Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits

[kimmy]

It's the height of hypocrisy, for sure. Obviously Worley didn't want his address published.

I just confirmed for myself that Worley's address is not on the map provided by Journal News. It would be very interesting to hear their explanation of why.

Whatever their explanation, the omission seems to contradict their justifications for posting this list in the first place, and undermines the integrity of the entire exercise.

HYPOCRITE.

If something is wrong, it's always wrong.

I don't agree with this sort of thinking. It's absolutist. I think, for example, that there's a world of difference between giving a punch in the nose to a kid who's minding his own business, and giving a punch in the nose to an unrepentant bully. I feel that context and motivation matter.

Whether the Journal News staff are bullies is open for debate, but they are certainly unrepentant. They insist that what they are doing is ethical and important and they plan to publish more information.

The decision to omit Worley from their map already raises questions as to whether they really believe the public has a right to know the addresses of gun permit holders. The decision to omit Worley also raises questions as to whether they believe publishing this information puts people at risk.

If Journal News sincerely believes that what they are doing is ethical, than they can not object to their own names being published.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

If Journal News sincerely believes that what they are doing is ethical, than they can not object to their own names being published.

Sure they can...wasn't there a CBSA labour action by agents who did not want to wear name badges ? People can rationalize away most anything.

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you think your opinions should be exempt from criticism?

I don't care who feels the same way you do. You're all hypocrites. If you think it's wrong that private information gets published publicly because it's dangerous, then condoning the gun owners' lawyer for publicizing the publisher's information is by definition hypocrisy. It's completely indefensible and goes to show just how little reflexivity you have. The fact that you now throw a tantrum, complete with your bold font and army of smilies just goes to show that you know I'm right.

Your posts explode with yellow and black goo every time you have to critically reflect upon your arguments. It's hilarious.

You know all about hypocrisy don't you?

[guyser]

Now that that information has been put out there, how happy do you think he and/or his neighbors are?

I would suspect that most of his neighbours, and by extension, most of any of these peoples neighbours are not concerned in the least. Afterall, presumably most are already on freidnly terms and either have discussed their guns or talked about shooting.

There will no doubt be the fraidy cats one would want to avoid, but I suspect they are few and far between.

As for someone opining about some of these people being cops , ex LEO's and so forth, big deal, sick of people holding cops to some stupid standard above private citizens.

[Guest American Woman]

I would suspect that most of his neighbours, and by extension, most of any of these peoples neighbours are not concerned in the least. Afterall, presumably most are already on freidnly terms and either have discussed their guns or talked about shooting.

Why would you presume that? I don't know if my neighbors have guns or not. At any rate, his address wasn't included in the article, and I would assume there's a reason for that, so I'm wondering how he felt about it once his home/address became a focus of the media/public - so that's what I was referring to, in light of the anger and controversy the article evoked - and the anger and controversy is why I wondered how his neighbors felt about having their neighborhood highlighted that way - their houses were in some of the photos. I personally wouldn't care for that.

As for someone opining about some of these people being cops , ex LEO's and so forth, big deal, sick of people holding cops to some stupid standard above private citizens.

The way I see it, they aren't being held up to any different standard, but of course they would be more likely to be the focus/target of a criminal with a grudge than most other private citizens. There's also been concern for some of the people who have been abused and were trying to live inconspicuously.

At any rate, if I lived in those counties, I wouldn't care for some criminal type person to know that my neighbors have guns, but I don't - I'd like them to believe that there's a possibility that I'm armed if they are of a mind to burglarize the neighborhood.

Edited January 2, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Why would you presume that? I don't know if my neighbors have guns or not. At any rate, his address wasn't included in the article, and I would assume there's a reason for that, so I'm wondering how he felt about it once his home/address became a focus of the media/public - so that's what I was referring to, in light of the anger and controversy the article evoked - and the anger and controversy is why I wondered how his neighbors felt about having their neighborhood highlighted that way - their houses were in some of the photos. I personally wouldn't care for that.

I presume that for the reason that persons who reside beside each other get a general sense of what the neighbours are like. You are correct they may not know that the neighbour has a gun(s) , much like mine dont know, but they ....and I have a sense the other is ok.

As for his address not being in there, that is an ommission that speaks volumes about his integrity. Goose gander and all that.

As for the houses pictured , what can you do? Google also has the houses pictured and has for quite some time now.

The way I see it, they aren't being held up to any different standard, but of course they would be more likely to be the focus/target of a criminal with a grudge than most other private citizens.

I think it was Derek who asked 'what about cops etc?" I was speaking to that. I dont care if they were all cops or no cops at all. If they are afraid to be a cop and all that entails then get out.

If one wants to make troubles for a cop who busted him, this printing of names etc is one way, as there are other ways to find out.

There's also been concern for some of the people who have been abused and were trying to live inconspicuously.

Again true, but I dont see the relevance Friends and family are the first go to in order to find out where someone is hiding. Getting lucky finding a name and address published would be a stroke of luck , but the result for the determined would be the same.

At any rate, if I lived in those counties, I wouldn't care for some criminal type person to know that my neighbors have guns, but I don't - I'd like them to believe that there's a possibility that I'm armed if they are of a mind to burglarize the neighborhood.

I dont worry about that one bit at all.

I park my nice car in the driveway in full view.

My drapes are open to show my nice furniture and big screen tv (now with surround system!).

The teak patio furnishings sit in plain view of all my backyard neighbours.

If people locked their doors , almost half the break ins would be thwarted.

[Guest American Woman]

I dont worry about that one bit at all.

I park my nice car in the driveway in full view.

My drapes are open to show my nice furniture and big screen tv (now with surround system!).

The teak patio furnishings sit in plain view of all my backyard neighbours.

If people locked their doors , almost half the break ins would be thwarted.

You don't live in those counties, though - which are in the spotlight now. That's why I said "If I lived in those counties ...." Everything isn't comparable to us, everyone's circumstances aren't the same as ours; we can't expect everyone to feel and act as we do.

Still: "Burglaries on the rise in Forest Hill and North Toronto" http://www.postcity.com/Post-City-Magazines/January-2011/Burglaries-on-the-rise-in-Forest-Hill-and-North-Toronto/

As for the houses pictured , what can you do? Google also has the houses pictured and has for quite some time now.

Which is different from spotlighting said houses for being next to a controversial figure's home - making big news. I'm sure there are those who don't care for it, which was my only point.

Edited January 2, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

You don't live in those counties, though - which are in the spotlight now.

The point was, no matter where they lived (within reason of course) they all have their valuables on display as I do. Not much worry there so why all the fuss over this and the guns?

These addresses of gun holders have been done before without much fanfare nor any real concerns...again with the nice expensive car sitting in the driveway overnight.

Still: "Burglaries on the rise in Forest Hill and North Toronto" http://www.postcity....-North-Toronto/

No idea the relevance of this . FH, NT and Leaside have always been targets for burglaries. The safest places for people to be are also some of the worst for thefts and burglaries. Always safe for a walk and stroll at midnight , not so much for your valuables left at home.

Which is different from spotlighting said houses for being next to a controversial figure's home - making big news. I'm sure there are those who don't care for it, which was my only point.

Oh ok, but again, what diff does it make? I dont care for it either, but I also recognize that my house is already on the internet.

I see a murder happened at 123 Main St. ......3 seconds later I am looking at the house on Google

[Boges]

This is rather ironic.

http://www.thestar.c...-for-protection

NEW YORK- A suburban New York newspaper that ignited a furor by publishing the identities of thousands of residents who hold gun licences has hired armed security to guard its staff after receiving an intimidating e-mail, a police report said.

Among a “large amount of negative correspondence” that White Plains, New York-based Journal News has received since publishing permit holders’ names was one e-mail in which the sender “wondered what [the editor] would get in her mail next,” according to a Clarkstown, New York, police report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

You try to shame people that presumably own firearms for personal protection and when you get a negative reaction for your actions you hire armed guards for personal protection.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Boges

[guyser]

This is rather ironic.

And how would that be ironic?

[Boges]

And how would that be ironic?

You need armed guards to protect you from the blowback from shaming people that own legal firearms for protection.

[Spiderfish]

This is rather ironic.

http://www.thestar.c...-for-protection

On Tuesday, authorities in nearby Putnam County said they will refuse to release names of permit-holders to the newspaper.

“There is the rule of law, and there is right and wrong and the Journal News is clearly wrong,” Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said in a statement. “I could not live with myself if one Putnam pistol permit-holder was put in harm’s way, for the sole purpose of selling newspapers.”

It's refreshing to see that some rational minds are still involved in decision making, and are not willing to compromise sensibility for a dumb media stunt.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Spiderfish

[guyser]

It's refreshing to see that some rational minds are still involved in decision making, and are not willing to compromise sensibility for a dumb media stunt.

Its nice he tries, until the FOI request gets put in his hands.

It is afterall public info and should be released if asked.

[Spiderfish]

Its nice he tries, until the FOI request gets put in his hands.

It is afterall public info and should be released if asked.

Who knows, maybe there's more than one rational mind out there making decisions in the interest of public privacy rights. Have to wait and see, I guess...

Putnam County officials are to appear on Thursday at a news conference declaring their intentions, along with state Sen. Greg Ball, a Patterson, New York, Republican who has said he will introduce legislation to keep permit information private except for access by police and prosecutors.

[Guest American Woman]

The point was, no matter where they lived (within reason of course) they all have their valuables on display as I do. Not much worry there so why all the fuss over this and the guns?

Sure they have all their values on display, and the idea that they might have a gun could be a deterrent - if it's known that they don't have a gun, and their valuables are on display, then one might be more likely to burglarize that home. It's why people sometimes have 'this home is protected by a neighborhood watch program;' it acts as a deterrent. Perhaps the idea that a homeowner may have a gun also acts as a deterrent.

These addresses of gun holders have been done before without much fanfare nor any real concerns...again with the nice expensive car sitting in the driveway overnight.

I'm not sure what the expensive car sitting in the driveway has to do with the point I'm making.

No idea the relevance of this . FH, NT and Leaside have always been targets for burglaries. The safest places for people to be are also some of the worst for thefts and burglaries. Always safe for a walk and stroll at midnight , not so much for your valuables left at home.

My point is that in spite of your non-concern and leaving valuables in sight, burglaries do occur. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Oh ok, but again, what diff does it make? I dont care for it either, but I also recognize that my house is already on the internet.

Your house is on the internet, but not highlighted in the news this way - so there aren't a bunch of angry people that might care. So what difference does it make? It might make a difference if it were on the internet because a public figure that had incurred wrath lived next door; then you might not be so happy about that information being 'out there' for the crazies who might be inclined to retaliate. I'm just saying I wouldn't want that kind of attention brought to my neighborhood. If you're ok with it, I guess that just shows that some people would be ok with it as others wouldn't be. That you wouldn't be upset isn't any kind of proof that no one has any reason to be upset about it, and I'm guessing some, rightfully, were.

I see a murder happened at 123 Main St. ......3 seconds later I am looking at the house on Google

And what kind of attention do you think that's going to garner - compared to this situation, where the guy pissed a lot of people off?

[Guest American Woman]

Who knows, maybe there's more than one rational mind out there making decisions in the interest of public privacy rights. Have to wait and see, I guess...

Sounds as if this may result in a change regarding the way things are done. As was pointed out, "When these laws were conceived, there was no social media, there was no Google maps." http://online.wsj.co...181ddfa84d.html

Oh, the irony:

A newspaper based in White Plains that drew nationwide anger after

publishing the names and addresses

of handgun permit holders last month is being guarded by armed security personnel at two of its offices, the publisher said Wednesday.

The increased security comes as the newspaper,

The Journal News

, has promised to forge ahead with plans to expand its interactive map of permit holders to include a third county in the suburbs of New York City, and local officials there have vowed to block the records’ release.

“The safety of my staff is my top priority,” Ms. Hasson said in a telephone interview.

http://www.nytimes.c...-news.html?_r=0

[guyser]

Who knows, maybe there's more than one rational mind out there making decisions in the interest of public privacy rights. Have to wait and see, I guess...

Unless they change what is private or not by legislation then this guy can stomp his feet all he wants. He will have to comply somtime soon.

[Black Dog]

You need armed guards to protect you from the blowback from shaming people that own legal firearms for protection.

I guess the reporters should just arm themselves? That is, after all, the American Way.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Black Dog

[GostHacked]

I guess the reporters should just arm themselves? That is, after all, the American Way.

Maybe they will hire people off the list they made public!

[Guest American Woman]

This is rather ironic.

http://www.thestar.c...-for-protection

You try to shame people that presumably own firearms for personal protection and when you get a negative reaction for your actions you hire armed guards for personal protection.

I missed this earlier, and said the same thing - pointing out the irony. It is very ironic, and it would explain why some people would be upset - people who don't have the luxury of 'increased security.' How nice that the safety of his staff is his first priority - too bad his concern doesn't extend to others.

[guyser]

Sure they have all their values on display, and the idea that they might have a gun could be a deterrent - if it's known that they don't have a gun, and their valuables are on display, then one might be more likely to burglarize that home.

The valuables on display are for the most part more valuable than the gun(s) Whether one has a gun or not, it wont matter if they are burglarized. A home invasion would be different.

I'm not sure what the expensive car sitting in the driveway has to do with the point I'm making.

Oh...easy.

Considering that 6 times (or more) more cars are stolen than guns, and people leave their autos in the driveway in full view.

4% or burglaries involve guns being stolen, seems to me then the gun is not the hot item some think it is.

What I am trying to say is most of the people upset need not be overtly that way. The stats dont bear out the angst they want to show. But I will concede it is their angst they have to deal with .

My point is that in spite of your non-concern and leaving valuables in sight, burglaries do occur. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Because a gun would not matter in a burglary, ergo my non concern. I would not be worried about a nickle being stolen when I have a $100 sitting beside the nickle.

Your house is on the internet, but not highlighted in the news this way - so there aren't a bunch of angry people that might care. So what difference does it make? It might make a difference if it were on the internet because a public figure that had incurred wrath lived next door; then you might not be so happy about that information being 'out there' for the crazies who might be inclined to retaliate. I'm just saying I wouldn't want that kind of attention brought to my neighborhood. If you're ok with it, I guess that just shows that some people would be ok with it as others wouldn't be. That you wouldn't be upset isn't any kind of proof that no one has any reason to be upset about it, and I'm guessing some, rightfully, were.

All those houses, all those weapons, info overload. Not to mention there are no concerns past the fact this has been done before,

And what kind of attention do you think that's going to garner - compared to this situation, where the guy pissed a lot of people off?

pissed off whom?

Gunowners? What are they gonna do about it? Shoot someone?

Edited January 3, 2013 by guyser

[guyser]

Boges-You need armed guards to protect you from the blowback from shaming people that own legal firearms for protection

So, you think the newspaper advocated that harm come to legal gun owners by publishing what they did?

Situational irony needs for there to be disparity between results and intention.

Edited January 3, 2013 by guyser

[Boges]

So, you think the newspaper advocated that harm come to legal gun owners by publishing what they did?

Situational irony needs for there to be disparity between results and intention.

Maybe not harm but public pressure. Hey you own a gun, you should be ostracized! That's backfired horribly from what I've heard from this story.

It's ironic that they used armed guards to potentially defend themselves from potential harm. That's likely why the people they exposed own guns as well, but they don't have the means to hire armed guards.

[guyser]

Maybe not harm but public pressure. Hey you own a gun, you should be ostracized! That's backfired horribly from what I've heard from this story.

That may be irony, as in the paper wanted more readers by publishing the addresses and now they may have less as a backlash move.

But...

It's ironic that they used armed guards to potentially defend themselves from potential harm. That's likely why the people they exposed own guns as well, but they don't have the means to hire armed guards.

...Still not ironic

They are there own armed guards.

[Boges]

Would you at least agree that it's hypocritical hire armed guards after publicly outing people for being armed?

Or is it OK to be protected by firearms only when you receive death threats.