16 ms·
Attorney General Bonta Releases Name, DOB, and Address of CCW Holders
- takklz 4y agoSee: https://old.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/vm723i/attorney_general_bonta_releases_new_firearms_data/ https://old.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/vm723i/attorney_gen...
- Thorentis 4y agoSo criminals can look up addresses before deciding which homes to break and enter? How is this not a good thing for criminals? Sure, less criminals may get shot. But then who are we trying to actually protect here? Consider an absurd second order effect where, if it's true that you're less likely to be robbed by being on this register, it encourages more people to buy guns, even if it means they don't have to use them.
- _-david-_ 4y agoCriminals might case a house and specifically rob a house that has guns to rob them when they leave. Might as well get a gun in the theft.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoOr so that criminals know whose house to break into (when unoccupied) to steal guns. This seems intended just to shame and intimidate lawful gun owners (in response to the SCOTUS ruling?).
- Thorentis 4y agoYes that too. There was a violent case of this in Perth, Australia recently[1], after the gun ownership database was leaked. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-stolen-high-wycombe-home-invasion/101107844 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-s...
- woodruffw 4y agoA sufficiently motivated burglar can already prioritize their victims by selecting those with the highest donation amounts on public FEC reports, or simply selecting properties with the highest tax obligations. I wouldn't be surprised if the more enterprising ones already do, which is to say that this doesn't change much.
- pengaru 4y agoYou actually think criminals smart enough to inform themselves with such a list are dumb enough to avoid the houses practically guaranteed to contain some of the easiest to liquidate at FMV objects out there? (guns and ammo)
- zer01 4y agoThe thing I never understand about this argument is that there’s a much higher likelihood of significant injury or death (getting shot) robbing the houses with guns, no? Guns may be “easy to liquidate” (not sure if that’s actually the case) but surely selling Xboxes and MacBooks on eBay is just as profitable?
- swatcoder 4y agoThese threads are always so interesting for how they illustrate the mental space some people invest in criminal threat. I’ve had a house burgled, two cars broken into, and know several victims of violent crime and still can’t relate even a little bit to the anxiety expressed here or the idea that any of those encounters would have turned out better with an extra gun around. I don’t mean to challenge your point of view, just to note how huge the divide is between how people fundamentally conceive of this stuff.
- plugger 4y agoI've encountered something similar to this recently as well. There seems to be a conflation of 'petty burglary' with 'home invasion/violent assault/kidnap/rape/murder' in the minds of the average American when it comes attempting to understand their threat model. Most Americans haven't had their home burgled, and the extreme few that have (statistically) are victims of theft, not violent offences against the person. Most Americans can't wrap their heads around the possibility that they're being burgled by someone who a) is in need of cash b) is not interested in killing, torturing, raping or maiming the victim c) would ideally like to get in and out for a quick financial win Where I live (Australia) our burglary rate is 5x greater per capita than America. And yet our "murdered by burglar rate" is effectively nil, much like it is in the states. But there are scores of yanks that will talk about their need to have a firearm for home defence to ensure their family isn't murdered by someone who's most likely looking for a bit of cash for a drug fix.
- claytongulick 4y agoI think it's reasonable. When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law. A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society. Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives? I'm not.
- the_only_law 4y ago
- jethkl 4y agoIn Dec 2012, details of gun permits issued in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties just north of NYC were posted on an interactive map [1]. This was a nearly perfect test of the theory that criminal behavior would get worse in response to easy access to this kind of information. I found no news reports indicating people had been targeted one way or the other, and official stats [2] indicate serious crime decreased. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748/n-y-website-posts-map-of-people-with-gun-permits-draws-criticism https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748... [2] https://westchesterindex.org/community/serious-crimes https://westchesterindex.org/community/serious-crimes
- Rebelgecko 4y agoFor comparison's sake, it looks like serious crimes decreased in Westchester by 6.8% while the decreased nationally by 5%. IMO, especially considering that difference comes out to a fairly small amount crimes in Westchester, I don't think you can assume there's any causative effect there.
- scarmig 4y agoIn all likelihood, CCW-holders will be more likely to be robbed than the general populace, as they possess an item that is in very high demand for criminals, that has a high selling price, and that can be easily and quickly unloaded onto the black market. That's why most don't publicly announce their possession: it's not a deterrent but something that puts a target on your back.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoWell that's one way to "Increase Transparency and Information Sharing". I can't get the portal to work any more, but supposedly it also shared PII for FSC cardholders (a.k.a. pretty much every law-abiding gun owner in California).
