no reasonable person who would believe the CT Dept. Of Revenue doesn't know their own tax code. There was no due process or legitimate goal. It was a wide ranging money grab, to cover budget mismanagement by the state of CT.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Tell me why you think the state didn't have a right to request the information of people essentially evading taxes?

Buuuuut, it wasn't a fishing expedition. Perhaps the state didn't ask for it properly or newegg may have handed over too much, but, what is the right way? Does anyone know that since this is the first time a request was made? Now they are criminals and complicit??? I can't make that leap yet man...

I would imagine a court would side with the state considering its a reasonable search. Probable cause are the people buying in CT from Newegg, period.

The legitimate goal is to collect on taxes that are due to the state. It could be a money grab, it could be to cover budget mismanagement but, those conspiracys would not hold up in court. Really, it sounds like a tantrum, those reasons, more than anything rooted in fact. "Well, you shouldn't be doing that because you are shady anyway and can't manage your books... I'm taking my ball and going home!".
 

Blaylock

"That Backfired" Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Location
Go Blue!
Newegg Privacy Statement

If you read Newegg's Privacy Policy you will see under the Sharing paragraph that they do in fact disclose to ALL customers that they are willing to share your private information with the government when THEY deem it necessary.


Sharing
Newegg often sells products from third party companies that we refer to as our “Marketplace” sellers. In order to best facilitate and complete these transactions, we may share some of your customer data with these companies.

In addition, we may employ third party companies to perform functions on our behalf. These functions may include order fulfillment, package delivery, marketing assistance, postal and e-mail delivery, customer service, data analysis, and credit processing. The third parties we contract for these purposes have limited access to your personal information and may not use it for other purposes.

We may frame or mask another website so that the look, feel and interface simulate the experience of browsing a genuine Newegg.com web page. Extreme care and discretion is exercised when evaluating third party sites. We only brand third party sites if their organization applies stringent security and privacy practices which parallel our own commitment to safe online shopping.

As our business continues to evolve, we may acquire or sell business units or subsidiaries. Customer information is one of the business assets that would be transferred in these types of transactions. In such a situation, your personally identifiable information would only be used in a manner consistent with our pre-existing Privacy Notice.

We reserve the right to disclose your personally identifiable information as required by law, and when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights and/or comply with a judicial proceeding, court order, or legal process served on our website.

As a customer you accept these policies whenever you do business with them. Of course you have the right to discontinue doing business with them, but the fact is they have provided full disclosure to your rights, even if you have disregarded it.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Well, that (to me) absolves Newegg of wrong doing.. most of it anyway. I think they gave TOO much information out which is what some are having issues with? I don't know. Forums are confusing... too many opinions... some rooted more in emotion than facts make it tough to sort through.
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
Buuuuut, it wasn't a fishing expedition.
"Give me the all the personal information you have on every State of CT resident, because some of them might have done a wrong thing". That isn't a fishing expedition, it's the Moby **** of fishing expeditions.


Perhaps the state didn't ask for it properly

The instructions are right here. "Not asking for it properly", when done under the guise of governmental authority, is a violation of the below Amendment, therefore a criminal act. At the very least it was a warrantless search. So any evidence gathered is inadmissable for prosecution as fruit of the poisoned tree.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

It's not a tantrum. They demonstrated a lack of due diligence in complying with an unjust request, because it was easier that way. So, they will take the easy way out without regard for their customer's wishes or interests. Not doing business with them is enlightened self interest, if not legal self defense.
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
The first issue is the government did not have the right to ask.
As for Newegg
We reserve the right to disclose your personally identifiable information as required by law, and when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights and/or comply with a judicial proceeding, court order, or legal process served on our website.

None of their stated criteria was met. They took the easy way out without regard to their stated policy, which holds the force of a legal contract as a statement of obligation to their customers. So, nope.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Interesting... well put.

I guess we will see what the courts have to say about it. Wait? Is anyone going to court over this?

The first issue is the government did not have the right to ask.
Why not? Its not reasonable to think there are hundreds of thousands of transactions there which people like you or me did not pay taxes against?
 

ihrsetrdr

Señor Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Location
High Desert, Calif.
Paying use tax on purchases where the seller did not collect the state tax was always an obligation of the individual purchaser.

I personally think that such requirement is ch!cken$h!t, but there's little I can do about it. When I shop online I look more for free shipping, and really don't notice whether tax is going to be collected or not.

Newegg, ebay and Amazon all have facilities in California, so I assume I'll have to pay state tax anyway.
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
Why not? Its not reasonable to think there are hundreds of thousands of transactions there which people like you or me did not pay taxes against?

It is reasonable to suspect that (as proven by the results). The problem is any request by a government carries the implied weight of legal authority, whether or not actual legal authority exists. It creates ambiguity, and ambiguity is always decided in favor of the party who did not draw up the contract, or the accused, ie. reasonable doubt. in this case the government who wrote the laws.

I guess we will see what the courts have to say about it.

Yup. Although we then may see the occasional conflict between
"legal" and "justice". Being right is no guarantee of a favorable verdict. LOL
 

dominick32

Senior Solid State Aficionado
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Location
New York
After reading the last couple of paragraphs and everybody going back-and-forth, I can see both sides here. I think where the real difficulty came here is not the fact that we need to pay taxes on Internet hardware, and take care of our own countries, and pay our own sales tax fed and local. It’s more the fact that we’ve been doing business with these e-tailers for many years and they’ve never actually told us they’re going to automatically handover our private information like what computer parts we purchased and how much we spent on them without our authorization. There are so many variables in situations where that is unjust, like if we are a business and keep our transactions separate, Incorporated sales but never registered our tax number on file completed the sales as personal all these years,., or if we’re sending out a lot of gifts and buying presents for other people, etc. etc. a lot of area stipulations that does not show up in their tax review, it only audits the amount of money and products that we purchased including our own personal information .It just kind of feels like a stab in the back, getting broadsided, getting slapped or punched without looking. You know what I mean ? I agree with both sides of the argument here. I already pay 40% of my paycheck every week back to the government, at least give me the ability to let you know my personal details what I do for fun in my life, give me the ability to let you know how much I spent on my computer and my electronics . Or at the very least let me know when I purchase something at a store they’re going to send that information to the federal or state government . At least I know what I’m getting myself into. Personally, I am a hard line constitutionalist, and a patriot, proud Second Amendment supporting American, I will not be shopping at Newegg in a more because of this practice. I know some will not agree with that, but that is what I’m going to choose
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
After reading the last couple of paragraphs and everybody going back-and-forth, I can see both sides her

One of the things I value most about OCF is that seeing both sides is a fairly common trait here. No matter how contentious an issue may get, the give and take is generally more respectful than most. I know that the arguments I presented are theory. The courts will decide, whether I agree with that decision or not. I also know that no dummies weighed in on this. The thoughts I read were expressed by people whose thoughts carry the weight of above average intelligence and thoughtful consideration, and I'll gratefully benefit from seeing things from viewpoints I hadn't considered.

Most of my conversations for the last few years have been with a teenager. This has been like finally getting to eat in the dining room with the adults instead of in the kitchen with the kids. LOL
 

Kenrou

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
This sorta reminds me of when the police asked Apple to unlock the San Bernandino killer's iPhone and they said no. And then they asked for a universal iPhone backdoor and they also said no. All of this because decoding just one phone risks them all.

"The law works on a system of precedent: if Apple is forced to unlock this phone, then it will mean that the law allows for phones to be unlocked. From there, judges and politicians will be able to ask of Apple that it unlocks its devices — and lean on this same ruling every time it wants to do so, even in more questionable situations than that of the San Bernardino shooting."

Countries need to evolve with the times and pass new and better laws according to the situations. Regardless of my political views i'm completely against giving power to the state "just because", we know for a fact that power will be abused. But when it comes to taxes it's a sort of grey area, it's like Amazon paying ZERO taxes in 5.6 BILLION dollars profits in 2017 because their "global headquarters" is in Luxembourg...


EDIT: didn't Trump promise to pass some sort of law against this sort of loopholes ?
 

dominick32

Senior Solid State Aficionado
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Location
New York
This sorta reminds me of when the police asked Apple to unlock the San Bernandino killer's iPhone and they said no. And then they asked for a universal iPhone backdoor and they also said no. All of this because decoding just one phone risks them all.

"The law works on a system of precedent: if Apple is forced to unlock this phone, then it will mean that the law allows for phones to be unlocked. From there, judges and politicians will be able to ask of Apple that it unlocks its devices — and lean on this same ruling every time it wants to do so, even in more questionable situations than that of the San Bernardino shooting."

Countries need to evolve with the times and pass new and better laws according to the situations. Regardless of my political views i'm completely against giving power to the state "just because", we know for a fact that power will be abused. But when it comes to taxes it's a sort of grey area, it's like Amazon paying ZERO taxes in 5.6 BILLION dollars profits in 2017 because their "global headquarters" is in Luxembourg...


EDIT: didn't Trump promise to pass some sort of law against this sort of loopholes ?

BINGO!
5.6 BILLION IN TAXES AVOIDED BY JEFF BEZOs simply because HQ in Luxembourg.
 

ihrsetrdr

Señor Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Location
High Desert, Calif.
Yeah, but he can afford lawyers, lots of them. Governments tend to pick on those who can't fight back.


Reminds me of a story- years ago a co-worker got pulled over and ticketed for speeding, by the Calif. Highway Patrol. He complained to the officer: "why did you pull me over? the other cars were going faster!"

The officer's response: "you were just easier to catch."


But yea, money = power. More money= more power.