Guntrader breach perp: I don't think it's a crime to dump 111k people's details online in Google Earth format The person who reformatted the Guntrader hack data as a Google Earth-compatible CSV has said they are prepared to go to prison – while denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence. The pseudonymous person spoke to The Register by email late last week after dumping the personal data of 111,000 UK firearm and shotgun …
Whether or not an action amounts to a criminal offence is generally for the Public Prosecutor to decide. The perp may disagree, but they're at a disadvantage in the argument, as it depends on the law at the time in question rather then being a matter of opinion.
Whether the action should be a criminal offence is quite a different matter, and is indeed a legitimate matter of opinion, although the opposing parties are liable to have predictable positions on it.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek, and in itself overgeneralized social commentary, for a bit of irony. It expounded in what the poster above me initially stated, in a way that I felt would add humor to the situation while still providing thoughtful stimulation.
Truly, while I do not fully understand where I have err'd, I hereby and formally apologize to those grievously offended by my shameful post. I will send myself to the gallows.
Assuming rhat everyone who owns a shotgun can be lumped in with the Hunting Crowd as the OP seems to think that it's a black and white issue?
I own what is technically a shotgun, and is registered as such, but have no truck with those who hunt inedible wild animals for 'sport'.
As my muzzle loading replica musket is only proofed for blank firing, I wouldn't even use it to shoot rats!
Had wondered about reenactment firearms, but why would you go to a site like GunTrader to buy or sell a reenactment firearm?
Then again, I did point out to the police (a long time ago when I was involved with reenactment) - it would be a particularly desperate criminal who stole a musket and tried to threaten someone with it...
*hefting the musket* Hands up! And keep them up. What do you mean I don't have any slow match? I've got a lighter! Primed the pan? What the hell are you talking about? Is it loaded? Look, mate, I've got this gun and... ooof! Stop that! I'm warning you! ouch! Don't hit me! Ouch! Stop it! Ouch! I surrender! Seriously, stop hitting me with that walking stick you mad old bat!
there are plenty of people like me who would not know the difference between a non working replica and something that would hurt me or those around me.
plenty of kids been shot by police | soldiers because they where carrying something someone thought was a gun. The current leader of Londons police force was even responsible for the team who took someone out because........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Harry_Stanley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Had wondered about reenactment firearms, but why would you go to a site like GunTrader to buy or sell a reenactment firearm?
Some of the clay pigeon crowd owned very guici examples; ie:-
https://www.henrykrank.com/guns/muzzle-loading-guns/muzzle-loading-flintlock-rifles-shotguns/pedersoli-brown-bess-flintlock-muzzle-loading-musket-75cal.html
When they go to sell after they get fed up with the novelty and not being able to hit the target, they tend to do so on a site like that, and then find that the majority of the market for a musket is re-enactors, and since the cost of an indian replica (new) is about £400, that's about the going price for a second hand guicci musket so somebody picks it up from there.
"It is ultimately for the court to decide"
The courts decide on innocence or guilt in respect of an alleged offence as defined by current statute or regulation, not on whether an action constitutes an offence or not. They don't make the law - that privilege ultimately rests with Parliament in the UK.
Yes they do decide whether the action constitutes an offence.
In a jury trial, the jury decides whether they did it, and the judge decides whether or not it is legal.
In appeal hearings, it is always about whether or not it is legal.
The courts decide on innocence or guilt in respect of an alleged offence as defined by current statute or regulation, not on whether an action constitutes an offence or not.
<coughClive Ponting<cough>
They don't make the law - that privilege ultimately rests with Parliament in the UK.
<cough>Common law<cough>
Not entirely true you can always bring a private prosecution, I sadly had this after Mr Branson hired a ex SAS and MI5 agent to follow me and my boss for a year :( Police couldn't care less and weren't interested in the free tv, my barister actually asked me if I'd fix his box, crazy times.
According to elReg’s article, The blogger simply rearranged columns in an existing csv file and republished it.
Nobody seems concerned that the original file (still out there) has the same information in it, and could be used as is by those same boogeyman terrorists.
Nor is there any reaction to the association who keeps and distributes their own database of protesters- presumably with an intent to more easily harass or intimidate them.
The internet is great at showing that it is simpler to rage against the superficial than it is to actually address root causes…
The original csv was loaded with malware (namely a tracking pixel) for which the original hacker was banned from the hacking forum in question (which I’m sure has not stopped them signing up under another nom de plume). Consequently it only saw limited circulation.
By re-publishing (with instructions for importing to Google Earth) but - more importantly - inciting harassment of the people named in the leak, the perpetrator has quite probably committed separate and individual offences.
