It is currently 03/28/24 3:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 5 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/12 8:25 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
A very thought-provoking op-ed from Josh Marshall ~ I saw mention but not much more on this yesterday ~ I'll look for more ~ Sooz

TPM Editor’s Blog
My Rights. My Privacy. My Everything.
Josh Marshall December 27, 2012, 3:30 PM

As you’ve probably heard, there’s a growing furor about the decision of a suburban New York newspaper to publish a database of the names and addresses of registered gun owners in two New York counties (Rockland and Westchester) just north of New York City. The data is already in the public domain. You or I could have accessed it a week ago. But it’s a little different to have it in a fingertips-ready web 2.0 form.

When I heard that some people were outraged about this, the first thing it reminded me of were the complaints over the last year about efforts to create transparency into the new political giving under Citizens United. These complaints, in the nature of things, tended to come from the right and suggested that wealthy donors were somehow being demonized or even threatened by disclosure. At the loopiest, the idea was that violent bands of liberals would harass or attack these people. At the more prosaic, it was just that extremely wealthy people should not only have the right to give without limit into the political system but that they should have the right to do so anonymously. Without consequences — like the legitimate consequences of people knowing what you’re doing and drawing conclusions about you accordingly.

Put those together and you have one group of people — mainly on the right, though I’m not sure how significant that is — pushing for maximal assertion of rights but crying foul on other, equally valid and constitutional rights, which are more civic in nature, ones that benefit the whole community and exist in a productive tension with those individual rights.

Looked at from another perspective, there’s even perhaps a generational perspective. The Republican coalition likes guns and mega-money Citizens United giving, the new Democratic coalition is more interested in and conversant with the data applications, info-graphics, data and transparency. A little much? Maybe. Maybe not. I think there’s something to it.

About three-quarters of me feels like this is a mix of paranoia and special pleading. With the big money donors, other than being publicly known, are these guys so ramped up on Fox News that they think Obama’s going to send the New Black Panthers to their house to rough them up? Not a totally sarcastic or rhetorical question. Do they?

Do these forty thousand gun owners in suburban New York really think they’re threatened? Jesus, they’ve got the guns!

I say three-quarters because disclosure isn’t always comfortable. I can relate. I’m a public figure, albeit a small one, in a very polarized public space. I don’t advertise my home address. So I get some not wanting people to know where you live. But it’s a little hard for me to see where that’s really an issue where you’re publishing a database of some 40,000 people.

All of this is a way to come around to saying that I have no punch line in this post. I’m a bit mixed about my own thoughts and feelings on this question. So I’m curious about what you think. Is it really shaming or endangering anyone to make it easy to access public information about who owns — or technically, who has registered to own — a gun? How can it be shaming when it’s a right and you’ve chosen to exercise that right? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

There’s some part of this which is contending cultures of which rights matter, perhaps even what they are. There’s another part which is simply wanting too much — your rights, your privacy, your secrecy. The high-toned way to put this might be to say that the complainers have little respect for the civic space. But I’ll leave it at some people want too much. No one gets everything on their terms.

What do you think?

Late Update: A lot of people are divided about this, it seems. A number of people have asked whether this isn’t the same as if we published the names of women who get abortions. It’s an interesting hypothetical. But I think the answer is relatively clear cut: my owning a gun affects my neighbor in a way that a woman having an abortion simply does not. Whether you think about it in terms of self-defense (this person has a firearm in their harm and can defend against an intruder) or simply safety (there’s a gun in that house, maybe I don’t want my kid playing there), owning a gun is not just something that affects those around you. That’s a lot of the point … certainly if self-defense is part of the aim. Current law seems to recognize this. After all, there’s a reason why this information is in the public domain in the first place — the newspaper just made it easier to access.

