IPFS Larken Rose

More About: Surveillance

Amazon and Big Brother

Warning: This article is fairly long, and is mostly about a particular situation which, by itself, is pretty dang trivial, though it is a symptom of the "Big Brother" mentality that so many Americans have. (Those who sell things on Amazon might have a personal interest in it.)
I sell my books through Amazon.com. Apparently there are new IRS regulations requiring the reporting of certain payments, such as what Amazon pays to those who sell things on Amazon, if--and only if--the seller makes more than 200 sales in a year AND makes over $20,000 in a year in sales. I barely meet the first criteria, and don't nearly meet the second criteria (unfortunately).

However, Amazon.com is now telling anyone who sells stuff on Amazon that they must supply their Social Security Number (or other TIN), no matter how much they make in sales, if they exceed 50 sales in a year. Considering how huge Amazon is, this would no doubt include hundreds, if not thousands, of merchants who do not at all meet the legal criteria. Here are excerpts from my exchange with Amazon:

1) Amazon (from an e-mail they keep sending out): "beginning with the 2011 tax year, new IRS regulations require Amazon to file a Form 1099-K for sellers who exceed $20,000 in unadjusted gross sales and 200 transactions in a calendar year. To assist in complying with these regulations, we are requiring sellers who exceed 50 transactions in a calendar year, regardless of monetary threshold, to provide their tax identity information."

See the bait-and-switch? They pretend that demanding Social Security Numbers from everyone with more than 50 sales is being done "to assist in complying with these regulations," when that's obviously not true. In the case of those who don't meet the 200/$20,000 requirement, Amazon is just making up their own requirement, completely unrelated to what the IRS requires.

2) Me (in a message to Amazon): "As you know, pursuant to 26 USC 6050W(e)(1), a return (Form 1099-K) is required only when the "gross amount of the reportable payment transactions" exceeds $20,000 in any given year. Because that is not the case in my own situation, there is no legal requirement for Amazon.com to file a return regarding transfers made to me, and therefore no legal requirement for me to supply any Taxpayer Identification Number to Amazon. As such, your request for my TIN (which would be my Social Security Number) has nothing to do with any legal requirement, but is simply a request from a private business (Amazon) to a private individual (myself) to supply a Social Security Number, and really has nothing to do with the new federal reporting regulations."

But wait, there's a twist. My note continues:

"As you may know, requiring an individual to provide his Social Security Number (and in some cases, even just requesting it), when there is no reporting requirement or other law mandating it, violates state law in Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Rhode Island and New Mexico."

So I objected to their new policy, and objected to them pretending they're just doing it to comply with the new rules, when that is patently untrue. Their response? They repeated their policy, and ignored the issue.

3) Amazon: "Beginning in 2011, sellers who exceed 50 transactions in a calendar year, regardless of sales volume, will be required by Amazon to provide taxpayer identification information to Amazon. If the required information is not provided to Amazon by December 26, 2011, your Amazon selling privileges will be suspended until you provide the information."

Um, yeah. They already said that.

4) Me: "Doing a cut and paste of what you sent before is not answering the question. You are requesting an SSN, and threatening to deny services if you don't get it, even though you have no legal basis for doing so. ... You are asking for something you obviously don't need--which you've done without before, and which you're specifically not allowed to have in several states--and pretending it has something to do with the new IRS regulations, when it doesn't."

Their response to that succinctly summed up the situation.

5) Amazon: "We understand that your sales does not increase (sic) $20,000 annual threshold. However the TIN information is required if the seller crosses 50 transactions in a given year irrespective of the sales volume. The sellers having more than $20,000 in unadjusted gross sales, and more than 200
transactions should file a 1099 K form. However we require the TIN number if the seller is selling more than 50 items a month."

So they acknowledge that the new rules do NOT apply to my situation, but proclaim that they require me to provide my Social Security Number anyway, as a condition of receiving their services. Then they again sent me the first e-mail (at the top) proclaiming that the need the number to comply with the new regulations. So I responded.