Obviously everyone is very concerned about the data being out there in the first place. But you won’t get the genie back in the bottle. People reformatting the data and inciting direct action/harassment is a new and independent offence, and is certainly not “raging against the superficial”.
"According to elReg’s article, The blogger simply rearranged columns in an existing csv file and republished it."
Yes, that's obviously criminal, when you describe it like that. Republishing, publishing in the first place, same offence.
"Nobody seems concerned that the original file (still out there) has the same information in it"
There is a great deal of concern about that. But the egg can't be unbroken.
"Nor is there any reaction to the association who keeps and distributes their own database of protesters- presumably with an intent to more easily harass or intimidate them."
No, because 'Ernie' is a loony and that part is a fantasy of theirs.
You can have an upvote but it is true that the plod keeps a database of any hippie types and travellers alongside vehicles and tattoos. If they decide you should be in it they can force you to bear tattoos for photos.
It's pretty humiliating.
You can bet your life lord of the Manor is not subject to the same policing practices.
Of course these facts don't justify Ernie treating anyone with a gun as a foxhunter. Two wrong don't make a right.
The hippie database is no fantasy, I'm in it.
"Nobody seems concerned that the original file (still out there) has the same information in it, and could be used as is by those same boogeyman terrorists."
RTFM
According to the article;
Detective Inspector Louise Boyce from the South West Regional Cyber Crime Unit (SW RCCU) told The Register last week: "Our criminal investigation into the Guntrader data breach continues and we are pursuing a number of lines of enquiry to identify those responsible for both the original offence and further publishing of the stolen data online."
Providing a shopping list for the UK's criminal fraternity as well as causing gun owners to now be forced to increase their home protection could not possibly be a cause for 'terror'.
No doubt the SWRCCU have their excuses and PR well prepared when a family is murdered in their home for their firearms collection.
Well he's going to be getting an earful now, I'd wager.
And rightly so.
It may not be a criminal offense, but he had no authority to publish data concerning the private lives of over 100K people, whether or not he likes whatever activity he thinks they have.
I inherited two rifles from my late father-in-law. I never have wanted a firearm at home, now I have two. Is he going to lump me in with the hunters he very visibly doesn't like ?
I don't see that he's making any effort to make a difference. 5-year-old data doesn't phase him one bit. Collateral damage is obviously not his problem.
In short, he's a terrorist.
Jail the fucker.
I agree that this fucker should be jailed, as he's clearly putting people in danger.
However: for what offence?
It's not clear to me that he's infringed the DPA or GDPR, as what he seems to have done is reformatted data already out there. There doesn't seem to be any indication he was the original leaker. And I don't think the DPA applies to individuals anyway, as it's more aimed at businesses and government.
Incitement to violence? I'm not sure he was actively advocating violence against the targets (although he could be seen as abetting it if someone is injured), in the same way as the CA's list of hunt saboteurs doesn't (directly) incite violence against them. You could argue that this is strongly inferred but you'd have to prove it in court.
Terrorism seems to have been ruled out already, although I'm not convinced that the very vague definition of "terrorism" offences couldn't be stretched to cover this.
Is there an "Endangering Public Safety" or similar offence in the UK??
Felony level stupidity? Something this anti-social will be treated to as many different charges as ambitious prosecutors can think of. It will be the job of the defense to whittle it down to a few.
The charge I don't see their royal selves escaping is reckless endangerment.
There is a requirement to register yourself as a data processor which it seems highly unlikely to have down. it is then necessary to specify what uses data will be retained for. He has also not gained permission to use the data from the person it relates to.
I could go on but these are just the basics.
I hope that when found he is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This could and should include a prison sentence and a long term of probation, on release, where his access to computing devices is severely restricted.
Let's just be clear, just because someone runs a blog does not make them a journalist. Journalists tend to stick to an editorial code (although one has to question which editorial code certain broadsheets comply with these days) and tend to not be totally irresponsible.
But there we are.
Journalists tend to stick to an editorial code...
Yeah:
1. more ads viewed are better;
2. always base your facts on facebook and twitter;
3. clickbait! clickbait! clickbai!
4. he who pays is always right
5. do not bite the hand that feeds you.
Did I miss anything?
The days of real journalism are waaay into the past.
Harsh. Advertising has funded journalism since the first newspapers, and some handle it well and some do not - eg the Telegraph not running any criticism of HSBC's mexican-drug lord money laundering, because they're a major advertiser. Google "Peter Oborne Telegraph" for details. And it's a two edged sword - advertisers pulling content from Fox or Breitbart when their propaganda gets a bit much to stomach is no bad thing.
As for the rest, ironically you might want to check your facts. If your news articles have "one weird trick" in the title, or if it comes from some tit ranting on youtube or facebook, it's not journalism. Find a newsource with an editor, and that's big enough to sue. Keeps people honest.
I wasn't aware that fox hunters carried guns on their horses. Obviously there is some overlap on the venn diagram of fox hunters, game shooters and other shooters, but there will also be plenty outside it. As far as I'm aware the majority of shooters aren't hunters.
Where I grew up there was a lot of pheasant shooting, and fox hunting. Most people I knew of usually only participated in one sport. ie some people preferred shooting and only did that, other people preferred hunting and stuck to horses. Makes sense, both guns and horses are expensive and most people can't afford to have both hobbies.
There is however, a lot of overlap socially and politically.
I wasn't aware that fox hunters carried guns on their horses. Obviously there is some overlap on the venn diagram of fox hunters, game shooters and other shooters, but there will also be plenty outside it. As far as I'm aware the majority of shooters aren't hunters.
Traditionally not. These days of course all hunting is (at least notionally) drag hunting. The master or another officer of the hunt tends to carry a firearm in case the hounds pick up the scent of a live fox and depart from the drag scent. This allows them to dispatch a fox legally rather than letting the hounds on it unlawfully.
(Hunt Sabs would argue with the intent or sincerity of drag hunting, but that's not relevant to this aspect).
As you say, after counting out target and clay shooters, the proportion of firearm owners who hold firearms for hunting are almost universally those conducting pest control (including the shooting of foxes), wildfowling and activities such as deer stalking (necessitated by the local extinction of European wolves).
The overwhelming majority of shooters do not ride out with the mounted fox hunts. On a fox hunt only one rider (at most) will be carrying a firearm. Many riders will not own firearms or only have a shotgun for clay shooting. The venn diagrams touch, but only just.
@rg287
You missed out the huge numbers of pheasant / grouse shooters.
They do not come into "pest"* control wildfowling or deer stalking that you mentioned.
* foxes are not pests, I live in a rural area, farms all around me, lots of foxes, lots of people with "fowl" such as chickens, ducks, geese for eggs. Foxes do not take any of these birds because they are safely locked up at night, can get to safe areas in daytime if foxes out in the day. Foxes only a pest if you do not look after your egg laying birds (in general foxes useful as reduce rat, rabbit etc. numbers that can affect farmers crops)
I also missed out the-enactors, S7 collectors and a bunch of others. It wasn’t intended to be a comprehensive list of all firearm uses.
* foxes are not pests
That depends rather on the fox. Depending on the local habitat and their wariness of humans, some foxes are quite content to look after themselves and keep away from people. If that’s the case then you would indeed be churlish to seek them out - if for no other reason than a new - bolshier - fox may move into the territory.
You shouldn’t shoot foxes for the sake of it, but when they start taking lambs or indeed pursue fowl in the daytime then they do indeed become a pest.
The last time I saw a British fox, it was in the City, on Wood Street. I've also often seen horses in the same area (a block away, at the corner of Wood Street and Love Lane). Coincidence? Perhaps... or maybe the people with horses were hunting the foxes, not realizing that there was a metaphor in place which has got extremely strained by the odd fact of sighting an urban fox a few yards from the City Police's horse-parking area...
I grew up in the country, and my folks still live there, and foxes were never a problem (unsupervised dogs have killed a number of our chickens however). The closest you'd ever see one was the other side of field, and they'd bolt if you got any closer.
Now I live in a city, and the foxes are happy to sit there until you get closer than about 1 metre.
You don't have a gun in the UK for self defence. If you use one for such purposes, expect to find yourself in court.
You can't own it for self-defence. The case law on usage trends the other way.
I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation.If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take.
You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.
– (Judge) Michael Pert QC, September 2012
Of course this requires that you shoot in legitimate self-defence. If you shoot someone in the back as they flee then that's murder in pretty much the entire western world, including the US. But if you somehow have time to retrieve your gun from a locked cabinet then burglars beware. British case law absolutely entitles you to use it in self-defence as a weapon that "came to hand". Subject to the "reasonable and proportionate force" test of course.
Look lads I'm as in favour of disrupting those Berkeley Hunts what attend the Berkeley Hunt as the next soft-left urbanite, but mass doxxing a load of personal information of high interest to very dangerous criminal types, without even any kind of idea or regard as to whether any of the people you're doxxing are the people you intended to doxx is very much not cricket.
Speaking as a complete layman when it comes to the law, could "Ernie" not be charged with various "Conspiracy to" charges? For example, conspiracy to commit burglary (he/they have published addresses), conspiracy to incite violence (he/they have published addresses where firearms are allegedly stored), conspiracy to commit murder (if one of the aforementioned weapons is subsequently stolen and used in a murder or attempted murder) and so on.
While I have no issues with "Ernie"'s own moral or political beliefs, does he/they not realise the potential danger that he has created for all these people whose data has been leaked?
For the record, I have never owned a firearm, have no intention of ever owning one and have no links to anyone who has. But if anyone wishes to own one, as long as they are responsible and all checks have been carried out, why not?
Similarly, if you are against firearms, then please go ahead and campaign correctly against them.
I have no issue with, or preference, for either side of this argument.
Finally, from the self-righteous way that "Ernie" has described his actions, essentially turning it into a moral crusade where we are the ones responsible to analyse his data carefully before deciding which action to take against the owner of the property and it's not his fault if we don't analyse the data properly then, frankly, he is (to use a legal term), a dick.
"does he/they not realise"
"self-righteous"
You've answered your own question. Ernie, and folks like him, just don't care. The ends, however imagined, justify the means to people like this. Collateral damage doesn't bother them as they view themselves as the moral superior, and those they target as irredeemable.
In the US this situation would be even worse I fear, as the gun owners here overwhelmingly keep them for self/home protection. So while some may be more hesitant to visit these addresses, of those that will, they are more likely to be caught in a shootout.
Thankfully, we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US, so there's no list to be stolen and given to "perps". And, well... we get to have better, and more numerous, firearms here than in the UK, so "crusaders" would be ill-advised to attempt foolishness like this Ernie alludes to, were there such a list. However, it would be a boon to burglars, crack-heads, and out-of-ammo gangbangers.
" I imagine there are private companies in the US with similar databases, eg the NRA, or Smith & Wesson."
Nope. The only list the NRA has is a list of the suckers who've continued to fund Wayne Lapierre's salary and exorbitant lifestyle (the GOA is where the real action is these days). They don't know squat about who owns firearms or what they own.
Similar for S&W or any of the other manufacturers - they don't sell to the public, they sell to distributors or retailers (FFLs), who then sell it on to the public. Again, the manufacturers don't know who their end users are (unless they send in a warranty registration card).
We do sort of have something similar to GunTree, called GunBroker (and it's just the biggest of several). It's an online auction site that sells guns, ammo, parts, etc. However, to the best of my knowledge, they don't track serial numbers or report the results of their auctions to the government, they just collect the money, take their cut, and send the remainder to the seller - kind of like Ebay/Paypal for guns. The actual firearm transfer is carried out at the buyer's Federal Firearms Licensee, when the buyer picks up the firearm. That paperwork is then put into the FFLs filing cabinet, hopefully to never be seen again, unless the Authorities specifically request it.
Lots and lots of guns, ammo, and parts get sold and traded in online forums, which are even less involved in the sale than GunBroker.
Apparently in the USA, "it is against the law to have computers that house a searchable database that might be construed as a registry of guns".
Source - from 7:00 -> 8:00 in the video.
Not sure if this is just for govmt institutions, or if it also includes private companies/citizens owning such.
In the US it would seem that to get the same result, a perp would have to steal several tonnes of paper from a warehouse, then manually process it all.
Thankfully, we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US, so there's no list to be stolen and given to "perps".
You certainly do. State Databases of Concealed Carry Permit holders, the list of everyone FFL have done background checks against, anyone with an Illinois FOID card, users of gunbroker.
None of those are comprehensive, nor do they constitute a registry of who owns what. But they do all constitute a list of people with more than a passing interest in firearms. Exactly like this breach - which is a of guntradet users (where anyone can make an account, you might only dabble in airsoft or airguns - you don’t necessarily have a Firearm/Shotgun Certificate).
This exact scenario could definitely happen in the US, whether it was a private, state or federal database that got lost.
There’s also the list of NFA firearms which are registered and rather more closely monitored.
Unfortunately, the incidents of death by firearms in the USA is appallingly high. In the UK firearm deaths number less that 70 per YEAR. In the USA they total over 39,000 per YEAR. Just a tad higher.
It appears that guns do NOT save lives in the USA, quite the opposite. It might make you "feel" safer but in reality it is more of a danger.
So many deaths due to suicide, so many deaths linked to police, but that still leaves a large number..
To quote Statista.
"In 2020, there were 1,021 fatal police shootings, and in 2019 there were 999 fatal shootings"
To quote "health.ucdavis.edu"
"There were 39,707 deaths from firearms in the U.S. in 2019. Sixty percent of deaths from firearms in the U.S. are suicides. In 2019, 23,941 people in the U.S. died by firearm suicide"
So again, how safe are Americans with all their firearms? The Answer is "not very"!
When you give away firearms with Cornfakes with almost no checks on the people owning them you have got to accept the consequences.
"When you give away firearms with Cornfakes with almost no checks on the people owning them you have got to accept the consequences."
And, eh, we do. People die. It's sad, but it happens. As you said, 60% were by people intent on ending their own lives, the firearm just gave them a quick way to do so. So that leaves 16,000 other deaths. I'm sure the FBI has the numbers broken down somewhere. But in that same year, we also had some 10,000 deaths from drunk driving, so where are the lines of people preaching for prohibition to keep Americans safe from the dangers and evils of drunk-driving? Why is the focus so squarely on firearm deaths, when cars + alcohol are the same magnitude of deadly?
This post has been deleted by its author
...while I wouldn't personally be particularly upset if this "Ernie" turned up to a hunt and got accidentally shot in the face, based on his attitude, I don't actually see why reformatting the data for Google Earth makes it any more accessible or dangerous versus its original form. As I understand it, the original form included a spreadsheet with names, addresses and postcodes, so an animal rights nutter looking for local gun owners could simply search on city or postcode - does putting it on a map really make any difference?
It makes it easier to see, in "picture" form, where the regsitered holders are located and you can easily zoom into your neighbourhood (or that little cluster of dots here, or the cluster of dots over there) to see who is a registered holder.
Yes, you can find out the same information via a spreadsheet, but how do you easily search for it? My own town has two distinct postcodes, but literally a few minutes' away to the west of my house is the countryside and that area has a different postcode to my town. Do I need to try to find all permutations of local postcodes so that I can search for those? Or do I look at a pretty picture and zoom into where I want to look?
Criminals are, in the main, pretty stupid. A simple CSV file would be beyond the ken of many of them to decode and pull information from. A Google map with all the names and addresses nicely plotted together with Google imagery and streetview to help them plot a raid is a very different matter.
This is criminally irresponsible re-use of data, and should be treated as such under GDPR.
The site is hosted in Iceland, which although not being part of the EU has adopted GDPR into its own laws (mostly because most of its internet feed comes from Europe). I would therefore think that invoking GDPR in Iceland and asking their police force to enforce it and stop the hosting of material that contravenes the act would be a sensible and proportionate way forwards.
I don't actually see why reformatting the data for Google Earth makes it any more accessible or dangerous versus its original form.
Removing a technical step is one part.
Presenting on an anti-fox-hunting blog (when most shooters do not ride out with hunts or even approve of such) and encouraging their readers to call up shooters and harass them is quite a different kettle of fish.
From the site:
Many of these people will be on this database, please do contact as many as you can in your area and ask them if they are involved in shooting animals, the database contains plenty of contact details.
It's the incitement to harassment (an invitation to direct action) that moves this from mere reposting to rather more dangerous rhetoric.
... Ernie put his name and address where his mouth is:
"If a judge and jury of our peers finds us guilty of any offense, we will of course accept the punishment with good grace and apologise to anyone who can be defined as a victim."
Go on Ernie, make a statement to the police about what you did, sign it and let's see if the crown prosecution service decides to take it further. Although it is really tempting to advocate mob justice for those who insight it on others the result is innocent bystanders caught in the cross fire. This is Ernie's opportunity to show his true commitment to ideals by accepting any possible legal consequences for his actions.
Irrespective of the contents, if data is illegally purloined from a source by person A and posted in the public domain, is it legal for person B to copy and/or repost that data in any form? As the data was already in the "public domain" and was not protected in any way, does that make any difference?
I don't know about this case, but you may remember the Sally Bercow case from a few years ago. A prominent public figure had been falsely accused of child abuse, and Sally Bercow sent a tweet referring to him. The law in England and Wales is clear that repeating a libel is the same as making a libel in the first place. I recall it cost her some money and a public apology. So in some civil cases, reposting is as bad as the original leak.
I suppose in principle that Guntrader could sue Ernie for copyright infringement for republishing their data. Finding out who Ernie is, and publishing their name and address in the court papers, would follow naturally.
While the data that Ernie used was already available, his reformatting it in a way that allows for conveniently dropping it into a map site with helpful little markers for each entry...really ought to be a cautionary tale about how much personal data we allow out into the world, and what can happen if somebody wants to transform it in various ways.
Given the incitement of direct action/harassment on the blog post:
Many of these people will be on this database, please do contact as many as you can in your area and ask them if they are involved in shooting animals, the database contains plenty of contact details.
There could be quite a strong case to accessory depending on *what* crime was committed.
I have an account on Guntrader. I logged in to remind myself what data they hold on me. Their website insists I reset my password (good) but when I put my email address in, it then says "we recognise your email address, and have sent a password reminder" - very bad: confirms to bad actor that the email address is indeed active on the platform (although you might argue that's now in the public domain anyway)
Anon as it could be said I do own firearms.
Fortuntately, have never had a guntrader account though have looked on there in the past.
They're including a lot of recreational shooters that shoot clays in this as was pointed out who wouldn't ever go out and shoot wildlife, not into that myself either but not against people that do.
So - the target miss
<rant>
For wildlife shooting, e.g. larger animals like deer/wild boar, you have to prove you have the ability to do quick kills, for the likes of pheasants, pigeons etc with a shotgun, the deaths are pretty quick and the far majority eat what they kill.
You wild animals will be going about whatever they're doing and then bang, they're dead.
Majority of shop bought meat are animals grown in intensive unnatural environments with varying but not very long lives and not very happy ones, squashed together in not great conditions in lorries and then shipped to an abbatoir in a journey that ends in the smell of death and terror before they're finally pushed thru themselves and dispatched before ending up in a little packaging of plastic on a refrigerated shelf in a shop.
These so called "warriors of truth" or whatever shit they call themselves should be calling for changes to reduce factory farming, better living conditions for farm animals and should be be minimal transport or the best place would be on site dispatch in a place they've lived for their whole lives.
But like sheep that have been bred to be stupid over generations, they themselves are too stupid to understand what would be the best focus for their attentions.
</rant>
For the record, the only dead animals I buy from shops is stuff on its expiry date that I'm going to eat myself as I dislike the waste of meat where animals died to provide it.
"</rant>"
While I can't speak for Ernie's motives or hunting in the UK, I can speak for hunting in France, and that is that asides from organised and properly controlled boar hunts, I really wish the entire rest of them would kindly fuck off. They are a menace, they see nothing wrong with shooting first and asking questions later. Since they tend to be older and politically right leaning, the current government is trying hard to appease them. Meaning stories like this (BFMTV - young men killed by hunter) are sadly not a rarity. Nor is the having to stay inside on a pleasant Sunday because you heard the "fweee" as a bullet passed by and looked up on Google to see how close it needs to be to hear it and got the heebeegeebees. I took a video last Sunday afternoon. I was reading a book, gently swinging in a hammock, when all of a sudden it was like a war had broken out. No bugles, no dogs, so it was just a bunch of locals looking to shoot anything that moved, spraying so much shit around the place that it's a miracle they didn't shoot each other.
Not everybody that goes out to track and shoot an animal for dinner is responsible. Quite the opposite, in my opinion.
Here's another, and given that he confused her for a deer and shot her dead, a one year suspended sentence, banned from carrying a weapon for five years, hunting for ten, and €8000 in damages... It's a joke. Is that all a person's life is worth?
This, of course, does not in any way justify what Ernie did. I'm simply posting it to highlight that there are legitimate concerns about the behaviour of some hunters. The correct response, seeing as how the current government is largely pro hunter, is to vote for somebody else. Well, I can't, I'm not French, but you get the point. Dumping names and addresses of gun owners onto the net in a nice pretty map is, I think, most likely to backfire in some way, especially if somebody "important" is on that list.
Only talking about from UK perspective where there's a lot more controls.
I know in the likes of places like the US, Spain & France to name a few you have to keep every animal and person in.
certainly would be better off managing to shoot each other dead.
I'm shocked at that in France a hunter murdered someone and literally got away with it.
I'm glad I'm not in some of those countries even with the highly controlled firearms laws of the UK
And they're off ... !
https://www.sudouest.fr/environnement/chasse/gironde-un-homme-blesse-lors-d-un-accident-de-chasse-a-listrac-medoc-5818326.php
https://www.nicematin.com/faits-divers/un-homme-grievement-blesse-par-balle-a-la-tete-dans-un-accident-de-chasse-dans-le-var-713151
Aside from the obvious potential problem of targeting people who have never shot at animals in their lives, the inclusion of five-year-old addresses puts at risk those who may have moved into a home after a gun owner moved out. It raises the spectre of robbers demanding homeowners hand over something they simply don't have.
The other obvious problem is targeting people who have shot at animals, and robbers demanding gun owners hand over guns. No one should be targeted or robbed.
It was someone else who hacked into guntrader, and guntrader who had lax security and kept all this information online and unencrypted. So why would he be criminally liable for simply turning a spreadsheet into a map? After all, just about anyone could do so, with a bit of googling. It is hardly a black art.
If he is held liable in some way for this, where's the line? If he just made the spreadsheet available on his site, would he be liable? If he linked to the spreadsheet that was made available elsewhere, would he be liable? If he said "email me and I'll tell you how to get it" would he be liable? Seems a pretty slippery slope to me!
He was well aware that the data he had was obtained illegally, and he was actively trying to spread that illegally-obtained data.
(By the way... do we know that he _wasn't_ the original hacker? That's certainly a question to ask...).
But worse, he took illegally acquired data, made it easier to access, and then explicitly encouraged people to abuse that data. In so doing, it seems he actively republished the data (as opposed to simply redistributing it), which means that he consciously published personally identifiable information...
Lastly, and the IT angle: in addition to reformatting the data, he made no effort to purge old data that was labelled as such (no access for 5 years, or whatever).
1. He acquired some data that he knew to be stolen, which listed names and addresses and other personal data;
2. He reformatted the data, to make it easier to interpret/use;
3. He published the stolen data to a wide audience;
4. He encouraged others to harass people on the database.
1, 3 and 4 are offences. 2 might be an aggravating factor for 3.
Sigh. While I don't want to revert to <gloucestershire>they dunt unnerstan urr cuntry ways</gloucestershire>, the conflation of "people who own guns" with hunt supporters isn't correct. I know plenty of people from where I grew up who a) have guns and b) hate the hunt because of the chaos those entitled bastards cause. Farmers have all sorts of reasons for having guns - including humanely dispatching injured livestock and pest control. For farmers, the countryside isn't a thing to gawp at or wander through (with your uncontrolled dogs and leaving gates open), it's their place of work.
BTW, my parents had chickens years ago. I also hate foxes. But the hunt used to encourage them.
Being a country boy myself I couldn't agree more. Farmers hereabouts mostly hate the hunt and always have done. But since they are mostly tenants they have no right to prevent the hunt crossing their land. However one hunt a few miles distant was forced to relocate quite a long way because local landowners who were not part of the hunt forbade the hunt from crossing their land.
And yes a lot of hunts claim that they are only dressing up in ridiculous clothes and carrying out arcane ceremonies in the name of pest control. At the same time these hunts will not only encourage the breeding of foxes but also ban tenant farmers from shooting foxes as pest control. After all if the farmers carry out their own pest control then there would be no need for chinless twats on horseback wearing ridiculous clothes.
And another thing that is always denied but definitely happens is the release of foxes specifically for hunting. Some hunts will bring in foxes from other hunts if they can't find one locally to hunt. Others will capture and keep a fox in the days running up to the hunt and release and often starving and injured fox for the hunt. This is also handy for PR purposes. "Look it's not some cute furry animal, it's a crazed vicious beast!"
I know this may be an unpopular opinion in this day and age - but the self-righteous, double standard behaviour described in the article once again has that shallow aftertaste of moral entitlement that the so called 'left' seem to excel at so much more than the conservatives ('right') they see themselves up against. And, no, I am no fan of hunting.
I know this may be an unpopular opinion in this day and age - but the self-righteous, double standard behaviour demonstrated in your post once again has that shallow aftertaste of professional victimhood that so so called 'right' seem to excel at so much more than the progressive ('left') they see themselves up against.
You can't say anything without someone on the 'right' playing the 'left/right' card, moaning about being persecutued, whilst also unironically complaining about 'snowflakes'.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/06/04/why-conservatives-have-embraced-victimhood
It will let you only read the first two paragraphs.
Complete opposite here in the US.
The "left" in the US don't believe in the Constitution. They invariably violate the 1st Amendment by not allowing anyone to voice a differing opinion, down to destroying places that conservatives are scheduled to speak. They want to abolish the 2nd because they are afraid of firearms, particularly the "scary looking" ones.
A Ruger 10/22 semi-auto rifle, firing .22 caliber rim fire shells can be made,by their definition, an "assault rifle" by clanging out the standard stock to an aftermarket one.
They don't believe in choice, they believe that you should have what they want you to have.
The "left" did not try to committ a coup.
..And why, in the name of everything that goes bang, do you feel the urge to modify a .22 caliber into fully automatic? What is the user case that needs protection?
Please enlighten me, why an American civilian needs the right to own anything fully automatic, or for that case, semi automatic with a large capacity magazine?
Are you expecting to go full Rambo and hold off a Russian invasion all on your own?
If you need 30 rounds to kill that copperhead or scare off that burglar, then you are doing something wrong!
Oh.. and funnily enough, it is the "left" leaning Hollywood that has trained generations to believe that all problems can be solved with a big enough gun..
"Please enlighten me, why an American civilian needs the right to own anything fully automatic, or for that case, semi automatic with a large capacity magazine?"
Techincally, we don't "need" that right - we already HAVE that right. It was granted by The Creator, and the most foundational document of our system of government forbids that same Government from infringing upon it. Sadly, we have allowed numerous infringements in past years as public opinion and focus has drifted. Some of us still keep the flame alive, though, and pass its light down to our children and grand-children.
"The "left" did not try to committ a coup"
The "right" didn't either. There was a small contingent of idiots who behaved badly at the prompting of a mentally-stunted President. Hardly a "coup". Where was the organization, infrastructure, or logistics to create a new government afterwards? Nowhere. Just a bunch of idiots showing their poor raisings and trespassing on federal grounds. And our system of laws dealt with them precisely as they should have been dealt with.
"And why, in the name of everything that goes bang, do you feel the urge to modify a .22 caliber into fully automatic?"
Those are fun as hell. pewpewpewpewpew. But in all truth, the OP didn't say anything about making the 10/22 into a full-auto. He merely pointed out the ridiculousness of it possibly being classified as an "assault weapon" if the pretty wood stock were changed out for a tacti-cool polymer stock. Same mechanism, just in a different suit.
Mate, we watched it live on TV, we saw the build up in the previous weeks, we saw the actions and inactions, saw what happened on the day, and we heard the chants. Whether it was a Coup attempt, an insurrection, a bunch of Floridamen, a flock of seagulls or a small contingent of idiots is semantics. Naturally if the Reps would enable a cross party commission to proceed it would become very clear very quickly... Can't think why they'd block and filibuster something so obviously and desperately needed, can you?
And here i though it was the right (the trumpists) that wanted to tear up the constitution, cause an insurrection, stop legitimate voters from voting and want a "guns" for all policy. As if guns don't kill enough people already.
WHAT IS THE FASCINATION with owning guns? They (handguns especially) have only a single purpose. TO KILL!, not injure or maime or incapacitate.
I think your ten cents is plugged.
Firstly there is no left in US politics. It's all just different degrees of right. Secondly it the extreme right who do no allow debate and indeed go to great lengths to prevent debate. Hell, they don't even want folks they don't like to be allowed to vote.
"Ernie" also sought to paint themselves as morally equivalent to the news media, blaming The Register for reporting the breach, which was circulating on various social media platforms after criminals first obtained the database and hosted it on the clearnet.
When asked if they had any regrets about other criminals or terrorists possibly obtaining and using the data, "Ernie" said: "Probably about the same as you, or any other journalist or blogger commenting and drawing attention to a hack that had nothing to do with us."
These people had no authority to reformat and republish the information just because he/they do not like what these people because of what they may or may not be involved in.
Republishing the data was irresponsible and just seems like they think the ends justify the means.
They are angry at the countryside alliance for maintaining an illegal database of hunt saboteurs? Seems fair enough. So why not go after the countryside alliance?
The assumption that any gun licence holder is automatically affiliated with the countryside alliance is utter nonsense.
For me whether they are willing to go to jail is no more relevant than their spelling of the word offence. I'd be more interested to know if they are willing to accept the true consequences of their actions. Lets consider some activist decides to take action against somebody on the list. If damage or injury is caused by that is this anonymous coward going to take responsibility for that?
"I just put the information out there if somebody else uses it to commit a crime that's not my fault" is a pathetic and cowardly position. All the more because the perp has chosen to remain anonymous themselves.
I hope that one of the consequences of this data breach is that there will be no further need for any database of hunt saboteurs, because the police will respond quickly to reports of hunt sabotage, and the perpetrators will be swiftly arrested and convicted - so that the activity of hunt sabotage will come crashing to an absolute and permanent end.
"We are people who are angry with the Countryside Alliance, for spying and building up illegal databases on hunt saboteurs, we remain anonymous to protect ourselves from the people we are up against, namely those involved in fox hunting and the wider hunting community."
So you decided to "protect" yourself by remaining anonymous, whilst making it easier for others to find your "enemies" by stripping away their anonymity.
You know what that makes you? A hero? Nah, it makes you a fucking coward.
Never mind, what goes round comes round. Maybe that next knock on the door will be someone who has found you…. Sleep tight
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
