Slashdot Mirror
Federal Gun Control Requires IT Overhaul
New submitter Matt Slaybaugh writes "John Foley at InformationWeek has an editorial saying that the missing piece in the new gun control legislation is adequate data management. 'President Obama introduced 23 executive orders on Jan. 16 aimed at reducing gun violence through a combination of tougher regulation and enforcement, research, training, education and attention to mental healthcare. Several of the proposed actions involve better information sharing, including requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the FBI's background check system and easing legal barriers that prevent states from contributing data to that system.' But concrete plans are needed now to improve the current poor system of data collection and sharing. Federal CIO Steven VanRoekel's Digital Government Strategy, introduced in May, 'defines an IT architecture and processes for sharing digitized content securely, using Web APIs and with attention to protecting privacy. ... Unfortunately, on top of the data quality issues identified by the White House, and the FBI's and ATF's outdated IT systems, there's a lack of transparency about the systems used to enforce federal gun-control laws.'"
Is it any surprise that the Federal govt. has knee-jerked and not thought through the repercussions, or the real-world applicability of their solutions?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Yeah, right.
So when's Obama going to give up his armed Secret Service agents? Oh, wait. He's never going to do that.
When's Rosie O'Donnell and other anti-gun celebrities going to give up getting "we're-special-and-you're-not" gun-carrying bodyguards? Oh, wait. They're never going to do that.
But they sure as hell expect US to want to protect ourselves and our children with words that say "No guns allowed."
And then call the people with guns AFTER something bad happens
Seems reasonable. License, permit and databases aren't infringement as the supreme court has found.
... easing legal barriers that prevent states from contributing data to that system.
Oh boy.
Getting closer and closer to dossiers on everybody.
And if anyone thinks that it's not technically possible in this day and age then you don't belong here on Slashdot.
The fed has to much IT outsourcing that needs to be better controlled / with some more centralization or at least move most of it all in house.
Isn't it time for someone *not* known for giving thousands of guns to criminals to take over? Perhaps the NRA? ;)
There are no Executive Orders on this issue. The President does not have legislative power. And you cannot license a right.
This is not a "problem" to be solved. This is a "problem" to be strengthened. The worse their IT infrastructure the better. The patently unconstitutional activities of these organizations (particularly the ATF) need to be dismantled and crippled at every level. Any US citizen that aids and abets these organizations in any way is just as guilty as they are... yes including IT.
--Citizen
That federal gun tracking is way behind is largely by intention. The NRA got Congress to mostly ban any computer based tracking of gun information. Their motivation is that any computer tracking can support future gun confiscation.
Why not a Federal law which controls speeding by requiring governers on all vehicles so as to make it impossible to speed?
Match it up with a GPS system and the government will be able to save the ~14,000 citizens who die every year on our roads because of speeding.
What could possibly go wrong?
TLDR version:
Once they have a suitable list of owners, it will become possible to confiscate the guns, which is apparently what these people want to do.
I know kind of off topic, but executive orders? This puts Obama at at least 170 in 4 years (which to his credit is higher than Bush but on par with many presidents and lower than Reagan). I'm sorry thing kind of thing needs to be done through legislation; executive orders should only be done when immediate action is called. I hate this rule by decree bs.
Anyways, yeah, back on topic; total knee jerk reaction, and while i don't own a gun I'm a rabid supporter of gun rights, and frankly the more legislation out there to control guns will only encourage me to go buy one before the legislation kicks in, or even get one illegally.
by the organization where the majority of internal web apps still have to target IE7 for compatibility.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The real problem is not polution, corruption, gun-control, or any one specific issue. It is a matter of enforcement. I think at this point that if congress were to read through every federal law on the books that they would be unable to complete the read-through in a years time (not counting all of their vacations and holidays). If the current laws are not enforced how is creating more going to solve anything? There is an industry around creating new laws. This is wrong at a fundamental level. Coincidentally it is the same problem with the medical situation. There is an entire "medical-billing industry": middlemen paid to shuffle papers with no real gain for the people footing the bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The government needs to dump what they've got and start from scratch. But all I can say is good luck.
