Who is following you home?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's going to be interesting to see the results of this stupid act by the media

http://now.msn.com/burglars-glad-the-journal-news-published-gun-owner-addresses

Are more weapons going to be identified and stolen, or are more gunless people going to be robbed ?


Sue them for invasion of privacy. Probably have a better chance then that $100M law suit that claims their child will be traumatized for life from hearing gunshots.

http://now.msn.com/journal-news-hires-armed-guards-after-publishing-interactive-map-of-gun-owners

lol.gif
... maybe they should think first before they make a bonehead move like divulging private information.

They're gonna find themselves slapped with a few lawsuits soon is my bet.
http://now.msn.com/newspaper-to-publish-more-gun-owners-names-after-newtown
 
I hope they do get sued severely.

But I hope its lots of small stinging suits, not some obnoxious class action thats really just for lining the pockets of the "Lawyers' Monopoly".
 
What would they be sued for? It isn't libel. It isn't slander. It isn't defamation.

You're going to run right into the First Amendment.

Would be nice if it happens though.
 
Last edited:
Its invasion of privacy in a media where it cannot be easily stricken down, and for a topic that is sensitive wrt politics, crime, and public safety.

What business did they have giving this info?

If they published what households had young boys or girls between the age of 4-9 would you be OK with that?
 
I think it will be hard for a lawsuit to stick. You'd probably have to show a direct correlation to being wronged which would be hard to prove. Maybe if the bad guy made a statement that he intentionally went to a house because of this map or something.

This paper is disgusting and really shows the bias in the media. There are police on this list and it exposes their families to retribution by criminals...but the paper doesn't care.

I say that every person that works at that paper should have their address posted on a website for all to see.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Its invasion of privacy in a media where it cannot be easily stricken down, and for a topic that is sensitive wrt politics, crime, and public safety.

What business did they have giving this info?

If they published what households had young boys or girls between the age of 4-9 would you be OK with that?


It isn't a question of whether I'm OK with it or not. It's a question of what is legal or not. And it is legal. One does not get to pick and choose what Constitutional Amendment gets enforced or not.

Now if you're talking ethics, that's something else. I find it unethical.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan


Now if you're talking ethics, that's something else. I find it unethical.


Darn right its unethical. Question is, inherent in our rights of life and liberty, do we have a right to privacy?

Nobody on that list did anything. Yet their private information was displayed without their choice or consent. Essentially it was farming of information to be shown with malicious intent. That's not reporting, that's not anything but malicious release of personally identifiable information, which may be covered by federal law.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trajan


Now if you're talking ethics, that's something else. I find it unethical.


Darn right its unethical. Question is, inherent in our rights of life and liberty, do we have a right to privacy?

Nobody on that list did anything. Yet their private information was displayed without their choice or consent. Essentially it was farming of information to be shown with malicious intent. That's not reporting, that's not anything but malicious release of personally identifiable information, which may be covered by federal law.


Yes they did something. They all bought guns. Which is an act of public record. And what malicious intent? The intent to let the public know who owns guns in their neighborhood? It's legal.

And what federal law is violated, or may be violated, by doing what federal/state freedom of information acts allow them to do? What federal law trumps the First Amendment? It isn't classified. It isn't a matter of national security.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Nothing in there that prevents what was done.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan



And what federal law is violated, or may be violated, by doing what federal/state freedom of information acts allow them to do? What federal law trumps the First Amendment? It isn't classified. It isn't a matter of national security.



THere is some indication, even if weak, that this personally identifiable information may be protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information

Sure, they didnt necessarily post a DL number, SSN, etc., but they did create a connection between firearms and locations where they exist. That is the treacherous action here. The fear is of criminals with guns? Where do they get them? Not by buying them legally.

So now they have a database of where these horrible, nasty, dangerous guns exist.

While a name and address by itself may not necessarily be PII, the intent was both malicious and create more danger than it avoids simply because it creates targets.

The other link you posted was a stupic, immature knee jerk reaction. Deserved? Perhaps.

But actually it was less malicious than the initial move.

Why? Because what the response did was report to the public who was doing something specific. The first move was to attack unknowing people who were entirely minding their own business.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trajan



And what federal law is violated, or may be violated, by doing what federal/state freedom of information acts allow them to do? What federal law trumps the First Amendment? It isn't classified. It isn't a matter of national security.



THere is some indication, even if weak, that this personally identifiable information may be protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information

Sure, they didnt necessarily post a DL number, SSN, etc., but they did create a connection between firearms and locations where they exist. That is the treacherous action here. The fear is of criminals with guns? Where do they get them? Not by buying them legally.

So now they have a database of where these horrible, nasty, dangerous guns exist.

While a name and address by itself may not necessarily be PII, the intent was both malicious and create more danger than it avoids simply because it creates targets.



PII does not apply.

I fail to see any treacherous action. Again, it's public information. As for intent, can you prove that? Malice is not something one could sue over. Is the information published factual? If yes, then you can't sue for libel as the truth is the ultimate defense against libel. Is the information defamatory? In order to prove that, you have to show actual malice, which is knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Now, is the published information false? Since it is not, there goes the defamation/malice arguement.


As for "creating targets", I don't agree. If anything, maybe these people will invest some real thought in securing them.
 
Here's my angle.

The only reason why we care about sharing PII is because of the potential for a criminal to steal identities. An SSN, DL number, etc. is useless to most. If I knew your SSN, it would be irrelevant, even if I knew all your info - Im not stealing identities.

But someone could use that information to do you harm.

PII generally is incomplete until a few facts, like say, name, address and SSN are completed - enough to give some meat to a potential perpetrator interested in stealing your identity or doing something bad.

Your address and name is somewhat incomplete by itself. In some cases it is in the phone book anyway. I get that. But a name and address gives no indication of your situation. Rich? Poor? Stock cash in your mattress? So deep in debt that you sleep on the floor?

If a person gives away this information, so be it.

But for an entity to freely and openly give away the complimenting information such that criminals can connect name, address, and whether they do or do not own an item of interest to them that has value for them to steal and sell, that is treacherous.

If I want to steal your identity, I want your address and SSN. If I want to steal your goods, I want your address and confirmation that you have what I want.

Just made the job easier.
 
PII is a concept. But that is all it is. It does not apply to information that is legally available. It's not a law.

Buying a firearn is not the same as going to a doctor. There is no seller-buyer confidentiality.

The privacy concerns that are addressed in the Amendments I listed have to do with the state seeking information. But there is nothing private about buying a firearm. (The state knows you bought it.)

The bottom line is this. There is no legal basis to sue the news outlet. There is no libel, no defamation, no treachery. (Sure, you say there is, but that doesn't make it so.)Treachery is Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust. That does not exsist here.


State and Federal law allowed them to do it. Said laws required that they be provided with it.

And stop with the red herrings. (Map of 8-9 yr olds? Really?, Make it happen then ask me.)
 
For over 40 years I've ridden the type of motorcycle a certain element want to steal - I always ride in and out of my area quiet and slow, watching to see who is seeing me, and make sure they see me seeing them seeing me. The bike is never visible from the road when at home.

Every farmer in this area has at least 3 guns, a shotgun for birds, a .22 for rabbits and a bigger rifle for bigger stuff. No need to follow a farmer home. The only target shooter at work shoots in a city an hour away, but clay shoots locally. On shooting night the guns are in the boot of his car parked at work.
 
Dropped in to see a mate of mine this afternoon - all the doors open, 3 of his bikes in the house unlocked, farm bike and quad with the keys in them, no one around. Either out on the farm working somewhere or gone for a ride on another bike. Propped up against the french doors in the lounge was a rifle with scope. I think we live in another reality here.....
 
Quote:
It isn't a matter of national security.



It is a matter of personal security.

Why didn't the paper publish a list of people who HAD NOT bought firearms?

I think there is an argument for malice as one of he definitions of malice is to "see others suffer."
 
It is also an example of a mainly leftwing media that cannot report the news in a truthful, proper manner to the American people. Their bias is showing. The news media should be neither leftwing nor rightwing.
 
I always try and have a mindset of being in Col.Coopers Condition Yellow when out in public and especially at the "public" gun range.

After learning about this story I will force myself to have a more heightened mindset of Condition Orange to Red when arriving, during, and leaving any "public" gun range. Epecially since I most often go early or late to beat the rush and I'm usually alone when I go.

Navy Seal Kyle fatally shot at gun range

RIP
 
Originally Posted By: GenSan

Navy Seal Kyle fatally shot at gun range
RIP

The AP story left out the name of the shooter, Eddie Ray Routh.

Unfortunately, this looks like a case where someone with mental issues should not have been allowed to hold a gun...
Dallasnews pollice arrest
Full facts have not yet been released, but it appears that the killer, Routh was with Kyle, and is a "soldier who is recovering from post traumatic stress syndrome".

"Late Saturday, Lancaster police arrested a man who they say matched the description of a man wanted in connection with the slayings. After a brief chase, officers arrested 25-year-old Eddie Ray Routh, according to Lancaster police spokesperson Kelly Hooten....
WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported that Kyle was shot point-blank while helping another soldier who is recovering from post traumatic stress syndrome."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shel_B
  • Locked
I'm being followed
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
Pablo
W
PCC vs Shotgun for home defense
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
9K
football
spasm3
Guns For Wives
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
The_Eric
G
Stellantis negative sentiment
9 10 11
Replies
210
Views
7K
michaelluscher
D
Is Home Title Insurance really necessary?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
ecotourist
Back
Top