HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What if someone posted th...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:05 AM

What if someone posted the names and addresses of Brady Campaign members?

The linked thread got me thinking of that very thing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022069476

Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

Lots of replies saying it was a great thing, "sunlight is the best disinfectant", etc.

Then I remembered that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will happily sell you
a list of its members/donors

http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=851AEAE3684A547B62BAFA923F0456C1?page=order/online/datacard&id=163065

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - Donors/Members Mailing List

Founded in 1974 (Formerly known as Handgun Control) this public citizens lobby works for legislative controls and governmental regulations on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possesion of guns. Activists are individuals who have responded by mail on a gun control issue.


Of course, you might not have suspected this was available if you had read the BC's posted privacy policy:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=BCP_privacypolicy

Email List Subscription
The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center use your email address to send you news and alerts that you have requested. When subscribing to this and future email lists, the Brady Campaign or Brady Center will collect and store the personal information that you provide. However, the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center will not sell your name or e-mail address to spammers or share it with unaffiliated groups.


I'm thinking that to purchase that list and update it would run around $10K, given that a
prospective purchaser would have to doublecheck the list and purge incorrect entries.
If I had the money to do so, I'd be mighty tempted to do just that-sauce for goose, gander, etc...

Let's see how many here are as dismissive of the privacy of the people they agree
with v. that of people they don't like



36 replies, 2496 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply What if someone posted the names and addresses of Brady Campaign members? (Original post)
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 OP
msongs Dec 2012 #1
jal777 Dec 2012 #2
Fawke Em Dec 2012 #19
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #25
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #5
slackmaster Dec 2012 #20
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #3
-..__... Dec 2012 #15
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #4
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #6
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #7
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #8
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #9
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #11
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #24
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #29
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #14
Jamastiene Dec 2012 #10
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #12
CTyankee Dec 2012 #13
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #16
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #22
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #17
slackmaster Dec 2012 #18
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #21
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #28
kentauros Dec 2012 #32
NealK Dec 2012 #34
kentauros Dec 2012 #36
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #27
randome Dec 2012 #23
slackmaster Dec 2012 #26
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #30
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #31
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #33
NealK Dec 2012 #35

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:25 AM

1. gun registration is PUBLIC INFORMATION, not private, but don't let that fact stop you nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:44 AM

2. Where? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jal777 (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:30 PM

19. That info is kept as part of a function of our government.

The Brady Campaign is a private entity, earning its money through volunteer donations, not from the public tax coffers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:24 PM

25. The Brady Campaign is offering that information for sale, as linked in the OP

Once that gets out, it's out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:17 AM

5. So what's private about the Brady Camapign membership list?

Seeing as the BC itself is shopping it around, that claim is suspect.

(note: I am not an attorney, but only play one on the Internet. Anyone with real legal
knowledge is welcome to chime in)

While the list itself may have a few copyright traps, facts in and of themselves may not be copyrighted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_Pursuit#Fred_Worth_lawsuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service

...Since facts are purely copied from the world around us, O'Connor concludes, "the sine qua non of copyright is originality". However, the standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright.

In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.

The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved. The fact that Rural spent considerable time and money collecting the data was irrelevant to copyright law, and Rural's copyright claim was dismissed...


The seller (the Brady Campaign's broker, presumably) might have grounds for
breach of contract, but a corrected list of names itself is only a collection of facts.

Actually, the BC members/donors might have a case against them for breach of contract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:31 PM

20. That's why it's good that California and most other states don't have gun permits

 

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Too much potential for abuse by the Gladys Kravitz's of the world.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:05 AM

3. In California and Massachusetts they are part of public record.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/

http://www.ehow.com/how_8057675_out-person-registered-gun-california.html

It is not private information in those states.

Brady Campaign donor lists of over $200.00 can be found at Opensecrets.org, among other places, as they fall under campaign donations. NRA donor lists can be found there, also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:16 PM

15. Not even close...

 

Massachusetts...

The commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services, the department of criminal justice information services and its agents, servants, and attorneys including the keeper of the records of the firearms records bureau of said department, or any licensing authority, as defined by chapter one hundred and forty shall not disclose any records divulging or tending to divulge the names and addresses of persons who own or possess firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and names and addresses of persons licensed to carry and/or possess the same to any person, firm, corporation, entity or agency except criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six and except to the extent such information relates solely to the person making the request and is necessary to the official interests of the entity making the request.


http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleX/Chapter66/Section10

The California disclosure law does allow a person to inquire if a particular individual has a registered firearm (they need a name first)

Form your request by identifying that you wish to know if someone has a registered gun by providing your name and contact information as well as the name and home address of the person in question.


http://www.ehow.com/how_8057675_out-person-registered-gun-california.html

There's nothing there that allows a person/entity access to the database of registered firearms owners (here's the list of names of people with registered firearms).

See the difference?

Perhaps CA law does allow disclosure of the list of registered firearms owners, without having to provide a name, however... it's not mentioned in your link).

I would like to know is if someone were to inquire if a particular individual is a registered firearms owner, is that person notified that an inquiry was made, and by whom?

If not... they should be.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:12 AM

4. i'm not gonna look it up

but it would be a felony. you would go to jail. really fast.

you're off to a good start though, leaving a trail of evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:22 AM

6. Why? I would be buying what the Brady Campaign freely sold.

What I'd have left after having gone through and confirmed that these were actual persons
and organizations would be a list of names and addresses, no more and no less.

The list broker might have a tort against me for breach of contract, but what law would have been broken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:38 AM

7. go for it

nobody would care about the list AND you'd go to jail. have fun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:40 AM

8. Why would I go to jail? What crime would I have committed?

"Offending my sensibilities" occurs nowhere in any legal code I know of...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:45 AM

9. go for it

try it, you'll find out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:53 AM

11. answer your own lame OP

lame attempt at stirring up shit

the ONLY person i could imagine caring about your radical list-blowing activities would be a psycho who wants to kill people who don't like guns, is that what you want to happen?

that's my final answer- if you did that, some innocent old lady would get shot by a psychopathic sniper

which is EXACTLY why gun laws are a good idea and we are going to be passing a lot of them very soon

i hope you enjoy the new GUN LAWS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:22 PM

24. Ah, now that it's *your* ox getting gored you don't like it so much...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:55 PM

29. i don't have an ox. i don't like your ox.

i don't like your ax either, the one you are trying to grind here

there are laws against telemarketing, i don't really give a shit if you'd go to jail or not- your post is PROPANGANDA.

watch-
type "brady campaign mailing list" into google- you get THREE links to this 'story'

1.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/06/brady_campaign_39.php

leads to-
********* makes an interesting discovery on the web: Brady Campaign is selling its mailing list.

the bold part is a link that goes to this from the brady campaign site:
DESCRIPTION
Founded in 1974 (Formerly known as Handgun Control) this public citizens lobby works for legislative controls and governmental regulations on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possesion of guns. Activists are individuals who have responded by mail on a gun control issue.
Average Donation $40.00
Note: 12 Mos recency is not available to political mailers
Note: $25/M Non-reciprocal rental fee
Note: No telemarketing allowed
http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=4E50E48AE74CDFCF5003BF799C426259?page=order/online/datacard&id=163065

so, you didn't even check the price, which shows you are full of *it*

2.
http://www.examiner.com/article/more-bad-news-for-the-anti-gun-crowd-as-the-brady-campaign-sells-its-member-list-to-raise-cash
The once-secret Brady Campaign membership numbers were discovered when gun rights activist and blogger ********* found that the Brady Campaign was selling its membership list for direct mail marketing.

the bold leads to NOTHING- i didn't post that link in case it is actually YOU

3.
3 Responses to “On the Brady Campaign selling their mailing list”
Shootin' Buddy Says:
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 am
Not necessarily true as I am certain I am on the list (as a non-contributor). Many gun nuts are on their e-mailings.
Robert Says:
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Also, there are some of them that are bound to be of the “No guns for you, but fine for me” type. Mostly the politicians that decry gun ownership by the “little people”.
Weer'd Beard Says:
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
+1 Robert, a Ton of stalwart Brady supporters (not to mention gunnies who just want to keep an eye on their movements) are all about THEM owning guns and having conceal carry permits or body Guards. They just don’t want “little people” or poor minorities to have guns.
Hell just look a big Brady Flacks Joe Rosenthal, and Rosie Odonell. Both like to keep guns close at hand…just would prefer that be more of a monopoly.


AND this actual thread comes up

SO- are they really selling the list? what answer are you looking for?

and most of all-WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO do something not probably possible, and put innocent people in danger if it was?

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/dec/19/single-issue-solidarity-behind-nras-clout/
A Gun Control Demonstration
On Tuesday, gun control advocates gathered outside the Capitol. Next-of-kin of shooting victims formed a procession to the microphone.
"My name's Jerri Jackson, and my son Matt McQuinn was 27, and he died in the Aurora shooting on July 20," one woman said. "In addition, he saved his girlfriend."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:10 PM

14. charitable donors are public information too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:18 AM

10. imo, both are bad ideas.

I don't think the newspaper should have published those names and I don't think the supporters of gun control should have their names published in any newspapers either. Neither act helps solve the issue of mass shootings in kindergartens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:02 PM

12. i'm not done yet

i'd also like to add that i am on that list, i don't give a flying fuck if you do.

try to post something constructive instead of fanning paranoia on both sides.

capeesh?

any other ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:09 PM

13. I like your spunk. I feel the same way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:22 PM

16. Public information is public.

I'm sure you can find my name and address in all kinds of ways even though I don't own a gun.

But I thought that legal gun owners had nothing to be afraid of. You're all armed, after all. What's the prob?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:12 PM

22. I'm not a gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:27 PM

17. As a Brady Campaign donor, it would be 100% legal and legitimate

 

and I would have no problems with it since it is a matter of public record.

