4 ms·

This was public information before this interactive map.

by rorrr 14y ago

enraged_camel 14y ago
That doesn't really matter in this case. Browsing public registries manually is one thing, having an interactive map is another. The latter makes it orders of magnitude easier to do what the original commenter suggested.
- rorrr 14y ago
  So you're blaming the website for showing some publicly available information in a more accessible form? That's security by obscurity. So not security.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Security by obscurity refers to a principle where a system designer attempts to use secrecy of design and implementation to provide security. The key word is secrecy. That does not fit the definition here. The information of registered gun owners is already public. In other words, it is not secret. What is questioned is this: who will benefit more from having the information available via an interactive map? Regular citizens who don't break into others' houses don't have much to fear anyway. On the other hand, those who are interested in stealing guns and selling them on the black market now have a wonderful new tool at their disposal. Let me give a more specific example. I'm an avid biker, and have assembled and traded many bikes. One thing us bikers do when we sell our used bikes to others is that we never meet them at our home. Rather, we agree on a neutral place, like a gas station. You know why? Because if the buyer knows where we live, then there's the risk that they will break into our home and steal our bikes. This is actually something that happens on a fairly regular basis, mostly to those who are not experienced sellers. Exact same concern applies here. Bikes are registered too, but you don't see an interactive map of registered bikers, do you? As such, the only conclusion we can reach here is that this newspaper is simply fueling the gun scare. I would actually argue that this is more of a case of security theater. The reason is this: we don't need to fear guns. The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun. I guarantee that that would actually make us safer, rather than giving us the illusion of safety (therefore making us less safe).
    - calciphus 14y ago
      > The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun. This statement contains at least two problematic assumptions: 1) Only people who have committed violent crimes in the past will commit them in the future. (see: "background checks") 2) People who are mentally ill are inherently dangerous, or at the very least "could be" (see: "mental checks", "crazy people") The problem with (1) is that a background check will not reveal very much for most folks. Sure, if you've got a lifetime of criminal mischief, a felony or two, that will show up. But that time you argued with someone and threw a brick through their window, but the judge let you off with a "public disturbance" - not gonna show up. For the vast majority of the country, a background report would not be a useful or helpful qualifier. For the worst of the worst, we can't pretend a black market on guns doesn't exist, so it would not help there, either. The problem with (2) is that you have now decided to deny what is otherwise a fundamental right, guaranteed in (an amendment to) the Constitution to all citizens of legal age. Your logic for stripping a large number of citizens of this right is that some of them might do bad things with it. There is no clinical diagnosis for "is likely to go apeshit and shoot someone" - in fact even among schizophrenics there's no clear indicator of "violent tendencies", let alone an actual predictor. Another problem with (2) is that you assume that mental health is constant throughout a lifetime. If I'm 18 and go in for a comprehensive mental status evaluation, I may come out just fine and start buying guns. But what happens if I present as Bipolar at 30? Schizophrenic at 40? Do you get to come and take away all my guns at that point? Should that be the duty of a psychiatrist - to determine who is allowed to own weapons? What if the psychiatrist gets it wrong, are they liable? Even if we assume somehow a psychiatrist was able to make that diagnosis and be right 99% of the time, you've now introduced a fairly major reason NOT to seek mental health care - they may take away your guns (or prevent you from getting one). Sadly, throwing out "it's only crazy people with guns" is a somewhat disingenuous statement. Most gun homicides in the US are committed criminal-on-criminal, or criminal-on-victim. Very few are acts of "a crazy person", and even in those cases very few have ever been diagnosed with or presented psychotic symptoms prior to the commission of a gun-related homicide. I therefore reject your guarantee that it would "actually make us safer". I also am pretty sure it would run afoul of ADA, and the 2nd Amendment, though that's a question for expensive lawyers.
- jdonahue 14y ago
  From a 'security' perspective, this seems like an objectively good thing to me. If having this data publicly available is a good thing, then this map is a good thing - the more exposure, the better. If it's a bad thing, then the higher exposure resulting from this makes it more likely that a change in policy will happen. The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >From a 'security' perspective, this seems like an objectively good thing to me. ... The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation. You can have something which is worse than the status quo even when the status quo is not optimal. In particular, exacerbating a problem in the hope that it spurs people to address it is only a positive if it spurs people to address it. If not, you've only enlarged the scope of the problem.
maratd 14y ago
Sure, but the criminal element isn't exactly known for its high IQ. By making it easily accessible, you are inviting abuse and ultimately, the political will to make that public information private. On top of everything, the law of unintended consequences is at play here. I wouldn't worry about somebody breaking in to steal your gun ... I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot.
- rorrr 14y ago
  You're basically arguing against the visualization of information. Just think of how dumb that is. You might as well argue to publish all government data in Klingon, it will make the life of dumb criminals even harder.
  - maratd 14y ago
    > You're basically arguing against the visualization of information. Not really. The data isn't online. If anything, I'm arguing for keeping it analog?
- subsystem 14y ago
  I would be worry about the neighbor who doesn't have someone collect his mail when he's on vacation. First rule of self-defense: try to avoid the situation in the first place.
- rootedbox 14y ago
  You're making a lot of assumptions.. "Sure, but the criminal element isn't exactly known for its high IQ." ... considering the revenue size of most types of crime there are plenty of smart criminals, and crime organizations that use computation to calculate, and mitigate risk. "I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot." Considering gun ownership rate of 50% in the u.s. and per capita rate of near 90%.. Most houses have guns independent of registration, and lot have 2. So in general a criminal must assume there is a gun in the house.. Therefor most criminals have 2 main factors when picking a house to rob.. 1. Is anyone home 2. Is there a dog

This was public information before this interactive map.

by rorrr 14y ago

This was public information before this interactive map.