6) Me: "Why do you keep lying, claiming you are demanding TIN numbers 'to assist in complying with these (new IRS) regulations,' when you are demanding TIN's from people who don't at all fall under the new rules, such as myself? Anyone making under $20,000 a year in Amazon sales is NOT SUBJECT to the new rules, and you know it. When you demand a TIN from someone who does not meet the criteria, such as myself, you are NOT complying with regulations; you are making up your own demands, without a shred of legal basis, and in direct violation of several state laws."

I would bet money a lawyer wrote their response, since it just drips with spin and obfuscation.

7) Amazon: "Please note that it is not only $20,000 in gross sales but they take into consideration if you exceed 200 transaction as well. The new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations require that US third-party settlement organizations and payment processors, including Amazon, file Form 1099-K to report unadjusted annual gross sales information for sellers that meet both of the following thresholds in a calendar year:

- More than $20,000 in unadjusted gross sales, and
- More than 200 transactions."

Notice they just acknowledged what I said: both criteria must be met, and I only meet one of them. Nonetheless, they then repeat the lie, by adding this:

"Upon reviewing account I see that you have exceeded the IRS threshold and have about 296 orders placed in a calender year hence please understand that this decision is ultimately left to you if you wish to provide info or not but as per the rules you are required to enter this information before the 26th of Dec to avoid suspension of your account."

So they are STILL pretending that demanding a number from me, as a condition of rendering services, is about complying with the new IRS rules, instead of about complying with something Amazon just made up on its own.

8) Me: "I asked why you keep lying. Your response was to lie again. As your own e-mail says, the new 1099-K requirements are for those who meet BOTH criteria: over 200 transactions AND over $20,000 in sales in one year. I meet the first, not the second (not even close), which means I am NOT subject to the new rules. Yet you continue to demand a TIN, as a conditioning for rendering services, when doing so directly violates state law in several states (not in Pennsylvania, however). Why can't you at least be honest, and admit that in many cases, your request for these numbers is UNRELATED to the new regulations? Again, I don't understand why Amazon would expose itself to a lawsuit from anyone residing in those states where it is illegal to demand an SSN as a condition for rendering services. But at least please stop pretending that requesting MY Social Security Number--and however many hundreds of others in my position--has ANYTHING to do with the new rules. You know that it doesn't."

9)  Amazon: "It is Amazon’s policy for Amazon.com sellers that exceed 50 transactions in a calendar year, regardless of sales volume, to provide taxpayer identification information to Amazon. If the required information is not on file by December 26, 2011, your Amazon selling privileges will be suspended until you provide the information. Please understand that this is a fixed constraint and that we are unable to answer further correspondence about this issue."

Well, at least that time they didn't pretend it was because of the IRS rules that time; they just said it was "Amazon's policy." (They still didn't mention the fact that their "policy" violates several state laws.) Ultimately, the folks at Amazon will decide whether to require Social Security Numbers as a condition of rendering services, and I'll have to decide whether to do business with them or not.

But what's worth noting here is not about my case. No doubt many readers of Freedoms Phoenix are well aware that when the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security was pitched to the masses, the politicians zealously promised that the new numbers would never be used for general identification purposes. For a long time, the cards had printed right on them that they are not to be used for that. Well, as I often say, whenever a politician says, "The reason we're doing this is not because..." whatever comes out of his mouth next is the exact reason they are doing it.

Today, Social Security numbers are used all over the place, for all sorts of things, and not just by the parasites in "government." It's convenient and easy, so most people can't imagine why we shouldn't. It makes it so easy to keep track of everything, create huge data-bases, and so on. What could be wrong with that? If you have to announce your "government"-assigned number to get a driver's license, or open a bank account, who cares?

It's about privacy versus surveillance, and freedom versus control. Of course, the claim will always be made that privacy and freedom can create opportunities for people to do bad things. Well, no kidding. So why not just cage everyone, if it would make us all safer? Yes, a secret bank account, without even a name or a Social Security number, could be used by terrorists or criminals! Of course, it could also be used by good people, for perfectly moral purposes. And yes, when something shady happens, having a huge system of surveillance and record-keeping can making finding the bad guy easier. So while we're at it, let's install "government" cameras in all of our houses. Hey, wouldn't that make it even easier to catch bad guys?

