back to article 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 …

  1. Mike 137 Silver badge

    denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

    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.

    1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

      Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

      Would like to know the reasoning for the thumbs down to what seems like an exceptionally balanced comment.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

        Perps?

      2. IGotOut Silver badge

        Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

        It's an Internet forum, balanced opinions are not allowed.

        1. sev.monster Silver badge
          Gimp

          Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

          You must be incredibly offended and vitriolic about some grand yet generalized point in order to be accepted by your peers, here on The Internet.

          1. sev.monster Silver badge
            Joke

            Sorry, I must have forgotten this --->

            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.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

        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!

        1. sev.monster Silver badge
          Megaphone

          Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

          You're a [fox] baby-killer with your murder-stick, you rat bastard! May your life be filled with misery and pain, obviously!

          —The perps

        2. Helcat

          Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

          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!

          1. SWCD

            Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

            Was only a few months ago the musket was weapon of choice for the bloke on Jersey warning off the French boats. If they're adequate for national security, they'll be fine for the odd random threat.

          2. tip pc Silver badge

            Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

            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

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

            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.

        3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

          What a shame, as rats taste so good.

          1. richdin

            Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

            Ratatouille? Not so much.

      4. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

        Maybe because it's for the judge to decide points of law, not the CPS?

    2. katrinab Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

      It is ultimately for the court to decide, and (t||s)he(y) can argue that it isn't at the hearing.

      1. Mike 137 Silver badge

        Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

        "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.

        1. katrinab Silver badge
          Megaphone

          Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

          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.

          1. katrinab Silver badge
            Paris Hilton

            Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

            An example of this: A load of people in England were prosecuted for breaches of Welsh coronavirus restrictions. They successfully argued that Welsh law doesn’t apply in England.

        2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

          Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

          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>

    3. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

      It feels a pretty clear cut breach of the Data Protection Act 2018. Should it be illegal? I think it has to be, unless you want a data wild west out there.

    4. TheSkunkyMonk

      Re: denying their actions amounted to a criminal offence

      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.

  2. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells Silver badge
    Gimp

    > SWRCCU confirmed to The Register that it is not treating the latest Guntrader data dump as a terrorism offence.

    But hopefully they will be held criminally responsible for anything resembling a crime committed at those addresses until the end of time.

    1. Liberal Yank

      Facts?

      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…

      1. rg287

        Re: Facts?

        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”.

        1. anothercynic Silver badge

          Re: Facts?

          CSV files cannot be loaded with malware. They are text files, they don't contain executable content (not unless you shove a bunch of VBScript macro rubbish into it).

      2. Dave314159ggggdffsdds Silver badge

        Re: Facts?

        "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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Facts?

          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.

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Facts?

        "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."

    2. macjules

      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.

      1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        No doubt the SWRCCU have their excuses and PR well prepared when a family is murdered in their home for their firearms collection.

        With what?

  3. big_D Silver badge

    He's never heard...

    of GDPR then? Or the computer misuse act?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: He's never heard...

      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.

      1. batfink

        Re: He's never heard...

        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??

        1. trindflo Bronze badge
          Flame

          For what offence

          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.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          He has definitely broken the DPA and almost certainly the GDPR regulations

          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.

    2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: He's never heard...

      GDPR doesn't affect purely private or household activity. Guntrader should be in biiiiiig trouble, though.

  4. Forget It
    Paris Hilton

    Hope the perp's were intelligent Badgers

    (Paris for the fur coats)

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      Re: Hope the perp's were intelligent Badgers

      "Badgers? We don' need no steenkin' Badgers..."

      1. WhoAmI?

        Re: Hope the perp's were intelligent Badgers

        Nature's suction cups!

  5. Little Mouse

    Quick Straw Poll...?

    "Ernie" will probably read this, so maybe "they" would be interested in general public opinion:

    Upvote for "Irresponsible little miscreant"

    Downvote for "Responsible journalist & moral crusader"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quick Straw Poll...?

      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.

      1. Alumoi Silver badge

        Re: Quick Straw Poll...?

        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.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: Quick Straw Poll...?

          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.

          1. Alumoi Silver badge

            Re: Quick Straw Poll...?

            Yo do know that even ElReg quotes twatter, right?

          2. Teejay

            Re: HSBC

            The whole HSBC issue is kind of crazy, anyway. Just imagine they were basically laundering money for a formidable part of organised crime worldwide (disclaimer: *which of course they are not*) and no-one simply cared?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Quick Straw Poll...?

          arguably, in general, there was never real journalism in the past anyway. By 'real' I mean, unbiased. It's just that, perhaps, in this day and age people get to realize this sooner than in the past. Or get cynical sooner. Which comes to the same thing.

        3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Quick Straw Poll...?

          "Did I miss anything?"

          Yes, using Street\View is cheaper than sending out your own photographer for a pic of where it happened..

