Taking public information too far?

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

88 Replies - 7994 Views - Last Post: 15 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

#1 Nykc  Icon User is offline

  • Gentleman of Leisure
  • member icon

Reputation: 731
  • View blog
  • Posts: 8,644
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 08:55 AM

So in a completely boneheaded move... A New York newspaper took it upon themselves to broadcast everyone who is a registered handgun owner's address in a fashion similar to that of a sex-offender. This map speaks out "Hey I don't own a firearm, legally at least!"

I don't personally understand the benefit of this other than to assist criminals in their future endeavours but I am attaching the article for reference along with the map they published. You decide...

Article

Interactive Map of Gun Owners

What are your thoughts about this?

Is This A Good Question/Topic? 4
  • +

Replies To: Taking public information too far?

#2 no2pencil  Icon User is offline

  • Admiral Fancy Pants
  • member icon

Reputation: 5379
  • View blog
  • Posts: 27,350
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 09:06 AM

This isn't new. They did this in my hometown (outside of Sandusky Ohio) many years ago, & my neighbor canceled his newspaper subscription.

& in this day & age, the newspaper companies are barely holding on as it is. Idiots. But their reply was just as you say here, it's public information so they are within their right.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 creativecoding  Icon User is offline

  • Hash != Encryption
  • member icon


Reputation: 927
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,209
  • Joined: 19-January 10

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:15 PM

Sounds like good incentive to buy a permit, whether or not you own a gun. They basically just released a "safe-to-invade" list for burglars.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 Python_4_President  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 53
  • View blog
  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: 13-August 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 02:03 PM

License == Registration: True
Registration -> Confiscation: True


Personally, I think they did a crappy job in building their so-called "interactive" map.

Crappy relative to what, you ask? Crappy relative to The Raid Map.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 dorknexus  Icon User is offline

  • or something bad...real bad.
  • member icon

Reputation: 1256
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,618
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 02:43 PM

Quote

Sounds like good incentive to buy a permit, whether or not you own a gun. They basically just released a "safe-to-invade" list for burglars.


Another way to think about it is that they just made it easy for would-be burglars to determine which houses have valuable firearms inside.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#6 atraub  Icon User is offline

  • Pythoneer
  • member icon

Reputation: 759
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,010
  • Joined: 23-December 08

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 03:39 PM

View Postdorknexus, on 25 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Quote

Sounds like good incentive to buy a permit, whether or not you own a gun. They basically just released a "safe-to-invade" list for burglars.


Another way to think about it is that they just made it easy for would-be burglars to determine which houses have valuable firearms inside.

I knew someone would say it. Come on, don't you think logic would suggest that a burglar would pick his target based on the home or perhaps the target's car rather than actively targeting people with guns? I'd expect hanging an NRA flag would be an excellent crime deterrent.

This post has been edited by atraub: 25 December 2012 - 03:40 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#7 Utael  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 55
  • View blog
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 12-December 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 11:17 PM

They did this here about 2 years ago just before South Dakota made it illegal to publish than info. It's stupid wrong and an invasion of privacy.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 AdamSpeight2008  Icon User is offline

  • MrCupOfT
  • member icon


Reputation: 2270
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,496
  • Joined: 29-May 08

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 11:31 PM

What is wrong?
You could obtain that information before, it just wasn't in a easily digestible form.

That the information is public?
or
How that public information is correlated and used?

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 25 December 2012 - 11:33 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 dorknexus  Icon User is offline

  • or something bad...real bad.
  • member icon

Reputation: 1256
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,618
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 25 December 2012 - 11:48 PM

Quote

I knew someone would say it. Come on, don't you think logic would suggest that a burglar would pick his target based on the home or perhaps the target's car rather than actively targeting people with guns? I'd expect hanging an NRA flag would be an excellent crime deterrent.


I agree. Burglars would target a home based on the perception of valuables contained within. Guns ain't cheap. A single handgun can be worth more than a large television (also much more convenient to lift). Besides, guns are valuable to criminals in ways that don't involve money.

I also agree with the premise that guns deter crime, but guns don't just deter crime all by themselves. Someone's gotta be home to work those guns. Unless those burglars are real dumb-like they'll just wait for an opportunity when the premises are vacated.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#10 Python_4_President  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 53
  • View blog
  • Posts: 321
  • Joined: 13-August 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 26 December 2012 - 12:21 AM

View Postatraub, on 25 December 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

View Postdorknexus, on 25 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Quote

Sounds like good incentive to buy a permit, whether or not you own a gun. They basically just released a "safe-to-invade" list for burglars.


Another way to think about it is that they just made it easy for would-be burglars to determine which houses have valuable firearms inside.