Amazon wanting my number, even though the "government" isn't even requiring it, is pretty darn trivial in the big picture. But it's one of a thousand ways in which the surveillance-and-control society inches forward. And you can bet that whatever records any company that big keeps, the feds can snoop into it whenever they want, with or without a warrant, and with or without the knowledge of the company.

"Hey, we just want to know, and keep track of ONE tiny little extra tidbit of information about you. What's the problem?" The problem is that all of those tiny little tidbits add up to everything. And if, every inch of the way, we just quietly go along to make things easy, where do you suppose we will end up?


7 Comments in Response to

Comment by MadeIn Manhattan
Entered on:

I agree to pay for something you should not be required to submit a SSN But to accept payments I have always known that to be a requirement. I don't use Amazon because I like having my own merchant account with www.merchantinc.com but if I did use them I would not provide it.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

@ Venacio Tan, who are you?  I don't buy any of it.  Amazon wants it BOTH WAYS.  It doesn't work that way.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

@Venacio Tan:  Kim Dyer here.  NO, you are wrong.  Nevada S corporations allow for NO SOCIAL SECURITY IDENTIFICATION, which means that YOU CAN LIE about your involvement as the TRUE PERSON who filed and benefits (crooked money laundering even CIA lawyers participate-including my ex) AND WIN-using foreign banks and trust jurisdictions in a second and third country, AND NO ONE CAN PROVE IT (that you are the same person).  The Zionist New World Order designed it that way.  If that has changed, I doubt it.  I learned this while divorcing a divorce lawyer.  He started 3 Nevada corporations known during our divorce within 24 hours of causing false arrests and trumped up charges in the Tempe corporate municipal system, for which I allege he has personal interest (allied with Phillips & Lyon/Phillips & Associates-dissolved and now going by Phillips law center), with the concealed aid of a Russian AshkeNAZI Jewish fake best-friend who I am told was sleeping with him through out our marriage and divorce, she has since worked out of his property management companies and legal services (business non-disclosed during our marriage).   These are counterfeit Jews of Khazarian descent that are giving rise to NAZI regime profiteering from their proliferation of problem/reaction/solution politics and profiteering.  It goes up to the Royal Crown/Vatican alliance.  RICO applies.  Research Kennedy's passing of 1961 RICO protections-racketeering.

Comment by Venancio Tan
Entered on:

Hey, your Social Security Number is issued to you to identify you who you are when you transact business with private a enterprise dealing with the public or with the Government.

Corporate entrepreneurs who run a worldwide business like Amazon, has the right to identify you before you can defraud them. They need to verify your identity by requiring your SSN to see to it that you are not a swindler or a con artist. That business policy requirement has nothing to do with whether or not the Government requires you to show your SSN to Amazon. The Government requires the Amazon people to show IDs of the clients it is transacting business with, so that it can go after Amazon in case of tax fraud or tax evasion. If you gave your SSN to them and then they didn’t use it to identity you in a business transaction but instead used it for the purpose of swindling you, that’s a different ballgame. This happens, although rarely, but if happens, you don’t take the law into your hand and shoot them dead. You have to rely on our agents of the law to catch them and bring them to justice. You have to trust our justice system too as you always have your recourse in law … you have to, rather than do a Timothy McVeigh or a Jared Loughner spectacle and like them end up dead with such public contempt and ignominious notoriety.

Likewise, when you transact business with the Government, say with the IRS, they require your PIN ID or SSN, so that if you are a tax evader or a tax defrauder, they can collar you and haul you to jail.

Like what you preach, if you like to shoot it out with them as an expression of your liberty and freedom to violate the Internal Revenue Code because as a tax protester you believe that taxation is "thievery" [you profess in your writings and videos that the Government is stealing your money through taxation], then the cops you hated the most will simply gun you down. You never outgun them. By getting rid of you in that way, I have no doubt that law-abiding Americans will be thankful because your tribe won’t have a chance to multiply or increase and only to cause them more trouble.