  6. Anonymous South African Coward Bronze badge
    Facepalm

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    So those who use guns for recreational purposes (clay pigeon shooting) and self-defense is now getting tar-and-feathered along with those who enjoy a traditional fox hunt?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And people who use guns for their work like my vet who occasionally has to shoot horses, or the RSPCA man we got out yesterday to shoot a fawn that had broken its leg on a barbed wire fence and was being eaten by maggots. Please don't steal their guns.

    2. goodjudge

      Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

      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.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

        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.

      2. rg287

        Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

        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.

        1. tiggity Silver badge

          Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

          @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)

          1. rg287

            Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

            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.

            1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

              Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

              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...

            2. phuzz Silver badge

              Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

              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.

          2. batfink

            Re: Stupid is as stupid does.

            Pah. Peasants have been pests since time immemorial and need regular culling....oh "pheasants" - sorry, my mistake, do carry on...

            Yours etc

            Lord Blitherington-Smythe (Bart.).

    3. IGotOut Silver badge

      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.

      1. rg287

        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.

        1. Spanners Silver badge
          Facepalm

          @RG287

          If you shoot someone in the back as they flee then that's murder in pretty much the entire western world, including the US.

          As far as I can see, in the US, it depends on where you are and then the complexion of the back...

          1. The Axe

            Re: @RG287

            And in the US if you are wearing a badge with a thin blue line on it, you can shoot someone in the back at any time.

            1. JetSetJim

              Re: @RG287

              In fairness to the US cop, they may be preventing harm to other innocents by shooting their perp in the back.

              Haven't seen it reported much, but theoretically possible, at least...

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @RG287

            Correct. If the complexion is white that's the end of it usually in a Stand Your Ground state. If not white then its often twitter lynch mob time and a city DA baying for a scalp.

            If you actually lived in Big City US you would would know exactly how this works.

    4. TheMeerkat

      Because the anti-hunt protesters are just fascists who simply there to spread hatred.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  8. Wally Dug
    Holmes

    Conspiracy To...?

    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.

    1. Withdrawn

      Re: Conspiracy To...?

      "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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Conspiracy To...?

        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.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: Conspiracy To...?

          > we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US,

          It was a private company's database that was stolen. I imagine there are private companies in the US with similar databases, eg the NRA, or Smith & Wesson.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            " 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.

        2. Francis King

          Re: Conspiracy To...?

          "Thankfully, we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US,"

          Irrelevant to the point at hand - the database was of members of the public accessing a gun trading website. The US has gun trading websites too, correct?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            Yes, but I was under the impression that Guntree keeps detailed records of who bought what, and reports that to the authorities. The gun trading sites here in the US don't do that, hell, most of them may not even have the buyer or seller's real name, address, etc.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Conspiracy To...?

              You say that as if it's a good thing!

              I'd EXPECT the UK police to know which households have gun registrations!

              Of course, in the US it would be easier to keep a record of those houses without guns. You could fit the data on a floppy.

          2. JetSetJim

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            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.

        3. rg287

          Re: Conspiracy To...?

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            "There’s also the list of NFA firearms which are registered and rather more closely monitored."

            Don't rub it in. 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994 were all bad years for firearms enthusiasts. Thankfully the 1994 stuff expired. The others won't.

            1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

              Re: Conspiracy To...?

              So 1942 to 1945 were, presumably, brilliant. Even if you did turn up late.

        4. The Axe

          Re: Conspiracy To...?

          "Thankfully, we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US"

          But in some states, you need a license to carry a concealed weapon. That is a firearms database.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            Not at all. It's a list of people who have passed a background check and can, if they wish, carry a firearm, among other things. Some states require "training", others merely require breathing and fingerprints. No guns mentioned anywhere.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Conspiracy To...?

          The US "registration of firearm ownership" is basically any house flying a confederate flag, or driving a pickup with Trump stickers.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            You say that like it's a bad thing...

        6. Adelio

          Re: Conspiracy To...?

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            The US population is several times larger than ours. To balance things out we talk about the crime rate per 100,000 people. Which frankly actually makes it look worse; so quote that instead to avoid a whine of "but our population is larger..."

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Conspiracy To...?

            "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?

        7. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. tony72

    To be fair ...

    ...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?

    1. Wally Dug

      Re: To be fair ...

      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?

    2. Withdrawn

      Re: To be fair ...

      I mostly agree with you, but IMO Ernie made it easier to get ahold of the information as well. No specialized knowledge required now to know where to look for the dump.

    3. Dr Dan Holdsworth
      WTF?

      Re: To be fair ...

      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.

      1. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: To be fair ...

        Iceland is part of the EEA, therefore most EU laws, and certainly this one, apply there.

    4. rg287

      Re: To be fair ...

      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.

  10. Stratman

    Wouldn't it be a shame

    if Ernie's name and address somehow appeared in the next issue of Hunting Monthly or whatever those types read.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: I would rather see ...

      ... 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.

  11. Winkypop Silver badge

    Law of Unintended Consequences

    While shooting animals isn't my bag and not something I endorse, doxxing gun owners is irresponsible in the extreme.

    Ernie and pals better have some decent legal representation down the track.

    1. Withdrawn

      Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

      I'm inclined to think that nothing will happen to them, as those in power tend to agree with the motivations. Are either of my assertions wrong?

      1. IGotOut Silver badge

        Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

        I take it you know "those in power" will be some of the gun owners and hunters being targeted.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

          I'm sure Mr Rees-Mogg thinks a good weekend is going out with friends, taking the best muskets and flintlocks and bagging a few peasants :-)

          (Did I drop an h somewhere?)

      2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

        As there isn't a large amount of money to be appropriated I think those in power would "do the popular thing". Ernie is clearly not popular here but I would not call us commentards at The Register a representative sample of the electorate.

      3. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

        as those in power tend to agree with the motivations

        Er, I think you might have missed a Conservative government being in power for the last twenty years.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

          Without looking it up, my recollection is that twenty years ago it was 2001, which was during the first term of New Labour with Mr Blair as PM.

    2. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: Law of Unintended Consequences

      Indeed. Irresponsible actions of a few tend to have consequences for the many. As any fule no.

  12. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    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?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Public Domain

      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.

  13. heyrick Silver badge

    The danger of having too much data be public

    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.

  14. Les Matthew

    accessory before the fact

    I wonder, if any crimes are committed using this data could said individual be charged with said title?

    1. rg287

      Re: accessory before the fact

      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.

  15. JamieL

    Good and bad

    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)

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Amazing target miss from "Ernie"

    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.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Amazing target miss from "Ernie"

      I'm not sure about your comments on sheep. Although they haven't learned to understand the plain (very plain) English instructions shouted at them from his quad bike by my neighbour they can be a lot more cunning than you realise.

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: Amazing target miss from "Ernie"

      "</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.

      1. Dr_N

        Re: Amazing target miss from "Ernie"

        They are drunk thugs in France, for the most part.

        Hunting season starts this Sunday. Let's be careful out there, people.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Amazing target miss from "Ernie"

          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

          1. Dr_N

            Re: Amazing target miss from "Ernie"

            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

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  18. DS999 Silver badge

    All he did was reformat existing data

    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!

    1. The Axe

      Re: All he did was reformat existing data

      The intent is the key point. He is quoted as encouraging others to use the data for their own nefarious purposes. That's the major crime.

    2. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: All he did was reformat existing data

      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).

    3. JohnG

      Re: All he did was reformat existing data

      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.

    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: All he did was reformat existing data

      To add to the other comments above, we can add "handling stolen goods" to the list.

    5. Dave314159ggggdffsdds Silver badge

      Re: All he did was reformat existing data

      "After all, just about anyone could do so, with a bit of googling. It is hardly a black art."

      Being easy to do doesn't stop things being criminal offences! Quite the opposite, where those things are undesirable.

  19. Herring`

    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.

    1. jollyboyspecial Silver badge

      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!"

  20. Teejay

    My ten cents (or pence)

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: My ten cents (or pence)

      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

      1. Ghostman

        Re: My ten cents (or pence)

        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.

        1. LogicGate Silver badge

          Re: My ten cents (or pence)

          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..

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: My ten cents (or pence)

            "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.

            1. ferkle

              Re: My ten cents (or pence)

              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?

        2. Adelio

          Re: My ten cents (or pence)

          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.

        3. jollyboyspecial Silver badge

          Re: My ten cents (or pence)

          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.

      2. Teejay

        Re: My ten cents (or pence)

        Sigh. Why are so many of these passive-aggressive rebuttal posts always written by some person called 'anonymous coward' ?

    2. Dave314159ggggdffsdds Silver badge

      Re: My ten cents (or pence)

      The perp here is far right, not lefty in any way. You're just babbling based on your own prejudices.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This feels like the kind of thing you'd want to get a legal opinion from a respectable law firm first, in order to prove you're not acting with a guilty mind/mens rea.

  22. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

    "many tens of thousands of firearm owners around the country either shoot rifle range targets or clay pigeons. Some The vast majority of those don't agree with shooting live quarry and take no part in it."

    FTFY.

  23. cantankerous swineherd

    guntrader is the problem here

  24. PTW
    Mushroom

    What a cunt

    Thankfully there was only my previous post code, old landline number, and gt specific email address on there.

  25. adam payne

    "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.

  26. jollyboyspecial Silver badge

    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.

    1. John Savard

      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.

  27. Aussie Doc
    Pint

    Optional sensible title here

    Ernie would know.

    He drove the fastest milk cart in the west.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GHi9zrzMVg

    Milk, honestly -------->

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Quote from "Ernie"

    "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

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like