6 ms·

Social media password, search history could be required to buy firearm in NY

27 points by joeyespo 8y ago

Traubenfuchs 8y ago
How and in which form is one even supposed to get ones search history?
jdhn 8y ago
It's very scary how social media access by government authorities is quickly becoming a de facto requirement for people to exercise their rights, whether it's coming into the country or buying a firearm. While I can't find the text of this proposed law, I guarantee that the definition of bad speech (if it even has one) will be quite nebulous.
Para2016 8y ago
It's not going to be easy to pass this kind of bill. James Tresmond, a gun rights lawyer, said it violates multiple constitutional rights. "The first, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment, and the 14th amendment," Tresmond said.
- i_am_nomad 8y ago
  The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th have been under full assault since the early 2000s.
  - Para2016 8y ago
    Absolutely. I simply pasted a quote from the article and got negative points from it. I like HN, it's exposed me to a lot of interesting concepts I didn't know about. But, there's a large group of users here that actively suppress opinions or thoughts that don't align with their own. I suppose that's inevitable in a comment system based on points.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    The only amendments in the bill of rights that are still somewhat protected in the US are the 1st and 2nd (and maybe the 9th and 10th, depending on your political view). The 3rd is outdated (the US army has very expensive military bases), 4th is clearly attacked through mass surveillance and border searched, 5th is invalidated by civil forfeiture (which arguably violates the "just" terms), 6th is partially invalidated because of how overworked courts are and the existence of secret courts invalidates public trials, 7th is somewhat outdated because ignores inflation and thus further overworks the courts (requiring 6-member jury trials for all civil suits over $20), 8th is blatantly disregarded by many courts who routinely place excessive bail (hence the need for bail bonds) and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in prisons all the time. Depending on your political view you can argue whether or not the 9th and 10th amendments are being attacked by overzealous government. But at the very least, it's in dispute.
    - jdhn 8y ago
      >The 3rd is outdated I don't care what century I live in, I'd rather have the military living in bases than my house.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        The point is that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore given that the military has such an enormous budget they have no need to quarter in your house. The 3rd amendment has never been used in any Supreme Court decisions, and in fact has only ever been used in a single appeals case in 1982[1] (thus there is only one instance of precedence for this amendment -- not to mention that the judge and appeals judge already accepted the Petitioners' argument under the 14th amendment). I think that a part of the constitution that has only ever been used once, and was based primarily of a fear of a repeat of one of the Intolerable Acts in the 18th Century is hardly a relevant amendment. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
        lj3 8y ago
        Initially, I balked at your suggestion that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized you're right. In the age of 4th generation insurgency warfare, housing your military in private homes is a very, very bad idea.
csense 8y ago
Someone needs to RTFC (Read The Fine Constitution)
Rebelgecko 8y ago
If you like a side of irony with your gun control, the state senator that is the author of this bill recently sent a tweet to someone telling her to kill herself after she posted pictures of him parking his car illegally. He's also had multiple road rage incidents. There are probably reasons why it's a horrible idea, but I think that legislators should be subjected to laws they write affecting other people. Want to require drug tests for welfare recipients? Then we should also require drug tests for congress. Want to add social media purity tests before gun purchases? Don't let anyone vote yes on the bill without publishing their private Facebook messages. Government employees furloughed due to lack of a budget? Don't pay the people that failed to pass a budget.
- navane 8y ago
  Want to give up citizens privacy? Give up the legislators privacy.
- spartas 8y ago
  It would be a horrible idea because it would be handled by laws and the government. I take issue with your example of not paying the people that failed to pass a budget. Government budgets are huge complicated enigmas full of waste and overspending, and if you punish individuals personally for failing to agree to pass a budget bill, then those individuals are no longer incentivized to dissent on unnecessary spending provisions of the bill. Understand that if a bill passes then all provisions and portions of the bill are approved, including any riders attached to the bill (and there are often many). For many people in Congress, the reason to vote NO on a bill is not because the bill is an awful or terrible idea (many times the bill makes sense and would be beneficial), but because the author of the bill added in unnecessary restrictions or budget kickbacks to the bill or in riders to unfairly benefit a group that is sponsoring the bill. If you think our government's problems are bad, you should see their solutions.
- u801e 8y ago
  > the state senator that is the author of this bill recently sent a tweet to someone telling her to kill herself after she posted pictures of him parking his car illegally. He's also had multiple road rage incidents. Perhaps someone should amend that bill to also apply to motor vehicle ownership.
pjc50 8y ago
Good way to start from a valid observation - mass shooters tend to have a social media profile covered in red flags, or perhaps none at all - and turn it into a completely unreasonable request that will set back the cause of moderate harm reduction by years.
smileysteve 8y ago
Are states out of touch with MFA? How do I provide a useful password if I follow good security choices? At the rate Facebook is going, this should just be "Authorize with Facebook and we'll do the rest"

27 points by joeyespo 8y ago

How and in which form is one even supposed to get ones search history?

jdhn 8y ago

It's very scary how social media access by government authorities is quickly becoming a de facto requirement for people to exercise their rights, whether it's coming into the country or buying a firearm. While I can't find the text of this proposed law, I guarantee that the definition of bad speech (if it even has one) will be quite nebulous.