- leeoniya 4y ago> for FSC cardholders and also apparently anyone who had simply applied
- daenz 4y agoI don't see anything on this page that indicates the headline. A quick search on Twitter doesn't yield any results either. Are there redacted screenshots as proof? Anyone covering the leak?
- takklz 4y agoI think it got either hugged to death or removed
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoRemoved according to the reddit thread.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoNot actually removed, just under heavy load at the moment
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- _-david-_ 4y agoRevealing information on private citizens is transparency?
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoIf they're bad citizens, yes?
- _-david-_ 4y agoThey appear to have posted people's information who are lawful gun owners. That isn't bad citizens unless you think gun ownership means you are a bad citizen?
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agomy comment was facetious. I don't think lawful gun owners are bad people, but, I'm not sure the california AG shares my opinion.
- woodruffw 4y agoAbsent further information, it's not clear that anything novel was revealed: it's likely this was already public information, and that the AG has merely lowered the bar to (automatically) accessing it.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoI thought that folks like judges were typically exempt from having things like their addresses released via FOIA. The CCW rejection reasons also include potential medical information.
- the_only_law 4y agoDoesn't this already happen with voter registration? I've managed to reconnect with old family that way. They just dump their name, address, and party affiliation on the internet.
- rhexs 4y agoWhat's the goal here? Convince law abiding citizens to leave California?
- efitz 4y agoDoxxing is always about intimidation, shaming and invitation to retaliation.
- woodruffw 4y agoWhere exactly is the "doxxing"? This data appears to have come from individuals who willingly filled out government forms in a state with a FOIA-style law (the PRA) that includes all government information not explicitly excluded. This is consistent with how FOIA and CCW laws interact in most states. For example, here's NY's explanation of how SAFE and FOIL interact[1]. [1]: https://safeact.ny.gov/protect-your-privacy-foil-exemption https://safeact.ny.gov/protect-your-privacy-foil-exemption
- efitz 4y agoSo it would be ok to publish the welfare rolls, because applying for WIC or Section 8 is just filling out forms and there are FOIA laws?
- woodruffw 4y agoFirst of all, WIC and Section 8 are Federal programs/statues. Their state counterparts are explicitly excluded. Why? Because there's no obvious public interest in them. This is in contrast to firearms, where I have a public interest in knowing whether my neighbor has the ability to shoot me the next time I make a complaint about him.
- clarkmoody 4y agoWelfare rolls tell you which neighbors are living off the fruits of your labor.
- ciabattabread 4y agoIs this one of those situations where it's conceptually a public record in that it's always been available via a filing cabinet at a public library, but when placed on the global internet, it causes problems?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- macinjosh 4y agoWhat an unmitigated disaster. Some problems with this off the top of my head: 1. Criminals can see which houses to avoid burglarizing. 2. Criminals can see where to find weapons to steal when owners are away. 3. Stalkers can easily find their victims home who may be carrying for self defense. 4. Will the addresses of every police officer be published too? They carry a gun at all times, even off duty in most cases.
- pseudo0 4y agoExample #1001 of why gun owners hate registries. The safest way to handle sensitive PII is to simply not retain it in the first place.
- salawat 4y agohttps://old.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/vm723i/attorney_general_bonta_releases_new_firearms_data/ https://old.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/vm723i/attorney_gen... Is the reddit thread.
- Blackthorn 4y agoExactly why we fight tooth and nail against registries in other states. And people call us hysterical.
- anigbrowl 4y agoToo bad you only care about it in relation to this one specific issue.
- Blackthorn 4y agoIf you'd like to point out some other time I spoke up in favor of a government registry, please be my guest.
- anigbrowl 4y agoHave you spoken up against any other kinds?
- Blackthorn 4y agoOff the top of my memory, I remember speaking up against the no-fly list...
- anigbrowl 4y agoHuh. I'm sorry, I think I mixed you up with a different person.
- trhway 4y agoSociety considers it useful to have a sex offenders registry, like where they live, etc. I think gun owners are also a potential threat, ie. there is similar compelling public interest, and thus I don't see why it should be treated differently. For example if a scum of a "law abiding gun owner" like Rittenhouse is living next door you definitely would like to know if it has a gun.