I knew someone would say it. Come on, don't you think logic would suggest that a burglar would pick his target based on the home or perhaps the target's car rather than actively targeting people with guns? I'd expect hanging an NRA flag would be an excellent crime deterrent.




I hear that argument every now and then. It would seem logical that ill-doers would stay away from locations marked with pro-gun insignia, but a lot of ill-doers have a lot more time on their hands than you might think.

Example: A block in South Houston has had nearly 3 dozen home invasions in the last 8 months. That's Texas, by the way. We even have stand-your-ground laws so criminals know that if they get killed people will cheer for the killer, in some cases. Joseph Stack comes to mind. He shot people burgling his NEIGHBOR'S house and got away with it, not 15 miles from where the crimes I mention have taken place.

A friend of mine lives in this neighborhood, and we've discussed the issue. We also discussed the guy at the end of the street he lives on with the sign in the front that reads "Robbers will be shot". His house was burgled a few weeks after he put up the sign. They stole the sign, too.

Maybe they thought, "Well, ok, if he's shooting robbers, I guess burglary is fine, then, since it's not robbery, since no one is home.. who can shoot me? hahahahah"

Our logic was, "What an idiot.. He just told everyone where to get some guns."

The problem: It's easy to tell if someone is home or not. Shoot on sight signs are only scary if someone is home.
A neighborhood wide sign might be more effective, IE, "Criminals in our neighborhood will be shot by the first available patriot", posted at every stop sign or so, but not until the neighborhood had a reputation for following through with it. Think about the effectiveness of Neighborhood Watch signs, or rather, the ineffectiveness of them. Nearly every neighborhood has one, and nobody cares.

For people in stupid neighborhoods where nobody knows anybody else and has no desire to, big dogs that shit in the front yard and bark at everything that makes noise work much better. The problem there is, the cops will probably kill it one day, after a miffed burglar/neighbor calls in a fake report about it attacking someone. That, or the neighbors will poison it because it is annoying, which is also common.

Best option: Love your neighbors. Stand up for them. Look out for them. Make sure they return the favor. United we stand.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1947
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,488
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 26 December 2012 - 07:56 AM

View PostPython_4_President, on 25 December 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

License == Registration: True
Registration -> Confiscation: True


Personally, I think they did a crappy job in building their so-called "interactive" map.

Crappy relative to what, you ask? Crappy relative to The Raid Map.



My first thought was to be appalled that such information was publicly available. I've never been a fan of registering your guns but I thought that in places that condoned that overreach of government that at least that information was private. Guess not...and that just makes it all the more effing stupid.

For reasons exactly like this. I wonder if someone were to be robbed and the criminal later said he used that map as a guide of where and not where to do his crimes...if the victims could sue the unholy hell out of the newspaper for basically painting a big target on their stuff.

Information being public ought not to absolve someone of using is responsibly.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 26 December 2012 - 07:57 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 AnalyticLunatic  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover

Reputation: 222
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,035
  • Joined: 25-June 12

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:09 AM

View PostCraig328, on 26 December 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Information being public ought not to absolve someone of using is responsibly.


Posted Image
With great information, comes great responsibility.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#13 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7947
  • View blog
  • Posts: 13,531
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:14 AM

View Postatraub, on 25 December 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

View Postdorknexus, on 25 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Quote

Sounds like good incentive to buy a permit, whether or not you own a gun. They basically just released a "safe-to-invade" list for burglars.


Another way to think about it is that they just made it easy for would-be burglars to determine which houses have valuable firearms inside.

I knew someone would say it. Come on, don't you think logic would suggest that a burglar would pick his target based on the home or perhaps the target's car rather than actively targeting people with guns? I'd expect hanging an NRA flag would be an excellent crime deterrent.



Or an invitation. The gun's only useful if you're there to use it. If you're not there to use it, it's just an object with a high resale value for its weight and bulk. Probably the best burglar bait you can find - what else are you going to find in someone's house these days that you can resell that easily, that well?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7947
  • View blog
  • Posts: 13,531
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:30 AM

View PostCraig328, on 26 December 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

For reasons exactly like this. I wonder if someone were to be robbed and the criminal later said he used that map as a guide of where and not where to do his crimes...if the victims could sue the unholy hell out of the newspaper for basically painting a big target on their stuff.


They could certainly bring a civil suit. A good lawyer could find something to bring the paper into court. Could they win? I'm not a lawyer, but I would be amazed if you get anywhere with a suit on those grounds.

Among other things:

  • freedom of the press is a pretty broad umbrella
  • the information is public: There's no duty to refrain from publishing public records
  • again, the information is public: If the paper got hold of it, the burglar can get hold of it

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 26 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#15 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4510
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,414
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

i just don't understand the point the newspaper was trying to make. silly at best, dangerous at worst. the whole thing is dumb.
Was This Post Helpful? 4
  • +
  • -

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »