On the accepted notions of privacy of modern society.

[gorfle]

So recently one of our members was going on about how terrible it was to have private information handed over when you gave someone an FOID card that contained the same information as your driver's license, and how my idea of putting the FOID on the back of a driver's license was so out of step with modern society's notion of privacy.

Here we hear from Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (of Canada) who says Internet service providers should be able to provide private user information without a warrant.

So much for society's modern notions of privacy, eh?

[iverglas]

1. uh

What fool would hold Peter Van Loan up as representing "modern society"?

Get a grip.

[iverglas]

2. but having read your little memo

Here we hear from Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (of Canada) who says Internet service providers should be able to provide private user information without a warrant.

So?

Are internet service providers THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT?

I didn't think so.


Jeezus keeriste. If you're going to start threads with drivel about ME, at least get it straight, eh?

My objections to your little scheme are based on a couple of principles, that can be generally stated as follows, and will of course, as most principles, be subject to exceptions where justification is shown.

Personal information disclosed to THE GOVERNMENT or otherwise in the possession of THE GOVERNMENT must be subject to stringent controls, and not disclosed by THE GOVERNMENT to anyone for purposes for which it did not come into its possession.

Individuals should not be required to disclose information to NON-STATE AGENTS that they have provided to the government FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, and legislation should not require that NON-STATE AGENTS who are NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC OVERSIGHT retain records of the personal information of individuals.

Lordy.

[gorfle]

3. Did I say they were?

Are internet service providers THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT?

Did I say they were?

No.

I said the Public Safety Minister of the Canadian government, one heralded by you as a paragon of privacy advocacy, is saying that Internet service providers should be able to provide private user information without a warrant.

Which kind of refutes your ideas about "modern notions of privacy".

[iverglas]

4. dear me, you are confused

I said the Public Safety Minister of the Canadian government, one heralded by you as a paragon of privacy advocacy

Really? Where did I do that heralding?

Where have you seen me herald ANYTHING that the CONSERVATIVE PARTY, which has been in power federally here since 2006 (albeit with minority status that has put a slight crimp in its ugly style), has EVER done?


Are internet service providers THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT?
Did I say they were?
No.
Which kind of refutes your ideas about "modern notions of privacy".

It would.

If I had EVER been saying ANYTHING about ANYTHING other than disclosure of personal information BY A GOVERNMENT.

I thought I'd already made that demolition of your "point" clear.

Next time you see me hold up one of your right-wing asshole politicians as a paragon of anything, let alone anything modern, you let me know.

Meanwhile, you'd do well not to try that trick in reverse with me, even though this particular attempted trick turns out to have fallen completely flat at the starting box.

Honestly, one despairs.


html fixed

[gorfle]

5. You didn't.

Really? Where did I do that heralding?

Where have you seen me herald ANYTHING that the CONSERVATIVE PARTY, which has been in power federally here since 2006 (albeit with minority status that has put a slight crimp in its ugly style), has EVER done?

I'm not going to go dig up the quotes, because I'm not interested in playing the "who me" game with you.

I'll simply paraphrase that you were touting that my concepts of privacy were at odds with that of modern civilized societies. I'm assuming that you were speaking of Canada as one of those societies which would not tolerate having private information on an FOID card or having and FOID number on a driver's license.

Conservative, liberal, whatever, it's a member of the Canadian government advocating that ISPs hand over private data without a warrant.


It would.

If I had EVER been saying ANYTHING about ANYTHING other than disclosure of personal information BY A GOVERNMENT.

No Iverglas. What it shows is that even Canada, the paragon of modern notions of privacy to hear you tell it, has a government that shits all over the notion of privacy when it has a shot at a power grab.

Here you are getting upset over the data printed on a driver's license and your government is advocating turning over all your internet activities to itself without a warrant.

Your trust in "government" is freakishly and astonishingly frightening.

[iverglas]

8. what's all this noise?

I'll simply paraphrase that you were touting that my concepts of privacy were at odds with that of modern civilized societies. I'm assuming that you were speaking of Canada as one of those societies which would not tolerate having private information on an FOID card or having and FOID number on a driver's license.

Yes ... and ...?

Your thread is only relevant *IF* Canadian society = the right-wing Conservative government that has been in power since 2006 with just over 1/3 of the popular vote and a minority of seats in the House of Commons.

Here's a hint. It doesn't.

Canadian society recognizes the equal rights of gay men and lesbians when it comes to marriage. Equality rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have been recognized in many ways since 1982 by the Supreme Court of Canada. And yet provincial governments refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples until forced (with the backing of many churches, for instance) to do so by the courts. Just for instance.

Society does not = the government of the day.

Luckily for the US under successive Bush administrations, eh?

And I HAVE NEVER SAID that "Canada <is> one of those societies which would not tolerate having private information on an FOID card or having and FOID number on a driver's license".

For fuck's sake. Canadians have to have licences in order to acquire and possess firearms. Canadians WHO WISH to acquire and possess firearms, and WHO CHOOSE to apply for licences.

Canadians who don't have any such desires do NOT have information about their firearms eligibility on their driver's licences, let alone as an opt-out scheme such as you are in love with, and WOULD NOT TOLERATE that.

Stop making false statements about what I have said.

If you don't understand what I say, go post about something else.


And IN ANY EVENT, this still has FUCK ALL to do with the disclosure of information BY a private entity TO the government.

See that?

One is disclosure BY the government.
The other is disclosure BY a private entity.

Can you really not tell the difference?

I don't give a flying fuck whether the difference doesn't matter to you.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. A great big giant honking difference.


What it shows is that even Canada, the paragon of modern notions of privacy to hear you tell it, has a government that shits all over the notion of privacy when it has a shot at a power grab.

I'm still trying to figure out what duty an ISP has to keep its customers' information secret.

But I'll just refer you back to the fact that this whole thing is

- a proposal by a minister in the government of the day, NOT law or anything like it

- a proposal by a minister of a particular right-wing government that does not represent the values of Canadian society

But you keep on pretending to know something about what you're talking about / pretending you think what you're saying.

[gorfle]

14. The only difference.

One is disclosure BY the government.
The other is disclosure BY a private entity.

Can you really not tell the difference?

The only difference is you trust your government but not private entities.

Foolish.

[iverglas]

19. you are a ludicrous one you are

But I gotta give it to you, you try really hard.

Try really hard to misrepresent, that is. Is there a prize for that somewhere?

[slackmaster]

6. I think anyone who is prohibited from owning a firearm should have his or her DL stamped

Like a scarlet letter, so that anyone can avoid selling a used weapon illegally.

[gorfle]

7. Nah, privacy invasion.

I think anyone who is prohibited from owning a firearm should have his or her DL stamped Like a scarlet letter, so that anyone can avoid selling a used weapon illegally.

The problem is this marks the person as either a felon or a lunatic. I don't think this information needs to be handed out with driver's licenses.

Instead of marking those who are prohibited, mark those who are illegible, while allowing people to opt-out of being marked at all. This having the mark means you are illegible to own firearms, while not having the mark means you either opted-out, are a felon, or are a lunatic. Since no one can know which is the case, no damning information is given away.

[iverglas]

10. nah, personal information

held by a public authority for a particular purpose, being disclosed for a purpose that has nothing to do with the purpose for which it is held and nothing to do with the interests of the person to whom it belongs, without justification.

But you knew that.


How about if your driver's licence is used to mark you as eligible for voting, too?

You can opt out if you like. That way, no one would know whether you are ineligible because of your criminal history, or just don't like voting.

Seems reasonable to me.

[gorfle]

15. Seems reasonable to me, too.

How about if your driver's licence is used to mark you as eligible for voting, too?

You can opt out if you like. That way, no one would know whether you are ineligible because of your criminal history, or just don't like voting.

Seems reasonable to me.

I would not have a problem with that. I already have a voter registration card in my wallet right next to my driver's license anyway, and I have to show my driver's license when I go to vote. Why not include this information on my driver's license?

nah, personal information held by a public authority for a particular purpose, being disclosed for a purpose that has nothing to do with the purpose for which it is held and nothing to do with the interests of the person to whom it belongs, without justification.

What I am proposing doing is changing the particular purpose of the driver's license or state-issued ID. Such that the information will be disclosed for a purpose that then does have to do with the purpose for which it is held.

It is in the interest of the person to whom it belongs because they are doing their part to help insure that firearms are only sold to people eligible to own them, and that is likewise the justification. It's part of the compromise for firearm owners agreeing to have to have licenses to exercise their Constitutionally-enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

However, anyone who wants to can opt-out of participating at all.

But like I said, we can negate your whole argument by simply issuing a separate FOID license to everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, except those who choose to opt out. It would be an added cost though.

[slackmaster]

11. Driving is a privilege

We already make people do things like submit thumbprints (at least in my state), take a vision test, and demonstrate that you can read at least the driver's handbook, the written test, and road signs.

The problem is this marks the person as either a felon or a lunatic.

Because the person IS a felon or a lunatic, or an unlawful drug user, or dishonorably discharged from the military, or a perpetrator of domestic violence, or is in the country illegally. IOW someone to whom I would not provide with a firearm.

What's the problem with that? :shrug:

[iverglas]

12. wtf?

Driving is a privilege

Yeah, so is breathing. After all, there's no right to breathe in that Constitution thing of yours.