In short, your problem is so simple even simpletons could solve it. If you really don’t want to give your SSN – don’t transact business with the Government or with anyone who requires it, or don’t give your Driver’s ID if you really imagined that it could be used in a government surveillance against you. Keep your paranoia to yourself.

But if you choose not to transact business with any of them, for Christ’s sake – don’t whine! You can keep your self-serving lecture to yourself. You need it most than anyone else.



Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Kim Dyer here:  Great exposure, Larken.  We can all thank George Bush's precursors to 9/11 to take our privacies-corporate/monopoly information-sharing away and allow this garbage to happen.  Even listing a car today, because paperless, controls and limits certain in-demand vehicles and customers for a bigger scam/monopoly.  I listed two vehicles, highly sought after and the ratio of calls from dealer to private party is about 25:1, respectively.  Oh, but I could thank Jason Shelton 4409 for suggesting that HE could sell my car for $1,500 less than the racket-dealership offered in same-day cash!...  After my car was returned (he drove it for three months for free) with defective scratched/sun-faded headlights that don't seem to match the preserved-garaged in CA and AZ headlights....  He worked in that industry-known for money-laundering...  These violations occurred while he was sleeping in my BED and promoting himself to do work in my home that he knew that I needed done-his side-kick predator, Renee, needed to be paid back for loans to him... she promoted this!  Then sent pics of her boobs to him supposedly right after our first date... and trying to make me believe through a third party that she is his mother?  Sounds like discrediting campaign to me.  And I was the target "idiot"  who let these people into my life, in good faith.  Hoping to expose by working together  that the real goal of the roadway cameras is microchip implantation (I made calls as an assignee recruit in 1998).  Camerafraud.com has ignored each and every request I have made to communicate and work together.  Jason Shelton 4409 even went out of his way to fabricate a discrediting campaign.  Hmmm... sounds just like the same fake opposition that we are told lies in the pendulum swinging fake left to right, keeping us lost in a choice between two sides, pitting us all against each other in a morass of minutiae. 

In this "paperless" BS scam of a system today under the guise of living "green" I have no proof of what is being shown and to whom on the Kelly Blue Book site postings, which allows gov controlled or other corporate predators to fleece your car values, your ability sell your vehicle, etc.  Food for thought:  Look up the lyrics to "Joy to the World"... doesn't it talk about the cars and the bars?  And "[basically screwing] you"... passive aggressive RICO that Kennedy 1961 laws passed to protect us from Jew-wish Racketeering.  Research Meyer Lansky and Jack Otto/Khazarian Empire.  Remember, Illuminati "Jews"-Kings men of Vatican/Crown alliance control Hollywood, the media news, publishing and Music industry.  AshkeNAZI so-called "jews" are hostages to the vatican, willingly I believe for profit and also should fear as humanitarian-betraying Kings men.  They are primary reason why we are being pushed and forced (with monetary violence) towards a Zionist New World Order.  Crazy stuff.  Many interesting last names are found when you research Jewish Racketeering that followed the colonizing of Mormon Church on their trail to Utah (where you taxes are gathered).  Not an accident that money-laundering tax-evading Nevada laws were founded by Mormons and these so-called "Jews" of Khazarian descent (research Jack Otto)... Kings men.  I would bet all that I own today that the Black Nobility and Vatican Pharisees wrote the Book of Mormon.   Huge multi-billion dollar "pseudo-masonic" multi-lingual (missionary-spying private-CIA recruiting) cult one of their hugest tools for Nazi NWO Zionism.    Wake up people, we are bees, they are Winnie the Pooh the Gangsta.... LOL.


Comment by Morpheus Titania
Entered on:

Hi Larken, this what Bob Podolsky calls the B.O.R.G. an acronym of Banks and Big Business, Organized Religion and Government.  These are the institutions that most people run to solve their problems, not realizing these are the institutions that CREATE the problems in the first place.  These institutions work together to with masters at the heads of them to corral the populace into believing they are separate institutions, similar to the illusion of the separation between republicans and democrats.   I encourage you to check out Titanians where he goes into this in more detail

Comment by Ed Martin
Entered on:

 Give them a fake.