3 ms·

The law quite obviously says that researchers cannot publish their name, address or phone number. This law is about providing anonymized data that is already co

The law quite obviously says that researchers cannot publish their name, address or phone number. This law is about providing anonymized data that is already collected during background checks. Agree with it or disagree, but at least get the facts straight. It's right in your quote: > researchers can use the information and make their findings public, but can’t release any identifying information of gun owners.

koolba 3y ago
> The law quite obviously says that researchers cannot publish their name, address or phone number. Data leaks don't care about the law. >> researchers can use the information and make their findings public, but can’t release any identifying information of gun owners. The article says nothing about anonymizing the data prior to releasing it to the researchers. That means they have access to the raw data with the full details. Data that is released will eventually be leaked. Even if you think they should get any data, there's no reason to give them that level of detail. What possible use is there for giving the phone numbers? So that the researchers can contact them?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > Data that is released will eventually be leaked. I'll do you one better; data that exists will eventually be leaked. The government already collects, holds and distributes background information on gun owners. If you don't want that data to be leaked, you shouldn't live in an overt surveillance state like the US. Sorry. > What possible use is there for giving the phone numbers? So that the researchers can contact them? I dunno, ask the researchers. I'm not defending the collection of data, but your overreaction here is kinda unnecessary. Wait until you find out about FIVE-EYES...
  - koolba 3y ago
    > I'll do you one better; data that exists will eventually be leaked. The government already collects, holds and distributes background information on gun owners. There's not federal database of gun owners, or at least there isn't supposed to be as Congress has explicitly refused to fund such a project. If they are doing it, it's in violation of the will of the people (through their elected leaders). > If you don't want that data to be leaked, you shouldn't live in an overt surveillance state like the US. Sorry. Or change your government. Giving up and simply accepting a shitty situation is a coward's way out. > I dunno, ask the researchers. I'm not defending the collection of data, but your overreaction here is kinda unnecessary. It sure sounds like you're okay with them both collecting it and giving out that level of detail. > Wait until you find out about FIVE-EYES... The government doing something bad is not justification for doing something else bad.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > There's not federal database of gun owners Oh yeah, totally. While we're at it, Room 641A didn't exist, there are no backdoors in domestically designed modems, encryption or operating systems, and I'm a monkey's uncle. This is Hacker News, not Facebook. Even the most oblivious users on this website could probably tell you that the intelligence agencies don't play fair. > Or change your government. Giving up and simply accepting a shitty situation is a coward's way out. Good luck. It's California, you're trying to whip up a tempest in a teapot relative to their voter-base. > It sure sounds like you're okay with them both collecting it and giving out that level of detail. Correct. I do not live in California but I am a licensed hunter elsewhere in the United States.
anon23qwerty 3y ago
Why does the state of California need to provide identifying information to researchers in the first place? The potential for a release of information only increases, whether it is legal or not. The animosity both of California’s government and of academics towards the idea of private gun ownership is well known. I am not convinced that a release of gun owners’ personal information would be treated with the same seriousness as the release of say license plate, car make and model, owner address, and insurance information would be combined with license plate reader data. Or health records containing prescriptions, diagnosis history, treatment plans along with names, addresses, birthdates, etc.

koolba 3y ago

> The law quite obviously says that researchers cannot publish their name, address or phone number. Data leaks don't care about the law. >> researchers can use the information and make their findings public, but can’t release any identifying information of gun owners. The article says nothing about anonymizing the data prior to releasing it to the researchers. That means they have access to the raw data with the full details. Data that is released will eventually be leaked. Even if you think they should get any data, there's no reason to give them that level of detail. What possible use is there for giving the phone numbers? So that the researchers can contact them?

smoldesu 3y ago
> Data that is released will eventually be leaked. I'll do you one better; data that exists will eventually be leaked. The government already collects, holds and distributes background information on gun owners. If you don't want that data to be leaked, you shouldn't live in an overt surveillance state like the US. Sorry. > What possible use is there for giving the phone numbers? So that the researchers can contact them? I dunno, ask the researchers. I'm not defending the collection of data, but your overreaction here is kinda unnecessary. Wait until you find out about FIVE-EYES...
- koolba 3y ago
  > I'll do you one better; data that exists will eventually be leaked. The government already collects, holds and distributes background information on gun owners. There's not federal database of gun owners, or at least there isn't supposed to be as Congress has explicitly refused to fund such a project. If they are doing it, it's in violation of the will of the people (through their elected leaders). > If you don't want that data to be leaked, you shouldn't live in an overt surveillance state like the US. Sorry. Or change your government. Giving up and simply accepting a shitty situation is a coward's way out. > I dunno, ask the researchers. I'm not defending the collection of data, but your overreaction here is kinda unnecessary. It sure sounds like you're okay with them both collecting it and giving out that level of detail. > Wait until you find out about FIVE-EYES... The government doing something bad is not justification for doing something else bad.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > There's not federal database of gun owners Oh yeah, totally. While we're at it, Room 641A didn't exist, there are no backdoors in domestically designed modems, encryption or operating systems, and I'm a monkey's uncle. This is Hacker News, not Facebook. Even the most oblivious users on this website could probably tell you that the intelligence agencies don't play fair. > Or change your government. Giving up and simply accepting a shitty situation is a coward's way out. Good luck. It's California, you're trying to whip up a tempest in a teapot relative to their voter-base. > It sure sounds like you're okay with them both collecting it and giving out that level of detail. Correct. I do not live in California but I am a licensed hunter elsewhere in the United States.

anon23qwerty 3y ago

Why does the state of California need to provide identifying information to researchers in the first place? The potential for a release of information only increases, whether it is legal or not. The animosity both of California’s government and of academics towards the idea of private gun ownership is well known. I am not convinced that a release of gun owners’ personal information would be treated with the same seriousness as the release of say license plate, car make and model, owner address, and insurance information would be combined with license plate reader data. Or health records containing prescriptions, diagnosis history, treatment plans along with names, addresses, birthdates, etc.