Later Update: A few readers have noted that one reason people register fire arms is because they’ve been stalked or have survived some sort of abuse. Publicizing their names and addresses enables the abusers. This seems like a more serious concern. I’ve asked these folks (and I don’t know the answer yet) whether a woman who’s been stalked by an ex- can petition to have their name and address not be made public. My tentative response in this case is that this seems like potentially a real concern but that the state should take cognizance of this need. After all, if I’m the violent ex-husband, I probably won’t wait for the website. I’ll just get it from the state directory. It’s not hard. I don’t state that flippantly. I feel like I need more information on this one.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/as_youve_probably_heard_theres.php?ref=fpblg


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/30/12 10:41 am • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
There are a couple of BIG questions here ~ was the original "outing" of gun permit holders an invasion of privacy or a public service? ~ is this "outing" of the publisher and reporters retribution or something more sinister? ~ how much "right" do we have to know about our neighbors ... and they about us? ~ Sooz

Outraged Gun Owner Retaliates After Publisher Posts Map With Permit Owners’ Addresses
2012/12/27
By Lorraine Devon Wilke

Image


As the fractious debate over the rights of gun owners versus the protections of American citizens escalates, those engaged in the battle seem to be raising (lowering?) the bar in ever-inventive – if incendiary – ways. The latest round takes us from Wayne LaPierre’s controversial “plan” to put gun-toting guards in every school, Ron Paul’s response to that plan’s “Orwellian” nature; GOP strategist Frank Luntz’s poll revealing that the majority of gun owners (including NRA members) favor better gun laws, right down to David Sirota’s suggestion that it’s time to start profiling white males (who make up the majority of mass shooters).

The latest salvo, however, involves the “spit fight” going on between a newspaper publisher who posted a map of gun permit owners and a gun owner who retaliated by posting the addresses of that publisher and her entire staff, a potentially dangerous move considering the incendiary nature of this debate and some of the people having it.

The story starts with a map. In a report by CNN U.S. today, it seems the publisher of The Journal News, the local paper for Westchester County in New York, noted the intensity of the gun debate in the week following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, and decided to up the ante with a controversial move: publisher Janet Hasson posted an article on the paper’s website called, “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood,” and included in the piece an interactive map with the names and addresses of gun permit owners in select New York cities in the Journal’s reporting area. The story led with this:

Quote:
In May, Richard V. Wilson approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head, a crime that stunned their quiet Katonah neighborhood.

What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.

“I think that the access to guns in this country is ridiculous, that anybody can get one,” said a neighbor of Wilson’s who requested anonymity because it’s not known whether the gunman, whose unnamed victim survived, will return home or be sent to prison. “Would I have bought this house knowing somebody (close by) had an arsenal of weapons? No, I would not have.”

And that sentiment, coupled with the horrors of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting – one perpetrated by a disturbed young man who simply accessed the powerful weapons legally owned by his mother – compelled the publisher to post the map; responding, in essence, to the question posed by the neighbor in the paragraph above. But even with that locational information, it’s impossible to know what kinds of guns are being purchased and stockpiled by one’s neighbors. Apparently, while it is permissible per the Freedom of Information Law for the public to know the names and addresses of handgun owners, they are not privy to what specific permits have been issued. Which, in the minds of some, leaves neighbors and townsfolk vulnerable to the kind of gun owner who could potentially be dangerous or have high-powered weapons accessible to someone else who may be dangerous, as was the case in Newtown.

Quote:
Combined with laws that allow the purchase of rifles and shotguns without a permit, John Thompson, a program manager for Project SNUG at the Yonkers Family YMCA, said that leaves the public knowing little about the types of deadly weapons that might be right next door.

“I would love to know if someone next to me had guns. It makes me safer to know so I can deal with that,” said Thompson, whose group counsels youths against gun violence. “I might not choose to live there.” [Source]

But while Thompson and others appreciated the information posted by The Journal News, the reaction from local permit owners, as well as gun aficionados throughout the country, was swift and fierce. Many felt it was a fundamental invasion of privacy; others were offended, feeling the map characterized gun owners as criminals and marginalized citizens. One outraged commenter wrote:

Quote:
“So should we start wearing yellow Stars of David so the general public can be aware of who we are??” [Source]

The Journal News spent time talking to local people on both sides of the issue. Like anywhere else in the country, it seems the lines are drawn deeply between those who feel the greater good of a community trumps personal gun possession, while freedom-to-own activists and gun owners of all stripes run the gamut from resentful to outraged by the sense that they’re being painted with too broad a brush, based on the violent acts of a few.

