North Carolina Newspaper With No Backbone Apologizes For Its Request For Public Records
from the incredible dept
It's no secret that the latest decision by many newspapers to publish records of gun-permit holders after obtaining them via Freedom of Information Act requests is somewhat controversial. Some people are against the practice and think that such information should not be public. Wherever you come down on that side of the debate, however, hopefully you can recognize that since (in most places) the information is officially a public record, no publication or news organization should ever have to apologize for merely requesting the information. And yet, as pointed out by Jim Romenesko, The Cherokee Scout in Murphy N.C., posted an astoundingly groveling apology to its readers last week for the sin of daring to request public records:Newspaper publishers are supposed to stand up for their right to ask for public information, not grovel about how it was a mistake to ask for it in the first place. People might not like it, but newspapers aren't supposed to only report on the stories that people like. If that's the case, they're no longer a newspaper, they're a marketing brochure.NOTE TO READERS
The Cherokee Scout made a tremendous error in judgment this week, and thanks to our readers we learned a tough lesson.
As publisher of your local newspaper, I want to apologize to everyone we unintentionally upset with our public records request for a list of those who have or have applied for a concealed carry permit. We had no idea the the reaction it would cause.
Sheriff Keith Lovin had the best interests of the people of Cherokee County at heart when he denied our request. The Scout would like to offer an apology to him as well.
To that end, Editor Robert Horne spoke with Lovin on Friday morning to tell him we were withdrawing our public records request. He asked for a written copy of request, and Horne dropped it off at his office that morning.
While Horne was on the phone with the sheriff, he also thanked him and his staff for their quick response when some people who saw Facebook posts started making personal threats against him. Horne also requested a sit-down meeting in the near future to iron out any issues between the Scout and the sheriff's office, which Lovin graciously accepted.
I realize many people are upset with Horne, myself and the Scout and we can understand that. We never meant to offend the wonderful people of this fine community nor hurt the reputation of this newspaper. We do a lot of positive work that helps make Cherokee County an even better place to live, and I hope more good work will repair our reputation with readers.
Many of you have asked where Horne is from. He is from a small town in south Georgia — Cairo, Ga., to be exact. It is a rural area much like Murphy, and his roots are helping him better understand this community. [He has been editor of the paper since 2005.]
As for myself, I attended Murphy High School. I was married and baptized here, and three of my children are proud Bulldogs. This county has been important to me for a long time.
I know where this community is coming from, and I hope we can regain your trust. I know it may take a while, but we're going to try. Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Publisher David Brown
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: freedom of information, gun ownership, gun permits, public records
Companies: cherokee scout
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What a pussy...
His favorite color turned from green to yellow.
He sleeps with a night light while tucked in the fetal position.
His biggest regret in life is that he didn't get the job he wanted in being the secretary for a rich CEO.
I can't come up with enough bad things to say about a coward that decides that he'd rather get stepped on instead of standing up to bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a pussy...
Althought maybe he was actually concerned of having to stand up to bullets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a pussy...
They weren't breaking a cover-up or shady practices. There is no reason to publish the information of law abiding citizens just because they happen to be gun-permit holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a pussy...
That's funny. I heard no condemnation of Aaron Swartz by you. Sadly, his was the ultimate surrender to perceived bullies.
While I am not inspired by the actions of the paper, I know that small newspapers are particularly influenced by community standards. And while CCW permits are public realm, I'm sure many found it to be invasive of their privacy and not particularly newsworthy. The paper could likely accomplished its goals by referring to the number of permits rather than seeking to "name names".
You so-called privacy lovers sure are enigmas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a pussy...
Here, having gun data gives an assessment of who doors and shows not wasn't guns in society.
The problem with the paper is that he bowed away from a tough assignment and turned into a Lilly livered coward at the first few signs of danger.
This isn't journalism if you don't have the cottage to pursue the tough questions and speak truth to power.
It's merely stenography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a pussy...
