3 ms·

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.

by rorrr 14y ago

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.

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.

by 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.