They can barely set up a site properly, let alone build and manage a sophisticated database. Visit most government sites and they're a convoluted maze of poorly organized content. And federal government sites are halfway decent, state and municipal sites are many orders of magnitude worse. I can't comprehend how the companies that build that junk remain in business.
Well, actually I can. I know people IT and web who've done work for my state and it's an absolute nightmare. It's the sort of thing that they've consistently said they'd never do again. I think the few willing to do it haven't so much figured out how to work through the red tape so much as exploit the system for personal gain. It doesn't help when you're dealing with government workers who are total incompetents, managing things they know nothing about. But as long as they look productive they don't have to worry about accountability.
And that's part of the problem. You still have to deal with the human component. I know someone who was self-employed and struggling. Because of it he was eligible for free health insurance through the state so he applied successfully. There's no copay or anything because, as was explained to him by a social worker, even if they only charged a dollar most people on the program would still refuse to pay. The expectation is that it all should be free.
So a year in he lands a decent job and is no longer eligible for the program. He gets in touch with the worker to cancel the plan. Over the next year he continues getting plan updates. They even switch providers for him. The state partners with various companies and over so often they have to switch providers. The user is supposed to pick a plan or risk cancellation. But apparently if you ignore all the paperwork they take care of it all for you. So here he was calling multiple times before they finally dropped him. Someone with fewer scruples could have milked the plan indefinitely. And in fact, I know of some people who've done just that.
That's just one example. I have others. With this level of incompetence how can we expected any program to be implemented and managed properly? The existing program should already be addressing these problems. No one ever assess and analyzes. It's always that we need something even bigger and more complex couple to the idea that more money can fix any problem. Then when the next grand program fails they'll just start the cycle all over.
I'm not suggesting we don't need an overhaul. I'm simply pointing out that it's almost certainly going to be a financial morass resulting in something no more effective than we've got now.
That's exactly what I came here to post. Anti-Obama folks were really eager before January 16 to talk about how Obama was about to bypass Congress and implement gun control through executive order, and they never corrected themselves after the fact.
Most of the 23 items are about making existing background checks more effective by encouraging (not ordering) government entities to share information better. Many are clarifying what rights and authority different agencies or individuals (such as doctors) already have.
But who needs rational discussion at a time like this?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I suspect the problem of establishing interoperability among the government agencies is harder than it sounds. The DoD has been working on getting their stovepiped systems to talk to one another for 20 years. Remember the big push after 9/11 to get all the first responders talking on the same radio frequencies? Hundreds of millions spent, and still no results. So "incompatible computer systems" doesn't sound to me like a minor hurdle that can be overcome with a couple years' R&D. It sounds more to me like "doomed from the outset."
Possibly our best defense against Big Brother is that the government adopted all its major IT systems before the Internet was a household word.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
....people who can make a pile of money from greater IT investment, advocate greater IT investment. /facepalm /news
-Styopa
This president is arming Islamist Terrorist with F-16's in Egypt and you want this man to decide who is fit to own a gun and whether you can have one or not? This president gave guns to Mexican drug lords who then killed American officers with them and he needs to be put in charge of who gets a gun?
Gun control debate in Three...Two...O.......BLAM!
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
Prosecutions for violating existing federal gun laws are down significantly under Obama. Joe Biden said that they do not have the time and manpower in order to pursue violations of the law on background checks. If the Administration does not enforce existing laws, why should we believe that any new laws will make any positive difference?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So if we want to stop Obama's diktats, all we have to do is prevent IT companies from bidding on the contract? If Rahm Emanuel can sit around and tell banks to stop doing business with gun manufacturers, then why can't everyone else tell IT companies not to do business with the Federal Government in regards to firearms?
sudo make me a sandwich
And also, just as unauthorized.
Prohibition WRT alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Marijuana, for some magical reason, did not. Why? I mean, other than government out of control? Where did this magical power to step on our liberties come from?