Para2016 8y ago

It's not going to be easy to pass this kind of bill. James Tresmond, a gun rights lawyer, said it violates multiple constitutional rights. "The first, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment, and the 14th amendment," Tresmond said.

i_am_nomad 8y ago
The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th have been under full assault since the early 2000s.
- Para2016 8y ago
  Absolutely. I simply pasted a quote from the article and got negative points from it. I like HN, it's exposed me to a lot of interesting concepts I didn't know about. But, there's a large group of users here that actively suppress opinions or thoughts that don't align with their own. I suppose that's inevitable in a comment system based on points.
- cyphar 8y ago
  The only amendments in the bill of rights that are still somewhat protected in the US are the 1st and 2nd (and maybe the 9th and 10th, depending on your political view). The 3rd is outdated (the US army has very expensive military bases), 4th is clearly attacked through mass surveillance and border searched, 5th is invalidated by civil forfeiture (which arguably violates the "just" terms), 6th is partially invalidated because of how overworked courts are and the existence of secret courts invalidates public trials, 7th is somewhat outdated because ignores inflation and thus further overworks the courts (requiring 6-member jury trials for all civil suits over $20), 8th is blatantly disregarded by many courts who routinely place excessive bail (hence the need for bail bonds) and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in prisons all the time. Depending on your political view you can argue whether or not the 9th and 10th amendments are being attacked by overzealous government. But at the very least, it's in dispute.
  - jdhn 8y ago
    >The 3rd is outdated I don't care what century I live in, I'd rather have the military living in bases than my house.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      The point is that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore given that the military has such an enormous budget they have no need to quarter in your house. The 3rd amendment has never been used in any Supreme Court decisions, and in fact has only ever been used in a single appeals case in 1982[1] (thus there is only one instance of precedence for this amendment -- not to mention that the judge and appeals judge already accepted the Petitioners' argument under the 14th amendment). I think that a part of the constitution that has only ever been used once, and was based primarily of a fear of a repeat of one of the Intolerable Acts in the 18th Century is hardly a relevant amendment. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey
      - lj3 8y ago
        Initially, I balked at your suggestion that the 3rd amendment is not relevant anymore. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized you're right. In the age of 4th generation insurgency warfare, housing your military in private homes is a very, very bad idea.

csense 8y ago

Someone needs to RTFC (Read The Fine Constitution)

Rebelgecko 8y ago

If you like a side of irony with your gun control, the state senator that is the author of this bill recently sent a tweet to someone telling her to kill herself after she posted pictures of him parking his car illegally. He's also had multiple road rage incidents. There are probably reasons why it's a horrible idea, but I think that legislators should be subjected to laws they write affecting other people. Want to require drug tests for welfare recipients? Then we should also require drug tests for congress. Want to add social media purity tests before gun purchases? Don't let anyone vote yes on the bill without publishing their private Facebook messages. Government employees furloughed due to lack of a budget? Don't pay the people that failed to pass a budget.

navane 8y ago
Want to give up citizens privacy? Give up the legislators privacy.
spartas 8y ago
It would be a horrible idea because it would be handled by laws and the government. I take issue with your example of not paying the people that failed to pass a budget. Government budgets are huge complicated enigmas full of waste and overspending, and if you punish individuals personally for failing to agree to pass a budget bill, then those individuals are no longer incentivized to dissent on unnecessary spending provisions of the bill. Understand that if a bill passes then all provisions and portions of the bill are approved, including any riders attached to the bill (and there are often many). For many people in Congress, the reason to vote NO on a bill is not because the bill is an awful or terrible idea (many times the bill makes sense and would be beneficial), but because the author of the bill added in unnecessary restrictions or budget kickbacks to the bill or in riders to unfairly benefit a group that is sponsoring the bill. If you think our government's problems are bad, you should see their solutions.
u801e 8y ago
> the state senator that is the author of this bill recently sent a tweet to someone telling her to kill herself after she posted pictures of him parking his car illegally. He's also had multiple road rage incidents. Perhaps someone should amend that bill to also apply to motor vehicle ownership.

pjc50 8y ago

Good way to start from a valid observation - mass shooters tend to have a social media profile covered in red flags, or perhaps none at all - and turn it into a completely unreasonable request that will set back the cause of moderate harm reduction by years.

smileysteve 8y ago

Are states out of touch with MFA? How do I provide a useful password if I follow good security choices? At the rate Facebook is going, this should just be "Authorize with Facebook and we'll do the rest"