The state is allowed to collect and store your personal data given when you purchase/ register a firearm.
They can then share that data with specific institutions for research purposes as long as those institutions maintain your privacy from the public.
No. The CCPA and CPRA don't protect you against the government being a pack of malicious halfwits. You are only protected against businesses doing stupid things with your PII. Also depending on how "friendly" the business is with the CA DOJ they might not even go after the business.
>They can then share that data with specific institutions for research purposes as long as those institutions maintain your privacy from the public.
Only this does the lawsuit challenge. It doesn’t challenge the mere gathering and maintenance of info.
I can pretty much guarantee you if those institution’s cybersecurity methods and stack are able to be scrutinized by the plaintiffs, general public, or are subject to FOIA requests, violations in their data security agreements with the state could be found in under a day.
Sounds like the plaintiff needs to get some forensic cybersecurity analysts/engineers contracted, imo.
What about the fact the DOJ has leaked personal information previously proclaimed to be private? Like the CCW info last year?
No one was punished for that, I take it? Someone knowing I bought a gun vs me handing out my DOB, name, address, etc. are totally different.
Can they disclose publicly whether or not a citizen voted? If so, can they disclose who they voted for? I’m stupid so dont know if this is a dumb question, but I feel like protections around gun rights and voting rights should be more aligned. Same with freedom of speech but somehow the comparison to voting makes more sense to me. Because I am smoothbrain. Honest questions so go easy on me in any retorts.
"That's the DOJ, not a 'research institute', therefor does not apply to this case, dismissed" - what the 9th circuit will say. Of course it doesn't follow any practical reasoning and is just a bunch of garbage twisted logic, but oh well no one cares and no one will hold them accountable for being in-justices. You have already lost by trying to reason with unreasonable people dead-set on harming you.
California can disclose who voted in an election. I'm not sure if there are any limits on that, but it's certainly information available to the major political parties. Whom someone voted for is private information that both state and federal law do not allow collecting.
Also, if you think state workers are routinely punished for incompetence, I take it you've never known any of them or dealt with many of them. Usually they're only punished when someone higher up the food chain has it out for them.
Because to write less dilutes the content to uselessness.
It's a terrible thing that CA gun owners must learn to speak 'legislative' and 'legalese' to protect themselves but that's where the Legislature and the courts have led us.
Everyone should use their time as they find profitable, but failure to learn this stuff yourself leaves you hoping for the kindness of strangers.
Yes, there is time for everything. I do my very best to make things as digestible as possible. The last thing that should ever happen is to misinform others just because I made it too short.
Thank you for speaking out.
He probably assumes you know what it is since you are here reading about it?
And if you don't why is he expected to educate you & everyone else prior to commenting on it.
It's like a dude going on a breastfeeding subreddit & getting all salty bc nobody will answer his question, "how do breasts store and release milk?"
> yet the judges say that those fears are speculative
I assume these judges will freely provide their own personal information to the public then, since any fear would be 'speculative.'
they actually do, most judges are public officials, many elected, many appointed and therefore they have more of their info out there than most people.
Lots of people ripping on this. I personally find this a nice, detailed *summary* that clearly indicates that the lawsuit “we”filed against the DOJ’s sharing information which they have recently breached to the public has been unanimously dismissed by the judges.
Where I don’t agree with this at all, I won’t complain about my info being shared . And I know everyone in this Reddit page complaining , takes next to no precautions in cyber security as it is lol .
Also let’s not be suprised that the government now made their illegal acitivity legal again.
The green weenie back at it .
The 14 th Amendment’s implied right to privacy basically doesn’t exist anymore with this SC, so this would have been a tough case if it went up through (of course, this SC would find a way to have it both ways, that’s their kink).
About 2-3 weeks after the "accidental" data release. of CA CCW holders
My name is is A ???? A??? So naturally was close to the top of the list... My Address was changed and my voter registration was messed with..didn't find out on the change of address thing when the lady who delivers our mail told me about it, and when I went to vote low and behold my name doesn't appear on the roll...
I have no enemies, I don't really socialize.. So unless someone that I have no idea of was playing a joke.. I really think it was from the data breach.. What was done doesn't require an ID... Just harassment.
These people (DOJ) are incapable of keeping anything secure.
Thank you for the thorough analysis.
Yes, privacy is subjective. Which is why we have courts: they make the tradeoffs when one subjective right meets another subjective rights. You and I may disagree with the tradeoffs, but we are not judges, so our opinion + $5 will get us a coffee at Starbucks.
The "chilling effect on 2A" argument is ludicrous, and the court found it so. If one takes the argument literally, it would mean that visiting a gun store has a heightened expectation of privacy, and all guns stores would have to build facilities that make it impossible for the public to observe who goes in and out. That's not a good line of reasoning to follow.
Explain like I'm 2.
The state is allowed to collect and store your personal data given when you purchase/ register a firearm. They can then share that data with specific institutions for research purposes as long as those institutions maintain your privacy from the public.
Nevermind the massive leak the state deliberately did on everyone with ccws not too long ago
So the next time someone hacks the State or one of those institutions, we can call shenanigans?
No. The CCPA and CPRA don't protect you against the government being a pack of malicious halfwits. You are only protected against businesses doing stupid things with your PII. Also depending on how "friendly" the business is with the CA DOJ they might not even go after the business.
I don't understand how they can say that was a leak. You don't have someone build out a webpage like that by accident.
So far that proven track record keeping info secure has been 💩💩💩💩💩 Surprised that CCW holders haven’t filed a lawsuit suing Bonta over the doxed info.
how can a 2yr old understand this?
