Cross post: California gun data breach exposes personal info...10 years of concealed carry permits

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Original OP: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142936767

https://www.kcra.com/article/california-data-breach-exposes-personal-info-for-concealed-carry-permit-holders-sheriffs-office-says/40462232
Personal information for Californians who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons permit over a period of 10 years, as well as the personal information of people associated with several other gun dashboards, was disclosed online this week, the state's Department of Justice confirmed.

DOJ said it is reaching out to those whose data was exposed and will provide credit monitoring services.

The data breach left the unauthorized information accessible to the public for "less than 24 hours" in connection with an update of the state's 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal on Monday afternoon.

[ Added emphasis is mine. ]

This is one of the reasons why so many are against similar data collections related to firearms.

[The Magistrate]

1. Good

It ought to be public knowledge who carries concealed weapons, or has attempted to and been barred from doing so. Just like I want to know if the person moving in next door molests children, or a new hire is a thief. It's a matter of public safety. I will make my own judgement regarding the weight I give the information, but I want it, and it ought to be public. I damned sure want to know if the guy down the block prances about with a pistol under his shirt-tail.

[sanatanadharma]

2. Supremes say 2nd A gives right to have guns

Where is the right to privacy about owning guns?
No right to privacy means States (Feds) can require gun owners to register their guns.
Can't call up the militia if they and their arms are unknown.

Supreme Court may have opened the way to gun registration by arguing no constitutional right to privacy.

[onecaliberal]

3. Pregnant woman can't be private why should these gun humpers get to be secret?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. So you're okay with pregnant women having no privacy? n/t

[onecaliberal]

6. Wow, you just inferred quite a bit about what I think. It's too early for this nonsense.

Enjoy the dust bin.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Wow...

Technically, I believe inference would require at least a statement on my part. Perhaps you missed the question mark.

Have a nice day.

[onecaliberal]

13. Perhaps your question was a trillion miles off and yes you did infer that I had a specific thought..

About women's privacy. Maybe you can’t comprehend what you wrote. If you’re going to go there don’t be surprised that someone will call you on it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. re: "...call you on it."

I specific, my opinion is that ALL medical information is absolutely private privileged information. From your reply, "Pregnant woman can't be private why should these gun humpers get to be secret?" it CAN BE INFERRED that you are accepting of that information being compromised if the data released by CA DOJ on guns is also released. I asked a question. Infer what you wish from the question but I absolutely affirm that ALL personal private be safeguarded and not subject to publication by a rogue government actor.

Sorry for any offense.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. You can walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and ask for a list of abortion patients.

Wait, no, HIPAA rules forbid such disclosure. Hacking is the only way to get these secrets. Or by constant surveillance.

[AndyS]

7. Consider it the price of freedom . . .

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. I consider it facilitating identity theft.

[AndyS]

10. And I consider allowing paranoids to carry loaded guns in

public an invitation to homicide.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I consider your opinion there...

...an absolute right under the 1A.
I consider California's digital brain fart a violation of the 4A and 14A.

FYI, this was not hack, this was simply all the personal info publicly available on the web.

YMMV

[PTWB]

12. Can they really call it a breach?

They compiled all of the information into a database and then connected that database to a public facing portal. Then the CA attorney general sent out a press release touting that they were releasing the information to the public in the interest of research, science, and transparency.

Just because there was extreme backlash and releasing the data may turn out to have been a violation of California law does not make it a “breach” or a “leak.”

These folks were intentionally doxxed. How many victims of domestic violence had their new address published? How about stalkers / abusers using this list to see if their victim is armed or not? If they’re not on the list, chances are they’re unarmed.

The backlash from this will be extreme. This incident will be the poster child that the gun rights movement uses for many, many years to show that the government should not be trusted to maintain a database or registry of firearm owners.

I cannot overstate how big of a disaster this was for those of us who would like to pass common sense gun control.

What a nightmare.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Breach would be kind but completely inaccurate term for this.

IMO, this is a clear and dangerous violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments. IMNSHO, this is a clear and deliberate criminal act.

The AG said that he is 'deeply disturbed and angered.'
"DOJ was made aware of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal," the statement said. "After DOJ learned of the data exposure, the department took steps to remove the information from public view and shut down the Firearms Dashboard yesterday morning."

[MichMan]

16. Can those whose information was released sue the state ?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. That's question for an attorney.

I just don't know.