I would say it is clearly not unethical, but it can still be a bad decision. I would say it is a disadvantage for everyone in low or medium income regions.
My immediate reaction would be, "yes, it is unethical for many reasons". But again, I heard the social welfare system in these countries is best in the world. So may be I shouldn't complain.
However, if I don't want to disclose my net worth and if law is on my side in my country, then Google making my data available is definitely wrong.
Ethical is a bit of a wide term but I’m sure it’s easy to construct situations that are problematic.
E.g. an abusive ex partner can check whether you’re likely to have switched job, even from the most basic info. If tax paid is revealed then you can work out what government benefits a person might be on, including those relating to health and disability.
Isn’t the implementation in Norway such that the press have special access not afforded to individuals? That also seems pretty questionable.
Everyone have access but you have to log in with your ID and the ones you check can see that you checked them. You can check 500 people each month.
Your scenario seems pretty far fetched to me since this information will be published in October for the previous year. It contains the income and tax for the whole year only. It would be pretty difficult to know the information you suggest from the limited, delayed records.
As a Norwegian I fully support our system with public tax records.
I’m not sure how delayed records would stop you working out disability status or any other sensitive status that affects tax paid. The tax regime for any given year is presumably public info.
People are notified but that’s hardly going to stop someone seeking to upset you as in the example scenario.
Though as I understand the press can do mass lookups with no notification. Don’t you find that disparity concerning? The idea that the government gets to decide what counts as ‘press’ is already something people from countries that don’t operate that way would consider objectionable. Let alone giving them the power to decide who should be 'outed' for their tax affairs.
To be fair, that's perhaps more an issue of this particular implementation, rather than fundamental. But it's an example of how it can be used to entrench the establishment.
Everyone have pretty much unlimited access in practice so I dont see that the press have any special advantage. The press have guidelines that they should only publish the tax of public figures and I have not seen them abuse this so far.
We are a country with a high degree of social trust, and that is what I believe makes our country great. I realize that our system is not for everyone and that is fair.
Sure, I've spent some time in Norway, I get it. It's definitely very different to societies like the UK or US.
I'm not fundamentally against open tax records like this, but even in Norway there are bad actors and if we are going to play a game of 'how can this be exploited', I think it's definitely possible to do so.
I can't really agree that a 500 limit with notification is 'in practice' the same as no limit with no notification. Data mining and other techniques are possible at scale but not with only 500 records. It also makes exploitation more profitable. Harvesting data for e.g. commercial targeting is not very appealing for n = 500. It's definitely appealing at n = 5 million.
Do the press abuse it in this way? Well, they don't publish stories about doing it. But how would you really know otherwise until some scandal breaks? Are lookups by press orgs also open to public inspection? Maybe you have some freedom of information laws that would let you request that data.
Sure, almost any system can be exploited so at some point we just have to compare the advantages with the disadvantages. I am not aware of any abuse of this system. Everyone knows that their tax and income is pretty much public knowledge so they will live their life by that assumption.
Arbitrary businesses cannot access it no. However the press can gain special access for a small fee. This means that when the lists are published there are always a lot of news articles about how much various public people earn. There are limitations on how they can use it though, and they cannot publish the whole lists.
