Zuckerberg Fires Back at Cook

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

Fight Fight Fight! Kiss Kiss Kiss!

[asus killer]

27 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Social media is just that though.. SOCIAL. It is public information that you are willing submitting to these sites/services.

 

People are using social media to dig in to people before hiring them, we are using it to keep track of peoples lives or stay in touch. So by the very nature of what social media does parts of your personal life will be shared with complete strangers. You can make your profile completely private if you want, but there are still ways you can be exposed when commenting or visiting other peoples pages.

 

I guess my point is that if you knowingly put information on your facebook page or allow it to say handle all your text messaging via messenger.. then there is no real expectation of privacy. Yes, a lot of people didn't know that allowing messenger to handle text messages too could pose an issue, but that being said the information gathered wasn't used maliciously or outside of what most would consider common practice.

 

Almost everything you do these days will put some of your information out there, it is on most of the documents you agree to these days. "Your information can be sold or shared with blah blah blah partners."

 

I mean apple making these comments is pretty stupid. We are starting to see more and more malicious stuff target apple os's. So it is only a matter of time until they suffer a massive data breach and their whole argument that apple is more secure will go out the window. The truth was that apple market share was just too low to become a major priority for most hackers.

this makes no sense. First this is being investigated in the EU for braking privacy laws (and Australia too), so it at least is suspected of being illegal and malicious. Second, even if people post on social media the companies don't have the right (privacy laws at least in the EU) to do whatever the hell they want with it.

I guess in the US you guys no longer expect nothing from your government in terms of protection (privacy, net neutrality, etc..) but this is not the case for the rest of the world, and things are only getting more protected not less:

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-data-protection-privacy-standards-gdpr-general-protection-data-regulation/

[AngryBeaver]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

this makes no sense. First this is being investigated in the EU for braking privacy laws (and Australia too), so it at least is suspected of being illegal and malicious. Second, even if people post on social media the companies don't have the right (privacy laws at least in the EU) to do whatever the hell they want with it.

I guess in the US you guys no longer expect nothing from your government in terms of protection (privacy, net neutrality, etc..) but this is not the case for the rest of the world, and things are only getting more protected not less:

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-data-protection-privacy-standards-gdpr-general-protection-data-regulation/

This isn't something a kin to a credit card though where you are protecting a lot of financial information. This is all information you provided to a site thats sole purpose is to share personal information with a wide network of either strangers or friends/family. You are offering this information to share it on these social networks... they are not handing out information that wasn't provided by you via their site/tools. So in the end I don't think you can accuse them of doing anything wrong.

 

I mean if I choose to look you up on facebook and look at your schools/jobs/interests/posts/etc.... then use that information to market material to you... how is that any different? There are people that do that btw.

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

This isn't something a kin to a credit card though where you are protecting a lot of financial information. This is all information you provided to a site thats sole purpose is to share personal information with a wide network of either strangers or friends/family. You are offering this information to share it on these social networks... they are not handing out information that wasn't provided by you via their site/tools. So in the end I don't think you can accuse them of doing anything wrong.

 

I mean if I choose to look you up on facebook and look at your schools/jobs/interests/posts/etc.... then use that information to market material to you... how is that any different? There are people that do that btw.

you agree to share to a certain point, it's not like there are no rules, there are, there are privacy laws all around the world. I get your point, it's stupid to post on facebook and expect privacy in general, but there is a difference between what you chose to make public and don't, even in Facebook. And did you seen the things they collect and share? even sms's, shit that has nothing to do with facebook.

 

 

 

[AngryBeaver]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

you agree to share to a certain point, it's not like there are no rules, there are, there are privacy laws all around the world. I get your point, it's stupid to post on facebook and expect privacy in general, but there is a difference between what you chose to make public and don't, even in Facebook. And did you seen the things they collect and share? even sms's, shit that has nothing to do with facebook.

 

 

 

If you choose to integrate your text messages to their messenger app then you also agree to their privacy policy. Nowhere in it does it say they cannot collect that information and once again it is a choice made by you when you integrated that app.

