Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet United States News

New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked 899

Posted by Soulskill
from the time-for-a-mashup dept.
An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, The Journal News caved under pressure of gun advocates and shut down the interactive maps which contained the names and addresses of licensed gun owners in upstate New York. The maps are still visible on the site, however they are simply static images. The Journal News published the interactive maps on December 23 which caused significant backlash. In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses. New York state Senator Greg Ball (Republican) called the removal of the data a 'huge win.' On Saturday, an anonymous user leaked the raw data used to build The Journal News maps."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:27AM (#42638569)

    i have to say i agree
    all a criminal would have to do is sit there wait till you leave and go get a few

    • It easily be treated as a "don't mess with these folks" list, as well...
      • Re:Or the reverse (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aurispector (530273) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:47AM (#42638657)

        Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?

        What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

        Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?

        "Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ganjadude (952775)
          Agreed, I live in the area, and i know the 2 homeowners who have been broken into since this has happened. Nothing but the gun safes were touched, coincidence? I think not
        • by Shavano (2541114)

          Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?

          What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

          I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex.

          Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?

          "Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.

          Medical records are already protected by law. There is no public record kept and the private records are protected by law.

          "Outing" people is free speech in action. Sometimes it's not pretty.

          What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state? What if I out a business's record of consumer complaints? Is that an obnoxious action or a public service? What I I o

          • Re:Or the reverse (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Jiro (131519) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @11:43AM (#42639779)

            What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state?

            Any category of outing where the information is only available because of the nanny state in the first place.

            There isn't a database of permit holders because some marketing person decided to figure out who they can best sell gun range memberships to. There's a database because the government--you know, the same nanny state you're talking about--forcibly collected the information in the first place under threat of jail. If the government collects the information against people's will, it's not "nanny state" to prevent them from doing even more harm by releasing it. Anyone who really objects to a nanny state wouldn't want the government collecting the information to begin with, and if they didn't collect the information, nobody would be able to out anyone using it.

          • He would not know her new address which is the problem BTW in the UK there are a couple of ex BT employees doing serious time who found the address of the parents of a Criminal - Subsequently both of the parents where killed by a hitman.

            How long till some on in this group sue the news paper for the costs of relocation - a nice little earner for the legal profession.
    • by oodaloop (1229816)
      And rob unarmed people everywhere else.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Agree with what? With creating convenient maps of information that's already somewhat public and therefore entirely public in the American No-Curtains-So-No-Privacy-For-You view? With protesting that convenient map? With taking revenge on the complainers by, er, dumping the adress of every permit holder whether they're part of the discussion or not?

      There are a few issues here, not least of which is that this approach to privacy isn't tenable in the modern age with its proliferation of convenient data mangli

  • subject (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:36AM (#42638607)

    how can one leak data which has been made available through a FOIA request?

    • Re:subject (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:39AM (#42638621)
      If there should ever be a limit to FOIA this is it. The leaks tell every scum in New York where to steal a weapon.

      But you bring up an excellent point.
      • NO, the list should have never been compiled in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs, the government for insisting on it.. You are going to find fierce resistance to any weakening of FOIA.
    • Re:subject (Score:5, Interesting)

      by poity (465672) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @12:08PM (#42639977)

      When I think of FOIA, I think of individuals keeping tabs on government, not individuals keeping tabs on other individuals. Transparency on what the government does is very much different from transparency on what private citizens do.

  • leaked huh ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    Why wasn't it "leaked" .. well.. before all this pressure to ban guns ?
    It's "published", not leaked. Intentionally. Probably to apply pressure on gun owners or to get them into trouble of having a gun, somehow.

    What's next ? We gonna ban hammers as well ? I read there are many people killing other people with a hammer. Maybe we can ban sugar.. Hell, more people died from sugar then from guns (not counting the military or criminals that will still have guns regardless of you ban them or not).

    People, shit happ

  • Gawker and John Cook (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fnord666 (889225) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:48AM (#42638659) Journal
    The summary makes it sound like Gawker had a choice when it didn't publish the addresses of gun owners.

    In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses

    The only reason John Cook didn't publish them is because the NYPD didn't give them to him.. John Cook made it pretty clear that he would have published the addresses if he had them.

    Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees.

  • F*ck off, gun haters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:51AM (#42638677)

    Seriously. I'm in Canada and own no guns. You're doing it wrong.

    All you idiots are doing is invading peoples' privacy, advocating vigilante justice against people who have broken no laws, and providing a database of places that criminals can go steal guns that won't be traced to them.

    Proper education and required licensing country-wide is the direction you should be going in. And that involves posting your Congressmens' e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Not the constituents.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:57AM (#42638689)

    Because they make any real, useful, gun control much less likely to happen. Their grandstanding is counter productive.

    For example you try and say "Hey, we really should register firearms. After all you register your car, why not guns too? It would allow for some tracking and accountability, and in the event someone becomes a prohibited person easier allow courts to determine if they have any guns that need to be surrendered." Well the gun lobby shoots back with "No, unacceptable, if you have a registry it can be used to target gun owners." You respond "That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

    Then, this happens, in a place that has a gun registry. Now the gun lobby doesn't have to talk in hypotheticals, or other nations, they can point to something that happened right in America that is precisely the kind of shit they are talking about. Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

    Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

    As such trying stupid shit to do things that are bans but not in name, or to harass or make things difficult for gun owners are counter productive. All they do is polarize things, convince gun owners that any and all controls are bad because they'll be abused.

    Stunts like this are nothing but harmful.