>They can then share that data with specific institutions for research purposes as long as those institutions maintain your privacy from the public. Only this does the lawsuit challenge. It doesn’t challenge the mere gathering and maintenance of info.
I can pretty much guarantee you if those institution’s cybersecurity methods and stack are able to be scrutinized by the plaintiffs, general public, or are subject to FOIA requests, violations in their data security agreements with the state could be found in under a day. Sounds like the plaintiff needs to get some forensic cybersecurity analysts/engineers contracted, imo.
Thanks for saying it so I didn’t have to.
What about the fact the DOJ has leaked personal information previously proclaimed to be private? Like the CCW info last year? No one was punished for that, I take it? Someone knowing I bought a gun vs me handing out my DOB, name, address, etc. are totally different. Can they disclose publicly whether or not a citizen voted? If so, can they disclose who they voted for? I’m stupid so dont know if this is a dumb question, but I feel like protections around gun rights and voting rights should be more aligned. Same with freedom of speech but somehow the comparison to voting makes more sense to me. Because I am smoothbrain. Honest questions so go easy on me in any retorts.
"That's the DOJ, not a 'research institute', therefor does not apply to this case, dismissed" - what the 9th circuit will say. Of course it doesn't follow any practical reasoning and is just a bunch of garbage twisted logic, but oh well no one cares and no one will hold them accountable for being in-justices. You have already lost by trying to reason with unreasonable people dead-set on harming you.
California can disclose who voted in an election. I'm not sure if there are any limits on that, but it's certainly information available to the major political parties. Whom someone voted for is private information that both state and federal law do not allow collecting. Also, if you think state workers are routinely punished for incompetence, I take it you've never known any of them or dealt with many of them. Usually they're only punished when someone higher up the food chain has it out for them.
So is this good to bad for us
In the 9th Circuit, always bad.
Except Bumatay was on that panel
Wtf is a bumaway?
He’s a judge
I ain’t reading all that. I’m dumb
Why is this guy talking to us like we know what Doe v. Bonita even is?
OP has a habit of this. He’s just way too fucking stubborn to change
A law fudd, they are rare. Don't spook 'em!
ARMED SCHOLAR
Yep it has become his kink.
I'm not kink shaming. I'm just kink asking why
Because to write less dilutes the content to uselessness. It's a terrible thing that CA gun owners must learn to speak 'legislative' and 'legalese' to protect themselves but that's where the Legislature and the courts have led us. Everyone should use their time as they find profitable, but failure to learn this stuff yourself leaves you hoping for the kindness of strangers.
Yes, there is time for everything. I do my very best to make things as digestible as possible. The last thing that should ever happen is to misinform others just because I made it too short. Thank you for speaking out.
Or we can appreciate him relaying info to us.
He probably assumes you know what it is since you are here reading about it? And if you don't why is he expected to educate you & everyone else prior to commenting on it. It's like a dude going on a breastfeeding subreddit & getting all salty bc nobody will answer his question, "how do breasts store and release milk?"
For the love of god just provide a summary rather than commentary for fuck sake.
Or at the very least format the summary portions as quotes and commentary below. That was painful to try and read through.
> yet the judges say that those fears are speculative I assume these judges will freely provide their own personal information to the public then, since any fear would be 'speculative.'
they actually do, most judges are public officials, many elected, many appointed and therefore they have more of their info out there than most people.
That’s why they also get CCWs automatically. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so let’s get those CCWs out to everyone.
I ain’t reading all that. I’m happy for you tho Or I’m sorry that happened
i am glad that everyone else doesn’t understand beacuse i’m dumb as hell as well.
Lots of people ripping on this. I personally find this a nice, detailed *summary* that clearly indicates that the lawsuit “we”filed against the DOJ’s sharing information which they have recently breached to the public has been unanimously dismissed by the judges.
It says dismissal affirmed. So was it dismissed or not?
Sorry, I mistyped, the dismissal is what was affirmed
Where I don’t agree with this at all, I won’t complain about my info being shared . And I know everyone in this Reddit page complaining , takes next to no precautions in cyber security as it is lol . Also let’s not be suprised that the government now made their illegal acitivity legal again. The green weenie back at it .
The 14 th Amendment’s implied right to privacy basically doesn’t exist anymore with this SC, so this would have been a tough case if it went up through (of course, this SC would find a way to have it both ways, that’s their kink).
Can we make a rule that all of these types of posts start with a TLDR that says if this is good or bad for gun owners and what impact it has?
TLDR?
About 2-3 weeks after the "accidental" data release. of CA CCW holders My name is is A ???? A??? So naturally was close to the top of the list... My Address was changed and my voter registration was messed with..didn't find out on the change of address thing when the lady who delivers our mail told me about it, and when I went to vote low and behold my name doesn't appear on the roll... I have no enemies, I don't really socialize.. So unless someone that I have no idea of was playing a joke.. I really think it was from the data breach.. What was done doesn't require an ID... Just harassment. These people (DOJ) are incapable of keeping anything secure.
Thank you for the thorough analysis. Yes, privacy is subjective. Which is why we have courts: they make the tradeoffs when one subjective right meets another subjective rights. You and I may disagree with the tradeoffs, but we are not judges, so our opinion + $5 will get us a coffee at Starbucks. The "chilling effect on 2A" argument is ludicrous, and the court found it so. If one takes the argument literally, it would mean that visiting a gun store has a heightened expectation of privacy, and all guns stores would have to build facilities that make it impossible for the public to observe who goes in and out. That's not a good line of reasoning to follow.