"The problem is this marks the person as either a felon or a lunatic."
Because the person IS a felon or a lunatic, or an unlawful drug user, or dishonorably discharged from the military, or a perpetrator of domestic violence, or is in the country illegally.
What's the problem with that?

Nothing at all, eh?

Perhaps YOU have had an STD in the past. Or got caught cheating on your grade 12 math exam. Let's mark that on your driver's licence too. Enquiring minds might want to know.

[gorfle]

16. The problem with that.

The problem is you have to present your ID for a variety of things in daily life. I don't think it's fair to brand such people with a scarlet letter that can have serious repercussions for them in terms of availability of services, employment, or a host of other ways to be discriminated against once people figure out you are ineligible to own firearms.

It's also very easy to negate the problem. Rather than indicate ineligibility, indicate illegibility, with provisions for opt-out.

[slackmaster]

21. We are required by law to discriminate against people who are prohibited from having firearms

We can't provide them with firearms.

Rather than indicate ineligibility, indicate illegibility, with provisions for opt-out.

My mom sent me to typing class when I was a kid because of my (handwriting's) illegibility. Years later I was very glad she did. ;-)

[iverglas]

22. one would be hard pressed

to find such fine examples of disingenuous discourse most anywhere else in the world, wouldn't one?

[iverglas]

23. I really do keep wanting to know

"Driving is a privilege"

If you pass the requisite tests, meet the requisite requirements (age, residence, visual acuity ...) and have no disqualifying characteristics (traffic violations, medical conditions ...) -- are you entitled to have a driver's licence issued to you?

If, assuming all of the foregoing, you were denied a driver's licence, what would you do?

If you challenged the denial, what leg would you be standing on?

[iverglas]

9. it's okay

I'm already perfectly aware that those who support the gun militant agenda have not an iota of concern for other people's interests or respect for other people's rights.

[gorfle]

17. No more than you have for mine.

I'm already perfectly aware that those who support the gun militant agenda have not an iota of concern for other people's interests or respect for other people's rights.

No more than you have for mine. You have no respect for my right to privacy as a firearm owner. Why should I respect yours?

[iverglas]

13. such short memories around here

I actually had an excellent proposal for implementing this thought about eligibility/ineligibility.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175418&mesg_id=175525

put it in the data strip. Ta da. And anyone needing to read the data strip for one purpose would not have a reader to get the data that's there for another purpose.

and later in that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175418&mesg_id=176041

Data strips can include a huge range of information. They can be made so that only certain readers will read certain information. Firearms eligibility could be one of those pieces of information. Readers that could read that particular information could be tightly controlled.

Hell, readers could be set up in gummint offices. Or shopping malls. Or gunne shoppes. Or shows. People wanting to engage in private firearms transactions would go there, the purchaser would swipe his/her card and enter a PIN number, and authorization would be given or denied, in the form of a printout that would contain no identifying information unless authorization were given, that the seller would retain in records.


editing just to change that last bit -- probably best (from the paranoid gunhead point of view) if

(a) a denial of authorization simply results in a "no printout" response

(b) a grant of authorization results in a printout with a date/time stamp and confirmation of the grant of authorization

-- I gather the NICS system can't retain info about the request for a search, but I'm not clear about what the dealer does. Retains the form, right? With things like name and address etc.? I'd be concerned about private parties (not subject to the requirements of a dealer licence, which presumably include not disclosing personal info) having info of that nature, myself.

Identity document remains in possession of person to whom it belongs.

Firearms eligiblity data is in the datastrip.

Access to that data is PIN-protected.

Report given to seller of firearm contains only the date and time and identifying number of the NICS query. I suppose it might be wise to have a provision for showing the firearm transaction itself was completed or not completed.

It appears that the problem is that the NICS system currently doesn't retain the necessary identifying information. And I would personally object to a firearms seller who is not a licensed dealer retaining identifying personal information about the buyer, if this system were to apply to where I am.

Licensed dealers in the US apparently retain identifying personal information about purchasers which can be accessed by government agencies. It seems there's a great big huge difference between that and retention of the information by the government authority.

So I guess my clever scheme leaves the same problem: where the identifying personal information about the purchaser is to be kept.

[gorfle]

18. I'm OK with that.

I could live with the FOID information being encoded in machine-readable-only form on your driver's license or state-issued ID. It is an inconvenience to the buyer and seller in that you have to go someplace that has a reader, but not that big a deal.

To eliminate your concern about the seller having the private data about the buyer: This information could be encrypted on the printout, such that only law-enforcement could read it.

[iverglas]

20. Interesting solution

To eliminate your concern about the seller having the private data about the buyer: This information could be encrypted on the printout, such that only law-enforcement could read it.

I have no clue how it works, but if it does, then there you are!