The 2nd amendment is explicit: The government is forbidden from infringing upon our right to keep and carry arms. They are engaged in applying unauthorized power to the citizens with every law that infringes on the right to keep and carry arms, of which there are a huge number.
Any law that interposes licensing, restrictions on carrying (whether open or not), or restricts any particular arm, is completely outside the scope of the government's legitimate authority.
The constitution is the highest law in the land. The government is engaged in breaking that law.
Welcome to government by fiat.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"making existing background checks more effective by encouraging (not ordering) government entities to share information"
The part that concerns me about that is the possibility that Homeland Security's "terrorism watch list" or TSA "No Fly List" will end up being incorporated into the NICS database. I haven't heard about this specifically in the latest batch of orders, but the government proposed it at least once previously.
The problem is that people can be arbitrarily added to these lists and there is no legal process by which to remove yourself. A law abiding citizen with no history of crime or mental illness could just be added to the list for whatever reason. That's BS. If we're going to prohibit people from purchasing or owning firearms, it should be done only through due process of law, not by some obscure and arbitrary bureaucratic decision making.
I just wanted to point out some really obvious things
There is an wide chasm between "Non compos mentis" and "mental health issues". Note that the 2nd term isn't "mental health disorder" it's "mental health issues".
How will "mental health issue" be defined for this purpose? Is a prescription for antidepressants sufficient for gun confiscation, or does it require a diagnosis of an actual disorder. Will a judge be involved in the ruling, or will the police make the determination? Will it be "confiscate first, check later"?
Will a doctor's word - patient "X" is on antidepressants - be sufficient for the police to come and confiscate arms? Will the confiscation last forever, or can a person be deemed "cured" and get their guns back? Will this cause people to hide real mental health issues for fear of having their property confiscated?
Many people with "mental health issues" have broken no law. This means the government will be taking away the rights of a group of people based on a warm-fuzzy "it seems like the right thing to do" attitude. We could just as easily restrict blacks from having firearms because blacks commit more crimes than whites in this country.
People make a lot of hay over the "social contract". It turns out that our ancestors made a social contract which was explicitly put down on paper and said that you could have your centralized government so long as the people can keep guns.
You cannot break that contract directly, you have to change the constitution to do it - that's the rules, and everyone has to abide by them. If you don't believe in the constitution, then the social contract is null and void, and we might as well do away with the federal government.
And where is state governance in all this? What if some states (Texas comes to mind) simply don't want to restrict gun control in this manner? The constitution explicitly states that the federal government can't take this right away.
And finally, you know that this will be abused by law enforcement to extreme levels. Cops will be grabbing guns off of everyone they see claiming "well, he looked like he had mental health issues". Prosecutors will dig up any thin hint of a mental health issue to justify keeping the guns, and no one will be able to get their property back - ever.
This whole issue is a train wreck waiting to happen. Especially since, given the statistics, it will cause more children to be hurt (on average) than relaxing restrictions.
Try bringing a crate of ammunition through U.S. customs and give them your theory about how ammunition does not fall under the legal classification of "arms".
How about banning lead. If it is unsafe to use lead in solder, then surely the lead in bullets is deadly, too. Let people keep their guns, once they can come up with a bullet that is not a health hazard.
I'm thinking it should be, "Federal IT Capabilities Limit Ability for Federal Gun Control." And that isn't a bad thing.
"Universal Background Checks" sounds all nice and good right up to the moment that you realize any such system would require a database of every known felon, every person found incompetent mentally, for just a negative-control system. (As opposed to a positive system confirming an SSN or Driver's License belongs to that person.)
The Government has such a great record with massive databases:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-05-immigration_N.htm
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158932528/states-arent-submitting-records-to-gun-database
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57432795/family-of-no-fly-list-toddler-wants-apology/
They've done so well, after all, I'm sure this will be no trouble for them.
No worries, the NRA will make sure that there isn't a good way of managing the data, like they've done previously.