That doesn't really matter in this case. Browsing public registries manually is one thing, having an interactive map is another. The latter makes it orders of magnitude easier to do what the original commenter suggested.

rorrr 14y ago
So you're blaming the website for showing some publicly available information in a more accessible form? That's security by obscurity. So not security.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Security by obscurity refers to a principle where a system designer attempts to use secrecy of design and implementation to provide security. The key word is secrecy. That does not fit the definition here. The information of registered gun owners is already public. In other words, it is not secret. What is questioned is this: who will benefit more from having the information available via an interactive map? Regular citizens who don't break into others' houses don't have much to fear anyway. On the other hand, those who are interested in stealing guns and selling them on the black market now have a wonderful new tool at their disposal. Let me give a more specific example. I'm an avid biker, and have assembled and traded many bikes. One thing us bikers do when we sell our used bikes to others is that we never meet them at our home. Rather, we agree on a neutral place, like a gas station. You know why? Because if the buyer knows where we live, then there's the risk that they will break into our home and steal our bikes. This is actually something that happens on a fairly regular basis, mostly to those who are not experienced sellers. Exact same concern applies here. Bikes are registered too, but you don't see an interactive map of registered bikers, do you? As such, the only conclusion we can reach here is that this newspaper is simply fueling the gun scare. I would actually argue that this is more of a case of security theater. The reason is this: we don't need to fear guns. The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun. I guarantee that that would actually make us safer, rather than giving us the illusion of safety (therefore making us less safe).
  - calciphus 14y ago
    > The only thing we need to fear is crazy people who have guns. And that's a relatively easy problem to address: require thorough mental and background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun. This statement contains at least two problematic assumptions: 1) Only people who have committed violent crimes in the past will commit them in the future. (see: "background checks") 2) People who are mentally ill are inherently dangerous, or at the very least "could be" (see: "mental checks", "crazy people") The problem with (1) is that a background check will not reveal very much for most folks. Sure, if you've got a lifetime of criminal mischief, a felony or two, that will show up. But that time you argued with someone and threw a brick through their window, but the judge let you off with a "public disturbance" - not gonna show up. For the vast majority of the country, a background report would not be a useful or helpful qualifier. For the worst of the worst, we can't pretend a black market on guns doesn't exist, so it would not help there, either. The problem with (2) is that you have now decided to deny what is otherwise a fundamental right, guaranteed in (an amendment to) the Constitution to all citizens of legal age. Your logic for stripping a large number of citizens of this right is that some of them might do bad things with it. There is no clinical diagnosis for "is likely to go apeshit and shoot someone" - in fact even among schizophrenics there's no clear indicator of "violent tendencies", let alone an actual predictor. Another problem with (2) is that you assume that mental health is constant throughout a lifetime. If I'm 18 and go in for a comprehensive mental status evaluation, I may come out just fine and start buying guns. But what happens if I present as Bipolar at 30? Schizophrenic at 40? Do you get to come and take away all my guns at that point? Should that be the duty of a psychiatrist - to determine who is allowed to own weapons? What if the psychiatrist gets it wrong, are they liable? Even if we assume somehow a psychiatrist was able to make that diagnosis and be right 99% of the time, you've now introduced a fairly major reason NOT to seek mental health care - they may take away your guns (or prevent you from getting one). Sadly, throwing out "it's only crazy people with guns" is a somewhat disingenuous statement. Most gun homicides in the US are committed criminal-on-criminal, or criminal-on-victim. Very few are acts of "a crazy person", and even in those cases very few have ever been diagnosed with or presented psychotic symptoms prior to the commission of a gun-related homicide. I therefore reject your guarantee that it would "actually make us safer". I also am pretty sure it would run afoul of ADA, and the 2nd Amendment, though that's a question for expensive lawyers.
jdonahue 14y ago
From a 'security' perspective, this seems like an objectively good thing to me. If having this data publicly available is a good thing, then this map is a good thing - the more exposure, the better. If it's a bad thing, then the higher exposure resulting from this makes it more likely that a change in policy will happen. The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >From a 'security' perspective, this seems like an objectively good thing to me. ... The status quo (prior to the publication of this map) was that the information is publicly available but only a few people were aware of it. I can't imagine any argument for that being the optimal situation. You can have something which is worse than the status quo even when the status quo is not optimal. In particular, exacerbating a problem in the hope that it spurs people to address it is only a positive if it spurs people to address it. If not, you've only enlarged the scope of the problem.

maratd 14y ago

Sure, but the criminal element isn't exactly known for its high IQ. By making it easily accessible, you are inviting abuse and ultimately, the political will to make that public information private. On top of everything, the law of unintended consequences is at play here. I wouldn't worry about somebody breaking in to steal your gun ... I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot.

rorrr 14y ago
You're basically arguing against the visualization of information. Just think of how dumb that is. You might as well argue to publish all government data in Klingon, it will make the life of dumb criminals even harder.
- maratd 14y ago
  > You're basically arguing against the visualization of information. Not really. The data isn't online. If anything, I'm arguing for keeping it analog?
subsystem 14y ago
I would be worry about the neighbor who doesn't have someone collect his mail when he's on vacation. First rule of self-defense: try to avoid the situation in the first place.
rootedbox 14y ago
You're making a lot of assumptions.. "Sure, but the criminal element isn't exactly known for its high IQ." ... considering the revenue size of most types of crime there are plenty of smart criminals, and crime organizations that use computation to calculate, and mitigate risk. "I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot." Considering gun ownership rate of 50% in the u.s. and per capita rate of near 90%.. Most houses have guns independent of registration, and lot have 2. So in general a criminal must assume there is a gun in the house.. Therefor most criminals have 2 main factors when picking a house to rob.. 1. Is anyone home 2. Is there a dog