Quote:
Dave Triglianos, a Mahopac resident and certified gun instructor, said making all information on pistol-permit applications public would violate the privacy of law-abiding gun owners. He said that everyone, including gun owners, sympathizes with the Sandy Hook families but that onerous gun legislation and the disclosure of specifics only harm legitimate gun owners, not criminals.

My information “should be absolutely private,” said Triglianos, who is licensed to carry firearms and owns an AR-15 rifle, the same model of gun used in the Newtown massacre. “Why do my neighbors need to know that? I am not a threat to my neighbors. I don’t pose a physical threat to anyone.” [Source]

But not only did many owners feel their – or any gun owner’s –information should be kept private, one took his revenge, literally, in kind. TechCrunch.com reports on lawyer and blogger, Christopher Fountain, whose retaliatory measure is considered by some – given the circumstances – to be a dangerous one:

Quote:
The bold move [the map] has escalated into a transparency arms race, after a Connecticut lawyer posted the phone number and addresses of the Journal‘s staff, including a Google Maps satellite Image of the Publisher’s home. “I don’t know whether the Journal’s publisher Janet Hasson is a permit holder herself, but here’s how to find her to ask,” read Christopher Fountain’s blog post. The double irony here is that open data was heralded as a tool of enlightened civic dialog, and has been co-opted for fierce partisanship, bordering on public endangerment.

“New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information,” said a defiant Hasson.

The Google Map sparked a debate about whether gun owners should be labeled like other potential menaces to society, “The implications are mind-boggling,” said Marine Scott F. Williams to The Journal News, “It’s as if gun owners are sex offenders (and) to own a handgun risks exposure as if one is a sex offender. It’s, in my mind, crazy.”

Blogger Christopher Fountain took the debate into his own hands, publishing the personal information of The Journals‘ staff. “Hundreds of thousands of readers; Janet, you have a great Christmas Eve.”

That last line – “Hundreds of thousands of readers; Janet, you have a great Christmas Eve.” – along with the release of Ms. Hasson’s address (as well as that of her staff) and the Google image of her home, translated to some as a veiled threat of retaliation, something that is surely not the intent of “open data” or freedom of information. But beyond the potential of danger for Hasson and her staff, a primary concern, what’s also disconcerting is that the debate appears to have sparked it’s own circling focus, deflecting the attention from the matter of sensible gun control to the ancillary matter of just how much information about gun owners is allowed and/or necessary to the general public. The particulars of the Newtown case – the types of guns, the killer’s mother laxness in keeping them secure – have raised some very valid fears of that unknown “killer next door,” causing some to believe it is their right, and in their best interest, to be aware of just who in their surrounds is “packing heat.” Even some who’ve protested the release of the map agree that gun owners do have an obligation to secure their weapons; a point brought painfully home by the Newtown murderer’s ultimate access to his mother’s cache.

But still, privacy and rights are the salient points to most gun owners. As some have angrily pointed out, they are not sex offenders obligated to reveal their whereabouts as mandated by law; these are, by and large, law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their right to own guns.

Transparency, civil debate, personal rights, personal safety; all these will continue to be part of the dialogue as the debate continues. Hopefully, in the “fog of war,” no one’s life has been endangered by the willful exposure of the addresses of journalists pushing for greater gun controls and introducing some of that “transparency” of information to their readers. If Mr. Fountain’s retaliatory move were to result in a disgruntled gun owner responding with violence, it will be a tragic irony. Let’s hope the escalating battle doesn’t find its way there.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/27/outraged-gun-owner-retaliates-after-publisher-posts-map-with-permit-owners-addresses/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/31/12 9:27 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14091
From all of these articles, this is what I got. It struck close to home and it's something that didn't even cross my mind when my kids were young 20+ years ago. :g A very scary thought considering the numbers of accidental shootings by kids who find a gun:

Whether you think about it in terms of self-defense (this person has a firearm in their harm and can defend against an intruder) or simply safety (there’s a gun in that house, maybe I don’t want my kid playing there), owning a gun is not just something that affects those around you.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/31/12 9:35 am • # 4 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The "public record" is exactly that; public.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/31/12 9:54 am • # 5 
The people who oppose the names of gun owners or political contributors being posted on the internet are the same people who support the party that wants to legalize unwarranted search and seizure of ISP data logs.

Can any of them spell "hypocrite"? Probably not...


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 5 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.