Research CODIS (combined DNA index system)
...protecting ourselves from extremely rare occurrences that affect a very small percentage of the population as a whole, but that isn't how we do things in the US unfortunately.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
I'm sorry, but every time a gun control debate comes up, some moron pops up with the "ooh, i thunk it first, limit bullets!" argument.
It's been made before, it's been made again, it's still stupid.
Hey, why not try out a "triggers" argument! That' hasn't been done!
Ammunition is simple:
- turn cases on a lathe (a variable-speed woodworking lathe will do --- brass is soft)
- bullets are easily cast (you can use a hot plate as a heat source)
- gunpowder is simple kitchen chemistry (I used to make black powder when I was a kid)
- primers can be made from strike-anywhere matches (granted, these are not quite as easy to come by these days, but they haven't been outlawed yet, and when they do, there're other alternatives)
People who think gun control can be made to work don't understand guns.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
What we need is a national ID database...
...of gun owners.
If Rahm Emanuel can sit around and tell banks to stop doing business with gun manufacturers
This made me LOL.
How's old Rahm and the city of Chicago doing? Have Rahms superior intellect and excellent policy decisions not fixed all their problems already? The hell you say.
A meaningful background check would require that the gun buyer bring two friends with him. The friends would print and sign their names next to a declaration that says "We vouch for this guy. We don't think he's crazy and we promise that he's not going to go shoot up a school or a mall." That's the actual purpose of a background check. It's what a background check is supposed to do, and it's exactly what - as they are currently designed with all their national database integration and blah blah blah - they fail to do.
The problem is that people can be arbitrarily added to these lists and there is no legal process by which to remove yourself. A law abiding citizen with no history of crime or mental illness could just be added to the list for whatever reason. That's BS. If we're going to prohibit people from purchasing or owning firearms, it should be done only through due process of law, not by some obscure and arbitrary bureaucratic decision making.
Exactly.
Anyone who doesn't believe that this will inevitably be used to effectively criminalize firearm ownership has obviously failed to learn from history.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We could also cut off everyone's trigger finger and receive the same effect. I really can't tell if you are being serious or if you are drunk.
sudo make me a sandwich
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Committing to the project without even the most basic understanding of what it entails. I've worked for enough of those managers and on enough of those projects that I don't expect this one to see the light of day either.
In this case, Obama is just another pointy-haired blatherskite wondering why the systems aren't already up and running.
One incident in the 240 year history of the Republic vs how many gun related homicides and injuries each year?
Come on man.
Considering more people die by blunt force trauma with criminal intent than by guns. Your statement has no merit.
Om, nomnomnom...
Let's not do even Federal gun control, then we will not need to add new infrastructure.
In fact, it the Federal government can stop doing a lot of other things and we will save even more money. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to them. Write your representatives.
Okay, granted it's not (necessarily) the ATF or the FBI but if you want to comply with the ITAR and need to work with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (the State Department), they do all of their electronic paperwork in...wait for it...Lotus. Apparently while the rest of the world uses Acrobat for electronic forms, IBM won the contract for that particular IT system. In addition, were the DDTC to decide to create a new form for something, several other branches of the government have to be involved and thus the process can take several years. By that time, administrations, their policies and priorities may change and all that effort could be thrown out. Government bureaucracies are as a rule inefficient.
Just a reminder: This is (supposed to be) a constitutional republic, not a democracy. That means you elect representatives, and they decide what's what, but that those decisions are supposed to be subject to limits defined by the constitution they swear an oath to. We were never intended to be a democracy. What we are today seems to be an unauthorized, fiat corporate oligarchy; we've never been a democracy, though.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The damage of the Sikh temple shooting was reduced by cops arriving.