 

In this particular case a person had full control of whether or not their information was there to be shared. That is like me signing up for a "Find cheaper car insurance" site and then being mad that I get calls from all of these random insurance companies. Same for facebook, you choose what goes on your profile and what you post on there. You also control how much control you give it when it comes to integrating with sms services. If you get fired from a a job for example because you posted something on facebook your employer disagrees with... is that facebooks fault for making it accessible or your fault for posting that stuff in a public place?

[Drak3]

36 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

This is all information you provided to a site thats sole purpose is to share personal information

No, it's not. They collect quite a bit of information that people haven't uploaded online at all.

[asus killer]

52 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

If you choose to integrate your text messages to their messenger app then you also agree to their privacy policy. Nowhere in it does it say they cannot collect that information and once again it is a choice made by you when you integrated that app.

 

In this particular case a person had full control of whether or not their information was there to be shared. That is like me signing up for a "Find cheaper car insurance" site and then being mad that I get calls from all of these random insurance companies. Same for facebook, you choose what goes on your profile and what you post on there. You also control how much control you give it when it comes to integrating with sms services. If you get fired from a a job for example because you posted something on facebook your employer disagrees with... is that facebooks fault for making it accessible or your fault for posting that stuff in a public place?

it all respect i think you don't know what you are talking about. Read this article for example:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/25/17160944/facebook-call-history-sms-data-collection-android

[mrchow19910319]

On 4/5/2018 at 8:51 AM, BuckGup said:

I still find it funny that people aren't mad at Google or other companies yet. Google can own your DNS, browser, search engine, email, phone, cloud backup, router, watch, and the list goes on and on. 

biased circle jerk.

 

this is 90% of the apple post here at this forum

[mrchow19910319]

tim cook can say whatever he wants. 

 

cos this is two diff companies we are talking about

 

and mark is a dumbass responding tim like this. 

its just business, dont make it personal. 

 

but then again imagine, just for 1 sec how much pressure mark zakerberg is having right now. 

[AngryBeaver]

11 minutes ago, asus killer said:

it all respect i think you don't know what you are talking about. Read this article for example:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/25/17160944/facebook-call-history-sms-data-collection-android

Actually I have mentioned this several times now. If you choose to install and use the messenger app on your android device and/or use it's integration feature then you are basically giving them permission to see this information. Heck, when you install it it gives you a prompt that you can either approve or denie to use access contact information and send/receive text messages and calls. If you hit approve then that is on you.

 

Why do we keep blaming the companies for these things? It is up to every person out there to make sure they are being responsible with their information. This isn't like a data breach or anything of that sort. It is just peoples information being used for analytics. I am sure most people don't even care about this type of information being out there. If you honestly care this much about the information people can see about you, then take steps to protect that information and don't put it on places like social media.

[BuckGup]

15 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

biased circle jerk.

 

this is 90% of the apple post here at this forum

What? I am just saying since google makes good products for low amounts of money people will probably use them and they have a lot of products

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Ok you want to draw conclusions based on definitions from random website sites there is problem

Since when did the Cambridge dictionary become a "random website"?

 

6 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Like the one that Apple used to not pay taxes in the US, that was purposefully put in US tax code laws.  It has been there for many years, decades, multiple decades!  And that was what we were talking about.  We were talking about Apple's ability to not pay taxes and why.  Since Ireland wasn't enforcing the EU laws to pay taxes Apple didn't pay, when they finally did, well Apple has to pay now.  They can complain about it but they must pay it now.

Please explain to me how it was purposefully put there in the US tax code.

 

Remember, the only reason why Apple isn't paying the US the taxes they owe is because they have not transferred the money into the US yet. Once they do, they will be subject to taxing (which is why they are currently just collecting it all into a huge mountain in Ireland).

 

Apple can't spend a dime of the money they have in Ireland without first paying the taxes they owe to the US. This is not a loophope which makes it so that Apple just straight up pays less tax but still have their money readily available to spend. It's a loophole which has locked Apple's money out of reach from not only the US government, but also Apple themselves. Right now they are both at a standstill. Apple is just waiting for the scale to tip where bringing the money into the US economy, taxed or not, would be a greater benefit to the US than letting it sit untouched in Ireland for all eternity. At that point the US government will be forced to make a tax exemption for Apple.

