DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Employee snooping in IRS database: it’s like looking people up on Google or Facebook – defense attorney

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Dissent

Are cases of access in excess of authorization involving federal employees snooping in databases treated too lightly? Levi Pulkkinen reports on a case where some may think that a federal employee who misused access to the IRS database got off too lightly:

An IRS worker accused of using the agency’s service database to snoop on her ex-husband and others is expected to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge Tuesday.

Now retired, IRS technician Jeanne Desozier is alleged to have continued using IRS resources to look up personal information of at least three people even after she was caught reviewing her ex-husband’s tax return.

Federal prosecutors in Seattle claim Desozier, 63, looked up the contact information of two relatives and a friend, all of whom she had lost touch with.  An IRS employee of five years, Desozier is not alleged to have misused the information for financial gain.

Desozier is expected to plead guilty and be sentenced Tuesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge James Donohue at the federal courthouse in Seattle, according to court documents.

Asking that Desozier be sentenced to one year of probation, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kate Vaughn argued the technician abused the public trust.

Keep in mind that the employee continued to engage in such access even after she had been caught the first time:

Desozier received a 30-day suspension in 2008 after she was caught viewing her ex-husband’s tax return while at work. That warning, prosecutors now contend, did not stick, as Desozier viewed tax documents filed by three other people.

Apparently the charges only rise to the level of a misdemeanor. And while some of us might think the ex-employee is getting off too lightly, there’s actually some precedent for a one-year probation sentence, as State Department employees who snooped in celebrities’ passport files also generally got one year probation. In the State Department cases, ex-employees also often were also fined or sentenced to community service.  In this case, the prosecutor is only seeking probation.

Desozier’s defense attorney thinks that even probation is too much, though:

Suggesting that probation would be too severe a punishment, Desozier’s defense attorney suggested Desozier only “committed a technical violation.” Desozier was forced to retire as a consequence, federal public defender Dennis Carroll told the court, and now will have to live with the “stain” of a criminal conviction after a crime-free life.

So.. what do you think the consequences should be – apart from being fired? In the U.K., we’ve seen employees fined or prosecuted criminally to face real jail time. What should happen here?

Desozier was not charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is just as well in light of the recent 9th Circuit decision in Nosal, as there was no indication of any financial gain or fraud involved.

Category: Breach IncidentsGovernment SectorU.S.

Post navigation

← University of Houston College of Optometry Clinic Posts Breach Alert
NAFCU Letter to Reps. Boehner and Pelosi on Cyber/Data Security →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • CoinMarketCap Hacked, Scrambles to Remove Malicious Wallet Verification Popup
  • Montana Attorney General launches investigation into Lee Enterprises data breach
  • AT&T gets preliminary approval for $177 million data breach settlement
  • Aflac notifies SEC of breach suspected to be work of Scattered Spider
  • Former JBLM soldier pleads guilty to attempting to share military secrets with China
  • No, the 16 billion credentials leak is not a new data breach — a wake-up call about fake news (Updated)
  • Tonga’s health system hit by cyberattack (1)
  • Russia Expert Falls Prey to Elite Hackers Disguised as US Officials
  • Proposed class action settlement in In re Netgain Technology litigation
  • Qilin Offers “Call a lawyer” Button For Affiliates Attempting To Extort Ransoms From Victims Who Won’t Pay

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The Markup caught 4 more states sharing personal health data with Big Tech
  • Privacy in the Big Sky State: Montana’s Consumer Privacy Law Gets Amended
  • UK Passes Data Use and Access Regulation Bill
  • Officials defend Liberal bill that would force hospitals, banks, hotels to hand over data
  • US Judge Invalidates Biden Rule Protecting Privacy for Abortions
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.