Does and does not want guns in society...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think David was worried about getting sent off to the cornfield.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless the PII is removed, it is not a public record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~~~~
Seriously though. The government is the one keeping the records and these gun-nut yahoos tend to be more afraid of the government than journalists, so I don't get the reason for the outcry. It's not like it was a list of johns for a prostitution scandal like in Kennebunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MrWilson
Expect a knock on your door you crazy loony you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardice?
How can a site that wants to champion privacy seem to advocate the opposite here? What is the difference between the government collecting all of your online data and a news organization publishing it? The act of publishing and consuming that publication is the difference.
If you want some news organization to publish every last piece of "public" information about you, then sign up. I don't.
Jeez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cowardice?
This isn't really a difficult concept, nor is the difference between a government collecting data about you and a private organization revealing already-public information about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Was it not to effectively protect yourself?
If it attracts criminals is really useful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Saying they are the same thing completely ignores any context around the information requested (legally). And please don't say that context doesn't matter, because that would be an insurmountable level of willful ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Let's say the newspaper reports a list of big flat screen TV owners. How would you like to have your "public information" listed in that article? The point is it makes you a target to thieves. Guns are more appealing to thieves than your flat screen TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
I personally think that this particular public record should have, at a minimum, the same level of protection as DMV records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
They are also not private. The paper could buy a list from the stores. Not many people pay cash for something that expensive.
I think that if a store were to furnish this list to the paper for this purpose, both the store and the paper would face a backlash. They would have every right - yet they would be in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Those trying to get it are not the responsible party, if you want privacy you should go after those that made it available in the first place not the people exposing the fracas.
Also why is that so important, in which way that could be used to cause harm?
There is a reason the government track sales of guns right, is because people can be dangerous with it is it not, so why others can't know about it too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
More so than your zip code? or what they can see in the window?
I think you need to spend some time understanding how burglary comes about--and using information like this is not even remotely close. Not to mention that there are so many other factors involved, it's ludicrous to speculate on the degree of risk increase/decrease as a result of this revelation.
Also by your logic, being the subject of a newspaper article (regardless of the validity) that revealed anything about your belongings would be equally irresponsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
It doesn't matter if it's more so. It doesn't have to be a main factor to be a factor.
>>Also by your logic, being the subject of a newspaper article (regardless of the validity) that revealed anything about your belongings would be equally irresponsible.
Except the average article is usually either newsworthy ("Congressman caught with cash in his freezer!" tells you he has cash and a freezer, but this is newsworthy) or done with consent (an article like "Recent uptick in flat screen TV purchases" may involve an interview where someone who bought one is named, but that person agreed to the interview.) This is neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Than you have no problems with the concept of people that are dangerous to others being named in public do you?
Like say other criminals and pedophiles, gun owners also pose a risk to the security of others, how much of it doesn't really matter as you so eloquently put it "it doesn't have to be a main factor to be a factor".
Quote:
a) The newspaper did it with consent, the government was the one that granted that consent, after it collected all that data from you, is not their problem they followed all the rules and protocols in place, is not the newspaper problem if that piece of information should or should not be private, it is the job of the people who collect and record those to decide what to do with it. The newspaper could have used their own judgement but they are not required to do so. You have no rights you given up on them the instant you let others collect your data and didn't complain then, why are you complaining now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
And as happens so often, the AC completely ignores any positive or broader effect from the actions of the paper. "I don't like my 'legally-requestable' information from being publicized, so it must put me at risk and anything else positive or negative is irrelevant!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardice?
How are the names of concealed carry owners public information? And if they were why would they need to file a FOIA request to obtain them?
Isn't the idea of FOIA request to get government branches to give you information that are _not_ public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardice?
Reading these comments on the story, I see more of a trend of pro or anti "report the gun owners" rather than any real privacy stances and this is primarily what this is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cowardice?
Why is so important that nobody has access to such data?
If there is no good reason why does it bother you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cowardice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance running rampant
It's one thing for a person to request that info, and have their information on file from the request, and its another entirely to publish it so _anyone_ on a mass scale can find out about it. Of course someone can share this with another person, but few have as far reach as a newspaper does, nor does it make it right. No one was told when buying their first gun, 'Oh BTW, someday people who disagree with you on gun ownership will assume you give up your right to privacy even though you are a law abiding citizen who happens to own a gun and they'll just publish whatever they want about you online, in the newspaper, anywhere, because you followed the law and registered your gun responsibly; good luck with that!'
If you want to prevent gun violence, telling tons of anonymous people where guns are located, with often times less protection than stores is a fucking stupid idea on a slippery slope of bad ideas. Work to change society if you actually believe something should change, don't try and cowardly bully people whose opinion differs from your own by publishing their names, home addresses and anything else you can dig up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance running rampant
That said, your second point is a valid reason that this was a very idiotic idea by the newspaper, and that is what they should apologise for. There has to be a balance, and it would have been more interesting had the newspaper not chosen to just access the number of people applying for a concealed carry permit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
Want your 2nd Amendment rights? Join the National Guard. THAT is your 2nd Amendment right there.
2nd amendment isn't about carrying a gun around because you feel a bit scared, or because you hope to be a hero one day.
I doubt if Scalia, with the level of knowledge he showed with the last two SCOTUS gun cases, would have passed the US citizenship test, which says a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "joining a militia." The PEOPLE are the militia.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
The Constitution says the militia can be deployed by the President in cases of invasion or insurrection. The framers never even thought they had to put in the words "of this country" because it was so incredibly obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
Where is the problem?
You think you should be able to hide?
You own a gun because you shouldn't have to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
> National Guard. THAT is your 2nd Amendment
> right there.
Not according to the Founders and the Supreme Court. I trust their judgement more than yours. And more importantly, theirs is the one that counts from a legal perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
2. depending on the state, it IS a public record, it was filed publicly; you don't like it, don't get a concealed carry permit...
3. as a matter of psychology, you would think that fraidy cats who get concealed carry permits would WANT EVERYONE to know they were packing; after all, aren't they paranoid pukes who WANT EVERYONE to be afraid of them ? ? ?
4. as far as that goes, i think there is a WORLD of difference between having guns at your home (where i can choose not to go), and being able to pack them -concealed or not- in the public sphere...
5. ...and finally, if the purpose of publishing the article was to 'shame' (? whatever) them, and there is -you believe- nothing 'shameful' in having a concealed carry permit, then what the fuck do you care if it is public ? ? ?
6. ARE PEOPLE actually going to the homes of the public lists with pitchforks and torches demanding they disarm themselves ? ? ? no, they are not; and if ANYONE ever does, it will be the GUMMINT, you nimrod... guess what, THEY HAVE THE LISTS ALREADY...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
Would you prefer open carry to concealed carry? The gun right there where everyone can see it? Because we could do it that way.
>2. depending on the state, it IS a public record, it was filed publicly; you don't like it, don't get a concealed carry permit...
Your newspaper IS subscribed to by the people you made angry and they can cancel; you don't like it, don't publish un-newsworthy stuff about private citizens.
>>3. as a matter of psychology, you would think that fraidy cats who get concealed carry permits would WANT EVERYONE to know they were packing; after all, aren't they paranoid pukes who WANT EVERYONE to be afraid of them ? ? ?
Gee, maybe your opinion of these people is wrong, and that's why they don't think the way you think they would think? Maybe they are actually NOT "paranoid pukes who WANT EVERYONE to be afraid of them"?
>>4. as far as that goes, i think there is a WORLD of difference between having guns at your home (where i can choose not to go), and being able to pack them -concealed or not- in the public sphere.
There is a difference, that's why there's a right to keep AND bear arms.
>>5. ...and finally, if the purpose of publishing the article was to 'shame' (? whatever) them, and there is -you believe- nothing 'shameful' in having a concealed carry permit, then what the fuck do you care if it is public ? ? ?
>>6. ARE PEOPLE actually going to the homes of the public lists with pitchforks and torches demanding they disarm themselves ? ? ?
Don't bring a pitchfork or torch to a gun fight.
But seriously, the answer to 5 and 6 is they're worried about thieves. Plus, you know, basic privacy. And some people might have the permit because they are worried about a specific person (restraining order type situations), and oops, now you've just told that person where they live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
2. again, it IS public info in some/many states, cry me a river if you don't like it... (not in la florida, though)
3. i am fully aware -as many gun owners seem blissfully and purposefully ignorant of- that guns are an ATTRACTION for burglars... where i live, gleaning that info from some public list, etc is a waste: randomly break in to ANY house around here, and you are probably 90% certain there will be guns there...
better yet, wait until the weekend, and you will here people popping off rounds ALL THE TIME, just listen for them and mark them down as a potential victim, no lists required...
(NOT TO MENTION, there are people firing ILLEGAL automatic weapons ALL THE TIME, and no piggies EVER 'investigate', much less confiscate them or arrest anyone...)
4. lastly, by your 'reasoning', NO property/house owners should be public info, 'cause, like, that tells people there is a big ole house there with stuff in it that someone wants to steal ! ! ! oh noes ! ! ! *AND* they give you their name and address and phone number ! ! !
will no one think of the poor defenseless houses ?
again, no problem with gun ownership (the gun owners are another matter), but the rights pendulum in this regard is pegged to the one side, it can stand to swing back a little to the more reasonable side...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance running rampant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance running rampant
None did it before and they are only thinking of doing it to sell more Papers.They think it is OK to put out a list of folks whom a thief would love to break-in and rummage thru your stuff.
Free Guns here is what the Newspaper list does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to arbitrarily decide which public information can be shared by which individuals under which circumstances, you're going to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is what it is, there are data that I cannot and will never be able to control and there is data that I can, I forget what I can't control and focuses on what I can.
Yes bad things can happen, and you learn to deal with it like a big boy(or girl) not like a chipmunk trying to hold on to a nut.
You want privacy, you will need to make it happen, the first thing you should try is not to register anything voluntarily, the second is to define the what is proper and what is not and create artificial lines when the natural ones are no longer in place.
There will be a time when every person on this planet will have a video camera in their faces, there will very little privacy left.
I love guns, I think everyone should have them, I even build some of my own, which are not registered, you see I have the knowledge to create weapons and there is nobody that can or will force me to register those.
What I am not going to do is give any government with censorship tendencies any more reasons to censor data no matter how embarrassing that crap is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Educational - yes
Cultural - yes
Individual private information - fck off
Dont think for one bloody minute people wont fight it, regardless of, "thats how it is"......if my blood temp is anything to go by, oh yes, people willf fight it, as inevitable as i think that is, i dont wish the outcome i suspect will come of it, not just for this, but everything rolled into one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a small town newpaper
Having grown up in a town of 600, I know that if this had happened in my town, the line to cancel the subscription to the paper would have been out the door about 10 minutes after the story about the request broke. Small town America is one of the few places where the speed of sound is almost as fast as the speed of light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They were receiving personal threats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have mixed feelings here. Even though the info is public I don't see the need to publish it all over because there's a private/personal factor there. Still the newspapers sure can do whatever they want with the info so yes, they don't have to apologize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
(C) or (F) (unwarranted invasion of prvacy or could threaten life or physical safety of any individual. depending on what the "personal threats were, that alone might well justify withholding the information ) would seem to apply. Gun Ownership is controversial in many places, so it's possible the FOIA request was blocked because sheriff thought gun owners might be threatened. That, and it is ultimately none of the business of the wider ublic who owns legal firearms.
it's similar, albeit admittedly not identical, to why a FOIA request for information on people who've had an abortion would be refused ((a) it's medical information, so covered under HIPAA (b) it could reasonably be a threat to people's physical safety (there has been violence against clinics, it isn't much of a stretch to suspect the people actually getting the abortions could be targeted)
in short; the paper should really have thought through the impact of their planned article before sending the FOIA request, thus the apology is for wasting the time of the sheriff in having to consider the request.
TL;DR the FOIA act includes exemptions covering why the request was refused, the apology was probably for not thinking the request out properly beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay the fuck away from this one masnick
You know what Masnick? FUCK YOU. You seem to have an issue with not being able to see the forest cause of all the trees in the way.
Newspapers are NOT supposed to be in the business of violating the privacy of the local citizens en masse, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you want them to be so badly.
Your gun control emotional bias is showing here, and its causing you to betray logic.
Tread lightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stay the fuck away from this one masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stay the fuck away from this one masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stay the fuck away from this one masnick
Someone's is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is no less controversial than making the personal information of those receiving abortions public. People have strong feelings on these subjects and will target people on either such list.
This is akin to making precious gem owners' information public. It gives criminals the information they need to make a big score.
Give a list of legal gun owners to a bunch of criminals and see how many legal guns get stolen and put in the hands of criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, that's not the case? You mean the readership pays it's bills? That if it had continued with it's current line of publishing people would stop buying it's product?
That the community would stop advertising with the paper?
That this would cause them to lay people off and close the paper?
Why the craven cowardly spineless basterds. (incorrectly spelled on purpose)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That the paper was attempting to do such a thing exposes just how little they actually care about the well-being of the general public. This has nothing to do with safety. Gun control = Government control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a reason the government track gun sales, is not because guns are harmless, why the government doesn't track butterflies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The government wants to create a national registry database so that they can confiscate them later, as history has proven time after time in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Intent of the FOIA was to allow the public, and newspapers, to obtain information that is in the public interest. The use of the FOIA in this case was to try and obtain information that was only of interest to the public, and possibly against the public interest by making freely available information that allows criminals to select houses and individuals to target to obtain a gun.
The newspaper was correct in apologising as it was misusing the FOIA, as it was not intended to allow information on individuals to be obtained via its use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic FAIL
Cognitive dissonance time. Gun nuts will argue that owning a gun makes you a target if it's publicly known because criminals will want to steal your gun. They also hold the belief that if the public knows you have a gun you are a much less appealing target, because you are likely to fight back.
Reality check. If I assume the first is true then criminals can simply request the information since its public. If I assume the second is true then criminals can simply request the information because it is public.
Instead of shaking their fists at the newspaper, the citizens should be calling their legislature and having gun ownership information declared private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic FAIL
It would be one thing if the paper made a FOIA request for info based on a certain individual who'd committed a crime, but they requested ALL registered gun owners' records.
In what way would plastering such info in a "news"-paper be beneficial to the public? I've yet to hear a valid explanation.
You're right in that gun ownership should be made private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic FAIL P.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic FAIL P.S.
Secondary liability.
I think both are crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic FAIL
Also about the potential to be robbed well what is stopping criminals for requesting that data themselves?
The harm part well gun owners have the potential to get enraged and kill people thus bringing harm to others, would that not be in the interest of public safety to be disclosed?
Wouldn't you want to know that your unstable crazy neighbor owns a gun or not?
I have yet to hear any good reason why gun ownership data should be kept private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Logic FAIL
So? I wasn't talking about London and Japan. BTW, they still have a healthy supply of both semi- and fully-automatic guns.
"Also about the potential to be robbed well what is stopping criminals for requesting that data themselves?"
The simple fact is that most criminals won't go through the trouble, shining a light on themselves in the process. Chances are they don't want to raise suspicion. Also, most comitted crime is not so well premeditated in advance. On the other hand, if a newspaper hands them a blueprint of armed/unarmed homes in their neighborhood, chances are that criminals are going to use it to their own advantage.
"The harm part well gun owners have the potential to get enraged and kill people thus bringing harm to others, would that not be in the interest of public safety to be disclosed?
Wouldn't you want to know that your unstable crazy neighbor owns a gun or not?"
No because it's none of my business. Let's say for the sake of argument that I know that A) my neighbor is crazy, and B) he's armed. What am I going to do armed with that knowledge, confront him? Move? ...?
"I have yet to hear any good reason why gun ownership data should be kept private."
You're switching it around. The onus shouldn't be on the law-abiding citizen for exercising their rights. Any such attempt to publicize sensitive background info on the citizens, compromising their security (i.e. removing the element of surprise), would only serve one purpose: to establish suspicion or guilt where there is none.
There is a blatant attempt by the media to portray gun owners as dangerous people, an overwhelming tendency to frame the dialogue according to their socialist bias. Anti-American to the core.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic FAIL
Many of them actually argue that NOT knowing whether the house has a gun is the deterrent. The reality is that most criminals would be deterred by a gun, but the ones that want to steal guns would be attracted to them.
"Instead of shaking their fists at the newspaper, the citizens should be calling their legislature and having gun ownership information declared private."
Can't they do both? Did you ever hear the NRA support making gun registrations a public record?
And if criminals request this information, that's a lead for the police to follow when those exact homes get burglarized. Whereas if it's in the paper, anybody could know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic FAIL
So? wait until criminals discover how to use GIS(Geographic Information Systems), oh boy it will be a boom for business.
Quote:
That shouldn't be a problem since people who bought a gun in the first place are the ones that bought it to protect them against this very situation. Part of the deterrent part of any mechanism is image that it brings to mind, nobody would believe that a flower could stop crime and so criminals don't care if there is a garden or not.
If information can be used to attract criminals it also can be used do discourage them, print the crime rate of the area and the crimes solved ratio, nobody is going to a neighborhood where they will certainly be caught. Guns alone will not protect you against anything, at this point they are a feel good thing to have, real deterrent is in group planing, surveillance and data sharing.
Also we are in an age where people have developed less than lethal weapons those could be used incentivized by not requiring registration like normal guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not for requesting the information. But what were they going to DO with that information? If they were going to put people in danger by making a map out of it, then perhaps the apology is not out of line.
And in the end, the paper is really in the business of making money. They apparently angered their readers, and so they apologized.
A paper would have every right to publish the name of a rape victim, and perhaps they should not have to apologize for seeking public records and publishing the truth... but if they did so without a good reason, they'd face a huge backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you've got a problem with people finding this stuff out, go after your government who wrote the form and decided it was public record. Don't expect anyone else to ignore publicly available information just because looking at or publishing it is "in bad taste" or violates your invented sense that that line on the form doesn't apply to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. The paper has the legal right to request the information.
2. I have the right to expect that my right to privacy regarding both my gun permit and any weapons I may legally own and have registered will not be violated.
3. My right to keep and bear arms is embedded in the constitution of the United States.
4. Release of the fact that I have a gun permit, or that I purchase weapons puts my property and more importantly the welfare of me and my family at undo risk.
5. It is probably important for the government to keep track of who carries weapons and who owns them (though technically, I believe, even that is a violation of my rights since it means they could choose to take my license and my weapon at any time).
So given those 5 facts, I think logic would dictate that while information might technically be public, parts of it are private. In this case, my right to privacy overrides your right to know. So any FIOA requests should redact names and addresses, SS#... (any personally identifiable information). I think I have the same right to privacy with this as I do with my medical records. Only people with a real need to know have a right to know. If you don't feel that way, then I may choose to purchase and carry a weapon without registering with the good old government.
Now regarding the public apology by the editor. There is no surprise there. The paper betrayed the trust of the very people they were supposed to serve.
Did they have to apologize? No. It was not mandated by any court or other governmental body was it?
However, just like everything else in life, the paper quickly figured out that you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. If you are going to betray me, why should I pay for your paper?
Sorry Mike, can't agree on this one. The paper did what it had to do, it is called self preservation. The paper acted stupidly and irresponsibly. The editor corrected the mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With so many angry people on the streets, wouldn't you like to know if the unstable next door person owns a gun or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What purpose would it serve? If the dude is unstable, hopefully you already know to keep clear. All knowing he had a gun would do is give you something else to fret over.
What are you going to go buy a gun and shoot yourself in the foot when you get nervous?
If you have a solid plan and keep security always at the forefront of your mind, you don't need to worry about your neighbor, or anyone else. I worry about keeping me and my family safe. I know the world is full of nut cases and I am pretty good at picking them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
telling me i have to go through goverment channels to bear arms(as is the case in alot of america where you cant open carry) is pretty much the definition of infringed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, ok. It also doesn't say that I don't have to disclose the fact that I'm talking on a public forum. Maybe I should check in with Big Brother gov every time I decide to exercise my First Amendment rights as well.
"With so many angry people on the streets, wouldn't you like to know if the unstable next door person owns a gun or not?"
Once again, that's none of my business. If you want to make the foolish mistake of entrusting your personal safety to an agency which, in all truth, is indifferent to your well-being, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would it make it ok if only "criminals" (80% of Americans will have some type of criminal record before they die) had to register?
Would it make sense to have angry people have to register?
Would it make sense to make psychological(more than 90% of people have some psychological issue) disturbed people register?
Aside from that, guns really do aid terrorrism, if the government stop tracking guns, all criminals also benefit and they more than the gun owner that is afraid of being robbed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Care to take a bet on how many criminals register their weapons and get carry permits now? I betting that number is real close to a big fat ZERO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guns-obama-administration-handed-to-mexican-drug-lords-continu e-to-turn-up-at-crime-scenes.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apologies
This article is about the first and second amendments. Even though most of us have a pretty clear understanding of the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is not so clear to most people.
The reason for the confusion is that many many many people choose to ONLY read the second half of the amendment or simply choose to ignore the first half. The above comment is a perfect example.
"3. My right to keep and bear arms is embedded in the constitution of the United States."
Yes that is true, BUT only as part of a well regulated militia. The US Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms simply by being a citizen.
I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, ALL of it. Not just the latter half.
"5. It is probably important for the government to keep track of who carries weapons and who owns them (though technically, I believe, even that is a violation of my rights since it means they could choose to take my license and my weapon at any time)."
It is NOT a violation of your rights for the government to regulate your weapons. It is that regulation that gives you the right to bear arms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Posting offensive comments on the Internet anonymously: WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
not only that (again, stupid that i 'have to' say I AM FOR GUN OWNERSHIP), but how is it running a metal box on roads requires a permission/license from the state, but a small, easily concealed machine for killing people does not ? ? ?
NOTE: i COMPLETELY get that it is NOT paranoia to be 'afraid' (in a vague-ish sense) that the gummint is going to come after our guns... i do NOT discount that possibility out of hand...
*BUT* aside from our current extreme political climate, SHOULDN'T we -in a slightly more perfect world- require *SOME* training and control of machines made EXPLICITLY for killing nekkid apes, over machines that only incidently/accidently kill nekkid apes ? ? ?
just askin'...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Story, What Story
Is this what Journalism is now?
"Hey, Public Records Office, we're a bunch of idiots so we need to publish some info that will get our paper some press."
Morons...
"They'd stick it in your face
And let you smell what they consider wrong
That's why I say hey man nice, nice shot"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor analysis by Mike
Sure, if the information is currently public record and they can obtain it then they have the first amendment right to publish it.
But that doesn't mean that they should. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't apologize to their customers.
The information wasn't vital to any story.
This should have been held as an example of a company listening to their customers and behaving appropriately. Just as with a media company who would be in the legal right to issue an injunction to shut down a fan project by their customers, it may not be in anyone's best interest. You should have recognized this and posted about how this is a success, and that listening to your customers in not having "No Backbone".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poor analysis by Mike
Why is the government tracking and recording it and making it public?
You want privacy dude?
Like anything else in life you will have to earn it the old fashioned way. Working for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Poor analysis by Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I get into an accident or thrown in jail the newspaper considers this news and as a society that cares reads newspapers a lot. Do I like that something embarrassing about me was there? Most likely not. The list of gun owners being published was there and they published it.
In this case the newspaper itself is an unwitting bully, in some ways, by publishing some personal information that most sane people keep 'under the bed mattress'. They No sane gun owner would publish the fact they carried a gun. I think its good they apologized its so rare to see this these days and takes some corporate fortitude to do that.
The government in its unwisdom forced this situation by peeping into the lives of ordinary citizens. Its another bad example of how just the fact of, just even, collecting such intelligence on average people can get out of hand so quickly. Gun ownership is a basic freedom which should be guarded along with other privacy issues.
To the point (from post #28) �Give a list of legal gun owners to a bunch of criminals and see how many legal guns get stolen and put in the hands of criminals.� When such lists are collected is is sometimes true that the government officials who are the criminals. Fave Example: Diamond sellers have to apply to the government for an alias so they can travel safely and anonymously. You get it... the list was sold and diamonds were stolen, often. (Chicago IL) Just the fact the list, of gun owners, exists is to much. [references to comments , 33, 47, 52, (and especially 61)]
Kind of reminds me of an old movie called Red Dawn in where the invading forces just rounded up all the gun owners as likely enemies. (and did what?) Have not seen the new version of this movie (issued from the middlemen of culture?) and wonder how it has been culturally reinterpreted.
Middlemen of culture post: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130224/22344422088/why-does-entertainment-industr y-insist-that-it-can-veto-any-innovation-it-doesnt-like.shtml#c795
I dont think this was a good example of how public information is published because its an issue that should not be an issue. A lot of posts danced around this nail of an issue but no hits. My comments on privacy are best found in this post: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130226/14360422120/supreme-court-effectively-says-theres-no-way-t o-challenge-warrantless-wiretapping.shtml#c681 (its way at the end if you posted there, and like to read other's posts) it explains somewhat the role of bullies and government.
Extending my humble opinion: Violent Felons should not have guns. (note the specificity of violence since everything is a felony these days) This is hard to enforce at the point of purchase since any search would send name and purchase info (about arms) to government agencies who recored such stuff and thus another list would be made (and published by some unwitting newspaper?). It should probably be handeled on a case by case basis locking up violent felons with guns. Obviosly i'm pro gun ownership even if I don't own one. (yet, friends ask me to hunt with them)
Comments were good, thanks. Wanted to comment on so much but I do like to stick to the topic. (even though the comments were on topic my commentary would have went off topic)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. gun owners do NOT 'advertise' they have guns ? ? ?
what state/country are you from ? ? ?
never seen a bumper sticker that says 'protected by smith and wesson' ? (i can assure you, they are serious)
3. again, in the rural, southern area i live in, *MOST* people have guns; it ain't no fuckin' 'secret' when you are in your back yard plinking shit for hours on end...
4. the safe (unsafe?) assumption around here is that, yes, just about EVERY house will have a gun or two... around here it ain't no secret, ain't no big deal, ain't no paranoid bullshit 'oh noes, don't nobody ebber tell nobody we got a gun, lurleen, they's a come to rob us fer sure ! ! !'...
give me a break...
again, the point another poster made above is valid:
paranoid gun owners are ascairt they will get robbed if they have a gun; but on the other hand they are all about letting you know they have a gun to defend themselves...
doesn't the paradox burn their brains ? ? ?
...or is that the saltpeter ?
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.whois.com/whois/techdirt.com
i notice you dont put a personal address or phone number anywhere yet it would probably be pretty easy to find through sec filings and county record of deeds search why should I be able to get this information generally people keep it to themselves for privacy esp on the internet. why should i be able to find out where you live who you are married to probably whether you have children its none of my business and the government shouldent give out thise paperwork that they require individuals to fill out to receive their rights. thats right you are required to fill out publically available data to have a place to live to exercise second amendment rights. its a trade off of freedom for security but again that trade off should be between you and the government or any stake holders not between you and the rest of the world. you really need to do some reasearch before commenting on gun issues. did you know that nc is an open carry state meaning that you dont need a conceal carry license to carry a firearm. the people who get them are trying to stay low key off the radar and out of conflict. and stuff the newspaper publishing private data about personal information that was required by the government to exercise a constitutional right should not be public knowedge. neither should who you are in business with who your bank is where you live who you are married to unless someone has a reason to know ie they want to invest in your company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to be a political outlet, fine. I'll get my tech somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]