3 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.

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.