- scarmig 4y agoHow far does this go? Wouldn't it make just as much sense (or more) to post the PII (name, DOB, full address) of all people who have been convicted of a crime posted in a publicly searchable database? If you want to catch folks like Rittenhouse in that net, you could extend that database to every person who has ever been arrested or tried for a crime. This is clearly vindictive, just as much as the sex offender registry is 90%+ vindictive.
- b5n 4y agoWhat about victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, etc. who have purchased a firearm and/or applied for CCW as a means to defend themselves? Will you explain to me the societal value in the government releasing their address in context with other PII to the general public?
- pensatoio 4y agoSex offenders are convicted criminals. You're saying convicted criminals of the most heinous crimes are equivalent to your neighbors who invoke a right that's existed in common law for centuries. I understand this is a highly contentious subject, but you're being divisive and ridiculous.
- trhway 4y agoRegistry isn't punishment. It is because they present threat. The same for guns as the threat level is similar.
- ultrarunner 4y ago
- mgarfias 4y agoJust wait til companies start using this as part of their background checks of employees.
- resizeitplz 4y agoOh no! Decisions have consequences! Only, in this case it's discrimination against a choice, not discrimination against an unalterable attribute by birth.
- yucky 4y agoYou mean discrimination against a Right, right?
- parkingrift 4y agoImagine being in favor of discrimination. When they go low, we go lower, baby!
- pensatoio 4y agoOk, I read it, and I'm still confused. The CA govt is doxing people who went through the arduous process of legally obtaining a CCW?
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago“We’ll show you for wanting your civil rights!” Jokes aside, this is inexcusable. There is no safety claim here, just revenge and fear for anyone that would dare to apply. According to the site before it went down, SF had 11 permits issued. Next year it will be in the hundreds. The AG will try to deny as many as possible, but it’s over, may issue is dead.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoIt's also doxxing (via DL # only, not home addresses fortunately) anyone who went through the less arduous process of obtaining an FSC (basically a license to purchase/inherit/be gifted a firearm). On top of that, people who possess registered assault weapons.
- hnburnsy 4y agoDoes this include the address of LEOs, many of whom are CCW holders?
- GravitasFailure 4y agoNot many active duty officers have CCWs these days because of LEOSA, though reserve officers don't always qualify and will get a CCW instead. Plenty of politicians, celebrities, judges, and CEOs, though.
- anigbrowl 4y agoBullshit headline edit Original was 'Attorney General Bonta Releases New Firearms Data to Increase Transparency and Information Sharing'. They absolutely leaked data by failing to secure it properly via tableau, but the headline as written here implies that this was done deliberately. I looked at it last night, you wouldn't have known about it unless you were digging through the page source looking for ways to scrape it. Negligent at best, possibly deliberate at worst. But that doesn't justify the false impression created by this headline.
- takklz 4y agoNope, you're wrong. Each tableau dashboard component also had a link to download the underlying source data. You didn't have to even go through the html page source, it was readily available via standard tableau functionality. After it was discovered that the underlying data included PII information, they underlying data was replaced with a csv file missing that data. The csv file even said like "full data - copy.csv". Whether or not they meant to do it, that's open to interpretation. But my headline was accurate.
- anigbrowl 4y agoThanks for the information about how the data was leaking. But why I disagree with you on the headline is the attribution of intentionality to the leak. Bonta is ultimately responsible as he's head of the AG's office, but the not-unreasonable premise of the page was just publishing longitudinal statistical data. Unless litigation reveals he asked the front-end devs to make it happen, it's negligent rather than deliberate.
- xokoxiti 4y ago
- LinuxBender 4y agoI thought about getting a CCW when I was in California. I would have had to donate upwards of $20K to the local sheriff based on what other CCW's I knew had to do otherwise the form just sits in a pile for years. I found it was cheaper to move to a state that does not require a CCW to carry concealed. The only reason I would apply for one here would be if I planned to drive across the state border while carrying. In hindsight I am glad I took the path I did. Things are getting weird(er). Politics are really starting to impact citizens in ways I had not imagined would happen in my lifetime. Surely these events are eroding what little trust and confidence people have in their governments? I am seeing too many "Ooops did I leak that?" events and blaming cloud configuration errors. It's a broken record at this point and I am not buying it.