 

Also, they are not paying the US taxes. They are paying the Ireland taxes, but will most likely still wait for a tax holiday before they transfer it to the US.

 

 

6 hours ago, Razor01 said:

On morals and ethics:

 

Morals can shape laws and laws can shape morals.  But they are never the same as laws and aren't governed by laws in the ridged sense.

 

Went into this with GPP. 

 

Morals are too wide of base to be used.  Ethics are even wider

 

Laws are narrower in scope. 

 

The scope size matters, if morals or ethics were governed everything most people will do will be illegal or sue-able.  Sad but true.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or how it is related to what I have been talking about.

What do you mean "laws and aren't governed by laws in the ridged sense"?

What does GPP have to do with this?

What do you mean morals are "too wide of base to be used". What do you mean by ethics being even wider? Why and in what sense?

What do you mean laws are narrower in scope? Narrower that morals? In what way?

What do you mean when you say that if ethics and morals "were governed everything most people will do will be illegal or sue-able".

 

I am not trying to pick on you or anything, but either my reading skills are poor, or your English is poor. In either case, I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you please elaborate?

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

I mean apple making these comments is pretty stupid. We are starting to see more and more malicious stuff target apple os's. So it is only a matter of time until they suffer a massive data breach and their whole argument that apple is more secure will go out the window. The truth was that apple market share was just too low to become a major priority for most hackers.

You are missing Tim's point. Apple aren't trying to boast about how good their security is.

What Tim Cook was saying is that they do not profit from their users private information. They see it as a violating of the users privacy and human rights. They think it is wrong to do so.

That is why they do things like end-to-end encrypt messages sent with iMessage, unlike Facebook who goes through every message you send with messenger.

 

 

3 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

Actually I have mentioned this several times now. If you choose to install and use the messenger app on your android device and/or use it's integration feature then you are basically giving them permission to see this information. Heck, when you install it it gives you a prompt that you can either approve or denie to use access contact information and send/receive text messages and calls. If you hit approve then that is on you.

I don't think you understand. This is not "I chose to use their messaging app to send SMS, and I am surprised they stored my SMS on their servers!".

This is "I installed the Facebook app, it used programming loopholes to hide the permissions it actually accessed, and then harvested data such as contacts and SMSes even if you never turned those features on".

 

Here are the two loopholes Facebook used to harvest SMS and call history without having to ask users for permission:

Quote

If you granted permission to read contacts during Facebook's installation on Android a few versions ago—specifically before Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean)—that permission also granted Facebook access to call and message logs by default. The permission structure was changed in the Android API in version 16. From Android 4.1 on, a single request from those applications would trigger two separate permission requests.

Quote

But until the "Marshmallow" version of Android, even with split permissions, all permissions could still be presented all at once, without users getting the option to decline them individually. So Facebook and other applications could continue to gain access to call and SMS data with a single request by specifying an earlier Android SDK version. Starting with Marshmallow, users could toggle these permissions separately themselves. But as many as half of Android users worldwide remain on older versions of the operating system because of carrier restrictions on updates or other issues.

 

 

Basically, this is like you buying a car. The next day the car dealer breaks into your house and eats all your snacks in the fridge because "oh, by agreeing to buying the car you also agreed to share all your snacks with me. It is never explicitly mentioned in the contract and you could totally opt-out of it if you wanted to, but you never asked so I didn't tell you about it".

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Again, you are incorrectly saying that as long as something is lawful, it is also ethical. This is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

You are incorrectly assuming that I think that is a blanket statement that applies to everything that is law. In this specific case I believe it to be true, becasue od the nature of the case and the ways tax law come into being. But you need to stop extending that to everything and trying to claim I am wrong.   Such gross generalizations do not prove why tax avoidance is unethical, only that some other things can be.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I have given you several examples of this being the case, and linked you several definitions as well as research papers and professors all which disagrees with you. Why are you so hellbent on thinking that lawful == ethical?

Read above, giving me examples of things that have nothing to do with tax is not proof that obeying taking law make you unethical.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It just isn't. The rules the definition of ethics refers to is not exclusively the laws of a country. It is also the rules dictated by things such as religion and society. All these different systems with rules do not have a 100% overlap with the laws (you're once again bringing up laws by the way).

 

All laws are rules, but not all rules are laws. OK?

 

They are "generally" created based on ethics, but not always. Not all social obligations have rules which enforce them. Not cheating on your spouse is one example of this. Tax avoidance on this scale is another. Or are you saying that cheating on your wife would be completely ethical and you should be immune to criticism if you did? Because please

You keep repeating yourself. I think you are over generalizing because you can't refine your argument.  Again explain to me how managing your finances in a way that legitimately lowers your tax liability is unethical.  avoid mentioning spousal affairs or abortion. 

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

remember that this whole conversation started with you saying Apple could not be criticized for avoiding taxes.

No, I said you can;t blame them, and you claimed they were being unethical, which I simply disagree with.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

By the same logic, you can not be criticized for cheating on your wife. There is no law saying it is illegal, right? Clearly you can't be criticized as long as you follow the law... 

 

Again, you are still  trying to use unethical things to prove something unrelated is unethical also.  It doesn't work that way, either tax avoidance is unethical in it's own right or it isn't.  But it seems as you can't show me how it is unethical without talking about cheating and abortions and all manner of other things not even in the same realm as filing a tax return.

 

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can you please elaborate then?

 

 

No we didn't. You refused to answer is. Probably because it highlights how little sense your (incorrect) definition and view of ethics are. But I'll switch to using cheating on your spouse as an example instead, if that makes you more comfortable.

Because you can't describe the mechanism by which tax avoidance is unethical.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

That's because it isn't. If 49% of people believe something is good, and 51% believe something is bad then it doesn't become unethical. However, if the scales are let's say 5% vs 95% then it is.

No, 95% of people would think it is, but that doesn't make it unethical for the remaining 5%.   This is the bit you might be having the most trouble with,  you don't get to decide what is ethical for other people.   In fact you don't even get to decide what is ethical for the majority of people let alone whether that belief is valid or not.  Majority of the population believes in discriminatory gender pay gap, does that make it a real thing?  No.  most of the population believes in woman only employment to balance inequality in the workforce, does that make it a legitimate practice? no.  Majority of people believe tax avoidance is unethical, same thing, that does not make it unethical. 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What is required is a consensus within whichever group you are talking about. Ethics is not one universal yardstick. The ethics can differ from one group to another (such as Christian ethics vs Islamic ethics).

However, right now I am talking about the general ethics regarding taxes in a western society, which I believe strongly leans towards tax avoidance being frowned upon and seemed as bad. Therefore it is unethical. Again, consensus agrees on what is unethical.

So you acknowledge they can be different it except you want to create a new category of "general" ethics becasue it supports your claims.    So far you have spoken about everything else except how tax avoidance is actually unethical.

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

And just so that we are clear to everyone reading this.

Consensus and majority are not the same thing. 51% is a majority, where 49% disagrees with the decision being decided on.

In a consensus decision making process, the group members agrees to support a decision as a whole.

 

That is why some things don't have clear cut ethics. Because no consensus has been agreed on (and I don't mean agreed on by sitting down and talking about it, but rather that there are several large groups of conflicting morals and a middle-ground has not appeared naturally).

 

 

Again, that's because it isn't. I recommend you go back and read the definitions I posted earlier. I explicitly said several times, in several different ways, that morals is not based on societal consensuses. Morals are your own personal beliefs and your compass for what is right or wrong.

 

Morals = what you believe is right or wrong.

Ethics = what a group has a general consensus of is right or wrong.

 

Ethics often shape our morals though. The environments we are raised in enforces certain ethics on us, and as a result our morals often naturally align with them. Not always, but very often.

That is why a lot of immigrants from the same cultures exhibits the same struggles when trying to integrate into a new society. Their moral compasses align a lot more with the ethics of the country they came from. People from countries with similar ethics as the countries they migrate to has a much easier time integrating, because their moral compasses are more aligned with the ethics of the place they arrive at.

 

No morals are being governed. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Ethics are not being governed either. They naturally form from consensus within their groups.

 

What is ethical might not always be what you believe is the best course of action either.

When societies desires (ethics) don't match your ideas (morals) then there is an ethical and moral conflict. I've already given several examples of this, and it happens all the time.

You don't always have to agree that something unethical is bad, because you might think it is morally correct.

 

Ethics is not an objective measurement of if something is indisputably good or bad.

 

See, this part from diffen which I linked earlier:

 

 

Again you are misrepresenting the philosophies of ethics in an over generalized way to prove a point which you can't seem to articulate.

 

I'll just say what I said right back at the start:

 

Quote

You have the problem with this being about ethics.  It is not an ethical situation to me.   It really is quite simple: if a government wants a company to pay more tax then they change their laws in order to force that company to pay more tax.  Other wise that company will continue to pay the tax asked of them.  In order for this to be about ethics you would have to demonstrate some sort of moral decision is being made that disadvantages another party against their will or beyond their power to mitigate.   

That last line is the most important bit in this conversation.  Until you actually address that you are doing nothing but obfuscating the issue with generalizations and philosophies.

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Since when did the Cambridge dictionary become a "random website"?

Its random because that isn't the financial definition of a loophole.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Please explain to me how it was purposefully put there in the US tax code.

 

Remember, the only reason why Apple isn't paying the US the taxes they owe is because they have not transferred the money into the US yet. Once they do, they will be subject to taxing (which is why they are currently just collecting it all into a huge mountain in Ireland).

 

Deductions are loopholes, understand this, the way you are using "loophole" is the negative connotation of it, when a law or series of laws that doesn't have a complete encompassing view. These are few and far between in tax codes.  They do happen but that is not what Apple is doing.

 

The way I'm looking at it are things that are put in on purpose so you can save on taxes or defer them.  These are put in on purpose, these loopholes are legit.  This is what Apple is using.  This loophole was put in on purpose so there would not be double taxation.  I use this loophole all the time with my property investments in India.  I pay my taxes there because its only like 10% vs if I paid it here it would be more than 35%.  Also I don't need to report it at all actually but morally that is wrong and if I got caught well then legally its pretty bad too, tax evasion is not for the faint of heart lol.  But on this note I can also defer the taxes up to five years down the road based on many other things that I can do.  So there are many ways to play this out to not pay taxes immediately.

 

Apple's reason for not paying taxes here is because they  haven't brought the money over, but since they paid the EU taxes now, they can bring it over without any problem at all, no need to pay US taxes.  Ireland wasn't enforcing EU's tax laws, so that is why they kept the money over there.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or how it is related to what I have been talking about.

What do you mean "laws and aren't governed by laws in the ridged sense"?

What does GPP have to do with this?

What do you mean morals are "too wide of base to be used". What do you mean by ethics being even wider? Why and in what sense?

What do you mean laws are narrower in scope? Narrower that morals? In what way?

What do you mean when you say that if ethics and morals "were governed everything most people will do will be illegal or sue-able".

 

I am not trying to pick on you or anything, but either my reading skills are poor, or your English is poor. In either case, I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you please elaborate?

 

Laws are to the point and there really is not much interpretations to them.  They are what they are, they must be narrow in scope otherwise interpretation of the them is not going to happen in court.

 

Look at it this way, what is the legal definition of 1st degree murder.  When on person plans and kills another person right?  What is the legal definition of 3rd degree murder.  Spontaneous anger or completely unplanned action that causes to kill another person?

 

Both are murder why have two different categories for them?  Both are unethical too lol.  We can just say its murder.  Narrow scope vs wide scope.  The law separated murder into those counts because it recognized they are not the same, but morally and ethically they are all the same.

 

Morals are doing the right thing but on a more than one person level.  Have you ever heard of "moral obligation" because of a contract.  That is what morals are, when two parties agree on doing somethings together.  Morals don't have to be law abiding.

 

Ethics are what one person feels is correct.  This can be different from person to person.  Ethics don't need to be law abiding either.

 

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

  Ethics don't need to be law abiding either.

 

Correct, but if we are talking about something as sterile as paying taxes it does account for nearly all of it.  It's not like you get to decide how much tax you pay or where it is spent.  As a tax payer (individual or company) you either meet your tax obligations or you don't, there is no middle ground.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Correct, but if we are talking about something as sterile as paying taxes it does account for nearly all of it.  It's not like you get to decide how much tax you pay or where it is spent.  As a tax payer (individual or company) you either meet your tax obligations or you don't, there is no middle ground.

True.

 

Well for Apple they found a not to pay taxes because Ireland's lax attitude in enforcing the EU tax laws, but not that has changed so Apple must pay.  If they don't they will get in trouble.

[Cole5]

On 4/5/2018 at 9:33 AM, Razor01 said:

Can't do that if the money is not in a certain jurisdiction there is nothing a country can do.

 

Also if they pay taxes over seas and show that they did, its completely legit.  That is in our tax codes.  which is probably what they are doing.  So if you are going to blame someone blame IRS

But I can, and DO blame companies for not paying their fair share of taxes, Sure loopholes may not be legal, but it's still douchy to pay .05% on profit if i have to pay 34%

[Razor01]

51 minutes ago, Cole5 said:

But I can, and DO blame companies for not paying their fair share of taxes, Sure loopholes may not be legal, but it's still douchy to pay .05% on profit if i have to pay 34%

Make more money so you can those loopholes. 

 

Do you state your sales tax on all your online purchases on  your yearly tax forms?  That is a loophole ya know, since states generally don't enforce their over the state line taxes.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is "I installed the Facebook app, it used programming loopholes to hide the permissions it actually accessed, and then harvested data such as contacts and SMSes even if you never turned those features on".

Not even 'I Installed the Faebook App.'

 

It's 'The Facebook App came preinstalled on my phone.'

 

Looking it you, Samsung and Sony.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Cole5 said:

But I can, and DO blame companies for not paying their fair share of taxes, Sure loopholes may not be legal, but it's still douchy to pay .05% on profit if i have to pay 34%

Do you actually have profit or are you employed?

[asus killer]

13 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

Actually I have mentioned this several times now. If you choose to install and use the messenger app on your android device and/or use it's integration feature then you are basically giving them permission to see this information. Heck, when you install it it gives you a prompt that you can either approve or denie to use access contact information and send/receive text messages and calls. If you hit approve then that is on you.

 

Why do we keep blaming the companies for these things? It is up to every person out there to make sure they are being responsible with their information. This isn't like a data breach or anything of that sort. It is just peoples information being used for analytics. I am sure most people don't even care about this type of information being out there. If you honestly care this much about the information people can see about you, then take steps to protect that information and don't put it on places like social media.

you did not read the article. If now you are clearly given them permission to see sms's  (what is stupid because you're not given an option no to do it at least at install), it was not always like this, so i hardly can see how you can blame someone for something they didn't have idea it was a thing. It's in the article.

 

Besides this is the discussion that many had because of TOS and things like it. Just because you click agree on some 100 page BS it doesn't mean the company can kill you if that is clearly stated on point 111.2 of the TOS. More so when you have no alternative, you either agree or can't use it. TOS aren't law, they must abide by the law like anyone else.

[suicidalfranco]

Tim's just salty that iAd and iTunes Ping never picked up 

[Cole5]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

Do you actually have profit or are you employed?

Both, Full time worker and co owner of a woodshop

[Cole5]

12 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Make more money so you can those loopholes. 

 

Do you state your sales tax on all your online purchases on  your yearly tax forms?  That is a loophole ya know, since states generally don't enforce their over the state line taxes.

I did last year, Cause New egg is gonna roll over like a scared dog again sooner or later