    • by watice (1347709)
      I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. I'm actually pretty pro-gun, AND reside/work in NYC but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Are we going to seal the records of crime stats because it might lower property value? What about code violations? Should we seal every single damaged sidewalk complaint too? The argument that this somehow puts gun owners in danger or subjects them to unfair scrutiny is absolutely ridiculous. These p
      • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @09:32AM (#42638837)

        surely this a public service for burglars - now they know which homes *not* to target because they stand a chance of getting shot by the homeowner when they go to in take his valuables.

        • by jezwel (2451108)
          unless they want to steal guns...which has apparently already happened to people on the list
        • Or it's a list of homes to burgle to get their hands on a gun they otherwise wouldn't be able to get due to background checks. The "Yes, but they're at risk of being shot!" argument only works if you assume that every gun owner stays at home all day, every day, and leaves no evidence of their absence behind if they do leave for any reason.

          I still don't see the point of the disclosure beyond straightforward harassment of gun owners. And all this does is encourage gun owners to be scared of registration an

      • by peragrin (659227)

        What if Samsung published the addresses of every home that had a 55" TV? You were supposed to register that too.

        Store locators are there because you go to them to buy stuff. if I go to your house can I go through your belongs and take what I want if i leave some cash on the counter?

      • by geekmux (1040042) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @10:15AM (#42639065)

        I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. I'm actually pretty pro-gun, AND reside/work in NYC but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this...The argument that this somehow puts gun owners in danger or subjects them to unfair scrutiny is absolutely ridiculous.

        Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for high-dollar valuables in their home, right? Perhaps you have a nice collection of diamonds. I'm certain you won't mind telling me all about them, as you see nothing wrong with sharing this kind of information. Yes, I'm sure you and everyone else would have nothing to fear at all when you leave your house, leaving your valuables unprotected.

        Remove the fact that we're talking about guns here. These are valuables that are now listed online for every criminal to target while the vast majority of citizens leave an empty house behind for hours every day. At least try and think of the bigger picture here. The fact that we are talking about guns as the targeted valuable only makes the consequences of theft even more dire.

        • by SvnLyrBrto (62138)

          > Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list
          > of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for
          > high-dollar valuables in their home, right?

          Insurance riders are generally part of a private contract between an individual and another private, *non-government*, entity. That's completely a completely different situation from public records being... well... public, and available TO the public.

          And the public certainly does have an interest in regulating firearms. It's even written into the s

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ganjadude (952775)
        tell my neighbors, who were on this list, and broken into since the list was posted, and nothing but the gun safe was touched that you have no problem with this. This list was made in their own words "so readers could decide where it is safe" which is kind of a weighted line in the context. What if we had a list of all gay people, or all people who buy porn because "we want our readers to know where its ok for the children to play" I dont think that would fly
    • by cirby (2599) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @09:21AM (#42638793)

      "That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

      Two of the homes listed in the first publication of gun owners' names have had their homes burglarized - and one of them only had their gun safe stolen.

      Meanwhile, there have been calls by leglislators to confiscate guns - by forcing registration and/or using current registration lists.

      Neither of those are "straw men." Indeed, they were mostly just predictions based on knowing how people think and act.

      "Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned," ...then why are some people calling for gun bans? And trying to pass laws that effectively ban guns? And why are there many places in the US with fairly comprehensive gun bans, like Chicago?

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

      You seem to be ignorant of the fact that they will not fight to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That would be too difficult a battle. No, instead they simply re-define what rights an "individual" has, and look to disarm you. Today that happens to be anyone convicted of a felony, no matter how victimless that crime may have been, or unrelated to protecting ones self or family. Every convicted felon has lost that right to defend themselves.

      Tomorrow that may be re-defined to include anyone who commits even the s

    • by Pharmboy (216950)

      Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

      Actually, it simply proves the gun lobby correct. Obviously, we need to incorporate mental health records into state checks and do a background check on everyone who wants to buy any firearm, but "registering" them is a different animal and IS fraught with problems that the 2nd Amendment was created for. The system needs work, but registering isn't the so

  • After all, it is legal right? I'm sure nothing bad would happen. :/

  • How about coins? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AndyKron (937105) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @09:27AM (#42638815)
    Hell, why not publish data on who has large coin collections at home while we're at it. This is yet another example why people shouldn't register their weapons with the government.
  • ...when thieves break into their houses looking for guns.

  • by SternisheFan (2529412) on Sunday January 20, 2013 @10:04AM (#42639011)
    The submitted story states that The Journal News 'caved' and removed the list, not true according to the publisher. Below I've pasted an excerpt from Gawker.com (Jan 17, 2013) with the publisher's statement...

    By Taylor Berman:

    On Friday, The Journal News took down its controversial, interactive online map of licensed gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York. According to Journal News publisher Janet Hasson, the move was in response to recently passed gun legislation in New York, which includes a provision prohibiting the release of information about gun owners, and not because of the firestorm of criticism the paper's received since publishing the list four weeks ago. From publisher Janet Hasson's statement on the Journal News' website:

    "Today The Journal News has removed the permit data from lohud.com. Our decision to do so is not a concession to critics that no value was served by the posting of the map in the first place. On the contrary, we've heard from too many grateful community members to consider our decision to post information contained in the public record to have been a mistake. Nor is our decision made because we were intimidated by those who threatened the safety of our staffers. We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower."

    http://gawker.com/5977304/the-journal-news-took-down-its-controversial-map-of-gun-owners [gawker.com]

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...