Reducing the damage of such incidents is obviously a good thing even if we can't stop an incident completely.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
- turn cases on a lathe (a variable-speed woodworking lathe will do --- brass is soft)
That's a good recipe for a KB. The case head needs to be harder than the case mouth, you have to anneal the case differently the case head MUST be worked to have the proper hardness
- bullets are easily cast (you can use a hot plate as a heat source)
Ok
- gunpowder is simple kitchen chemistry (I used to make black powder when I was a kid)
Won't work with modern cartridges, you can't fit enough powder in the case to get the power you need
- primers can be made from strike-anywhere matches (granted, these are not quite as easy to come by these days, but they haven't been outlawed yet, and when they do, there're other alternatives)
Horrible idea, A) you'll end up work hardening your primer cup, the anvil won't be set right (They tend to crack anyway when you use them and you run the risk of anything from ignition when you seat the primer in your press to absolutely no ignition when you burn. Plus with modern smokeless cartridges you can't get a reliable enough burn you may as well be using a cap gun most of the time. People who think gun control can be made to work don't understand guns.
Argh. Of course I meant "interstate mean intrastate"
Sorry.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I thought Congress was supposed to pass laws. But, I guess now that Obama is King, that's no longer necessary. When he wants to issue new laws, he just orders them from on high as "Executive Orders" and his will is done.
In fact, Obama has already issued more than 900 Executive Orders so far. That's 15 times more than any other President to date--in fact most earlier Presidents issued less than 10.
Aside from stepping on the 2nd Amendment, it looks like former Constitutional Law instructor Obama doesn't care too much about separation of Powers either.
The solution to inadequate IT for the gun control effort is, to say no to the new gun elimination effort.
Or maybe just issue us all little yellow stars to wear, to aid in tracking us.
... and now to join two explosively hot topics related to federal regulation.
Re: "defines an IT architecture and processes for sharing digitized content securely, using Web APIs and with attention to protecting privacy" Doesn't some corporation already have a patent on that? It'd be an interesting show to watch some corporation sue the US Gov for infringing on their patent for this.
You are a liar. Over 20 times more people die in gun related homicides than by blunt force trauma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
This comment proves that the interim objective is to register all gun owners and guns. According to a previous statement by Senator Feinstein and a more recent one from Governor Cuomo, the ultimate objective is gun confiscation. In the words of Senator Feinstein, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them ALL in." We've seen where this leads. Recently, in Rwanda, it lead to the slaughter of between 500K and 1M people. Proportionately to their population, it outranked the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet Gulags but came close to the Killing Fields in Cambodia. According to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO.org), these Lethal Laws have accounted for over 100M people. The first use of an automated data file for this kind of purpose was by the 3rd Reich with the machinery supplied by IBM. If you were unfortunate enough to have numbers tatooed on your arm, it related to a data file, not you. Previously, if you had registered a firearm according to the gun control laws, this information was on file in a relational data base that could be sorted by name, address, type of firearm, ethnic group, etc. They may seem quaint today, but that Hollerwith card was the most powerful tool all the way to the 1970s. Patriotic Duty: If you can get to it, corrupt that data file. People like Eric Holder can't be trusted with it. Politically, defeat the Feinstein Bill (S. 150, not yet posted to Thomas) or anything like it.
One incident, with people alive today that actually remember it. You are asking me to "come on!", yet you fail to grasp how correlation and causation works.
Look, this is the issue put as simply and succinctly as possible;
Your own fear and cowardice of an inanimate object, and your willful neglect to protect yourself is not my problem, or that of anyone else. It is solely yours.
At least be open and honest with your self and others. You fear people you do not know, and what they could do to you and yours. I do not fear them, but exercise caution around them, and am prepared to defend myself in whatever means possible. And I don't even own a gun. I do however, strive to fully own myself. In order to accomplish this, the ability to fight against any form of tyranny, be it government, criminal, or other, is the foundational underpinning which is required.
Power hungry megalomaniacs with delusions of godhood will never allow a "disaster/catastrophe" to go to waste in their attempt to grab more POWER at the expense of the people!
911 = The patriot act, NDAA, rendition, endless war over bogus reasons!
Littleton = The disarmament of America over bogus arguments!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd