Slashdot Mirror


New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, The Journal News caved under pressure of gun advocates and shut down the interactive maps which contained the names and addresses of licensed gun owners in upstate New York. The maps are still visible on the site, however they are simply static images. The Journal News published the interactive maps on December 23 which caused significant backlash. In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses. New York state Senator Greg Ball (Republican) called the removal of the data a 'huge win.' On Saturday, an anonymous user leaked the raw data used to build The Journal News maps."

15 of 899 comments (clear)

  1. subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how can one leak data which has been made available through a FOIA request?

    1. Re:subject by poity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I think of FOIA, I think of individuals keeping tabs on government, not individuals keeping tabs on other individuals. Transparency on what the government does is very much different from transparency on what private citizens do.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  2. Re:Or the reverse by aurispector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?

    What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

    Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?

    "Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  3. Gawker and John Cook by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The summary makes it sound like Gawker had a choice when it didn't publish the addresses of gun owners.

    In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses

    The only reason John Cook didn't publish them is because the NYPD didn't give them to him.. John Cook made it pretty clear that he would have published the addresses if he had them.

    Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  4. F*ck off, gun haters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously. I'm in Canada and own no guns. You're doing it wrong.

    All you idiots are doing is invading peoples' privacy, advocating vigilante justice against people who have broken no laws, and providing a database of places that criminals can go steal guns that won't be traced to them.

    Proper education and required licensing country-wide is the direction you should be going in. And that involves posting your Congressmens' e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Not the constituents.

  5. Re:leaked huh ? by stenvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

    Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers. There is a small remainder of homicides committed with legally owned guns and accidents, but many legal products are far more dangerous. Furthermore, there is no justification for creating intrusive government regulation that prevents me from committing suicide with a gun.

  6. I really hate gun control morons like these by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because they make any real, useful, gun control much less likely to happen. Their grandstanding is counter productive.

    For example you try and say "Hey, we really should register firearms. After all you register your car, why not guns too? It would allow for some tracking and accountability, and in the event someone becomes a prohibited person easier allow courts to determine if they have any guns that need to be surrendered." Well the gun lobby shoots back with "No, unacceptable, if you have a registry it can be used to target gun owners." You respond "That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

    Then, this happens, in a place that has a gun registry. Now the gun lobby doesn't have to talk in hypotheticals, or other nations, they can point to something that happened right in America that is precisely the kind of shit they are talking about. Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

    Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

    As such trying stupid shit to do things that are bans but not in name, or to harass or make things difficult for gun owners are counter productive. All they do is polarize things, convince gun owners that any and all controls are bad because they'll be abused.

    Stunts like this are nothing but harmful.

  7. Re:Or the reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion.

    Unfortunately, there are many people who disagree with you on this.

  8. Re:Or the reverse by JakeBurn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what would knowing do for you? Your neighbor, instead of hiding the fact that he has weapons like criminals do, follows the law and registers his legally obtained weapons. This information is already available to see. What people are mad about is when some asshat decides to conveniently collect all of this information so that only criminals have a use for it. Oh, criminals and idiots who think law-abiding citizens should be ostracized or treated differently because they are exercising their rights and acting in a responsible manner.

  9. Re:Or the reverse by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

    And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons. We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know. Besides, if he has a concealed carry permit, the whole point is that you don't know.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. Re:Or the reverse by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can only have pacifism, because someone else has a gun. That gun is not necessarily the shotgun I use for squirrel hunting on Saturdays. It is the gun that the Marine carries every day in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany, or the Azores, or anywhere else our troops have gone, and died to. Peace is a great thing to wish for, but someone else has to be put in harm's way for you to acheive it. Had it not been for guns, the world would be a much different place right now. We would still be honoring Queen Elizabeth as our monarch. It's even possible that some of us would still be the property of the rich people.
    You may not like guns, and that's fine. But don't forget all the good that people wielding guns have done in the world. And don't forget all the evil that men wielding guns have done in this world either.

  11. Re:please think of the children by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are not denying them their rights, when they commit a crime and break the law, they are voluntarily giving up their rights.

    What rights, and for how long? There's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Bill of Rights for a reason; the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of sex crimes, the lifelong punishment that comes after all jail time has been served, fines paid, etc. is almost always excessive.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  12. Re:please think of the children by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People who commit a crime think they'll get away with it. They aren't agreeing to get caught, much less give up their rights.

    If you can't hold it and step behind some bushes to pee and get spotted by a ten year old kid, you can be convicted of indecent exposure in most states. That can get you placed on a sex offender list for life in many states (some, like Colorado, came to their senses and created a second crime for non-sexual exposure which is neither a sex crime nor a felony). Once you're on the sex offender list, your name, address and photo would be made available to anyone who cares to look for registered sex offenders in the area you live in. In some places, you'd no longer be able to live within 1000 feet of a school or day care center. You'd have to tell anyone you were trying to rent from that you were a convicted sex offender, too, so most places wouldn't take you as a tenant. It's also a felony, so you'd no longer be able to own a gun or vote. You'd be required to admit that you were convicted sex offender on job applications, which would severely limit your employment opportunities. The list of long-term affects on your life goes on and on, but basically you're screwed for life.

    Cruel and unusual is a fitting description.

    Do you really think that you would have been agreeing to all that when you decided to step behind a bush and take a leak? Of course not. You'd have thought you wouldn't be seen and it would be okay.

  13. Re:leaked huh ? by ak3ldama · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a citation for you: the recent CDC report that the media has been trying to sweep under the rug. It states that binge drinking and overdrinking, among just women and girls, contributes to the deaths of 23,000 in a year. But you know, guns are super evil. Or howabout this from the CDC site: There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States. You citation needed types piss me off. Stop being so fucking lazy.

    --
    "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
  14. Re:Or the reverse by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anarchist gun nut? I don't get it. Oh - you're just name calling, because you don't have an argument of any type to offer. I get it now. Cool, I guess, 'cause it means I win.

    Let's analyze that name though. Anarchist? Hardly. I'm more of an authoritarian, than I am an anarchist. I'm more of a socialist than an anarchist too, as far as that goes. I LIKE the idea of government. I like the idea of government controlling nutcases, criminals, illegal aliens, and more. What I DO NOT LIKE, is the government infringing on the lives of law abiding citizens.

    Gun nut? Maybe we need to define "gun nut". To me, a gun is a tool. Like any other tool, it has limited uses. You don't use a hammer to clean windows, you don't use a gun to clean windows, you don't use a screwdriver to clean windows - all of these tools would cause more destruction than a window cleaner can tolerate. I'm not a gun nut, or a hammer nut, or a screwdriver nut. I use each tool for it's intended purpose.

    I guess I could return the favor, and call you an anti-gun-nut. I'll refrain though, and just point out that you are naive and uninformed.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br