I'm not some coward, unlike gun owners in uproars about public information being, well, public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:28 PM

18. In 1989 Rebecca Shaeffer was murdered by a stalker who got her address from the California DMV

 

Maybe it's time for states to make it a little harder for personal information about citizens to be released wholesale to anyone.



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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:42 PM

21. and she's not alone (in heaven if you're into that)

Prison in DMV bribery scandal
ShareThis
By JAMES A. KIMBLE
Union Leader Correspondent

BRENTWOOD — Two key participants in the New Hampshire Department of Motor Vehicles bribery case were sent to state prison on Friday, despite pleas for leniency from their family and friends.

***
Rockholt and Medina were convicted of essentially using the state's DMV office in Salem as their personal licensing mill: selling fraudulent driver's licenses to scores of people trying to dodge law enforcement because they were in the country illegally, sold drugs or were involved in other crimes.


maybe if we can't trust state DMVs with identity, federal licensing for guns might be a good idea?

maybe 23 years would have been plenty of time?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:26 PM

28. It's nice that you think that the Feds can be trusted with personal information

One rarely encounters people with such an optimistic attitude these days...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

32. It's not as "rare" as you seem to think.

I trust that the FBI will only share my full set of fingerprints with those agencies or law enforcement that might need them (I won't say how they got them.)

The difference here is that the feds aren't in the "business" of selling personal info like the states are. Try setting up a DBA ("Doing Business As"). You will quickly learn how your state sells all of your new personal information to those that market to new businesses. Junkmail overload!

That kind of thing didn't happen when I got my federally-issued passport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentauros (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:11 PM

34. "I trust that the FBI will only share my full set of fingerprints... I won't say how they got them."

I know what you did last summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NealK (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:18 PM

36. Then you'll have to share with me

because even I don't remember what I did last summer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:26 PM

27. Which ius why CA no one allows DMV info to be released

Except by court order. Many other states have followed suit, and also have release controls on other "public information."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:20 PM

23. It's a fair question.

Whether or not Brady Campaign donors is public information seems to be uncertain, judging from some of the replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #23)


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:56 PM

30. just so nobody misses it

watch-
type "brady campaign mailing list" into google- you get THREE links to this 'story'

1.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/06/brady_campaign_39.php

leads to-
********* makes an interesting discovery on the web: Brady Campaign is selling its mailing list.

the bold part is a link that goes to this from the brady campaign site:
DESCRIPTION
Founded in 1974 (Formerly known as Handgun Control) this public citizens lobby works for legislative controls and governmental regulations on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possesion of guns. Activists are individuals who have responded by mail on a gun control issue.
Average Donation $40.00
Note: 12 Mos recency is not available to political mailers
Note: $25/M Non-reciprocal rental fee
Note: No telemarketing allowed
http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=4E50E48AE74CDFCF5003BF799C426259?page=order/online/datacard&id=163065

so, you didn't even check the price, which shows you are full of *it*

2.
http://www.examiner.com/article/more-bad-news-for-the-anti-gun-crowd-as-the-brady-campaign-sells-its-member-list-to-raise-cash
The once-secret Brady Campaign membership numbers were discovered when gun rights activist and blogger ********* found that the Brady Campaign was selling its membership list for direct mail marketing.

the bold leads to NOTHING- i didn't post that link in case it is actually YOU

3.
3 Responses to “On the Brady Campaign selling their mailing list”
Shootin' Buddy Says:
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 am
Not necessarily true as I am certain I am on the list (as a non-contributor). Many gun nuts are on their e-mailings.
Robert Says:
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Also, there are some of them that are bound to be of the “No guns for you, but fine for me” type. Mostly the politicians that decry gun ownership by the “little people”.
Weer'd Beard Says:
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
+1 Robert, a Ton of stalwart Brady supporters (not to mention gunnies who just want to keep an eye on their movements) are all about THEM owning guns and having conceal carry permits or body Guards. They just don’t want “little people” or poor minorities to have guns.
Hell just look a big Brady Flacks Joe Rosenthal, and Rosie Odonell. Both like to keep guns close at hand…just would prefer that be more of a monopoly.

AND this actual thread comes up

SO- are they really selling the list? what answer are you looking for?

and most of all-WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO do something not probably possible, and put innocent people in danger if it was?

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/dec/19/single-issue-solidarity-behind-nras-clout/
A Gun Control Demonstration
On Tuesday, gun control advocates gathered outside the Capitol. Next-of-kin of shooting victims formed a procession to the microphone.
"My name's Jerri Jackson, and my son Matt McQuinn was 27, and he died in the Aurora shooting on July 20," one woman said. "In addition, he saved his girlfriend."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:04 PM

31. newspapers exercising their 1A rights.

As long as they are not breaking any laws, the press can publish what it wishes to publish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:23 PM

33. Anyone who got their hands on the BC membership list could do the same.

AFAIK, the only legal problem they might have would be a possible breach
of contract with the list broker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:15 PM

35. "JEWISH DONORS/MEMBERS (36 MOS) + $15.00/M "

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread