Hate NICS? Well, How 'bout BIDS?

[Shane Tuttle]

I was reading an article the Blue Press had in one of their latest publications. The author was bringing up the subject of BIDS; Blind Identification Database System. He was talking about several salient points regarding the benefits of having this system in place of NICS. I personally hate the idea of any government involvement. However, given the advantages of BIDS over NICS in my eyes it's a no-brainer that I would count it a huge victory if it were implemented.

Here is a link to an older blog as well explaining BIDS along with its advantages over NICS: http://bidssytem.blogspot.com/

So, my questions to everyone are what are your thoughts on the BIDS?

If by some miracle it's brought to the Congressional floor, would you call your representatives to support it?

Is there anything on the proposal you would tweak?

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't see the dealer performing the check without any real accountability(record) being close to politically feasible.

Requiring the old FFL records to be destroyed is more likely.

[gyvel]

Requiring the old FFL records to be destroyed is more likely.

Unless it has changed very recently, the last time I read BATF record keeping requirements, FFL dealers may destroy 4473s after 20 years. Of course, many FFLs don't know this.

[Salmoneye]

Under BIDS, what would be the redress for incorrect denial?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I generally disagree with the utility of the background check; but fact of the matter is the current NICS system - especially if applied more broadly - lends itself to registration and other privacy abuses. An alternate system with no recordkeeping would be a vast improvement for privacy as well as a modernization of a decrepit firearms transaction system designed around 1930s bureaucracy and paper records.

The problem is that even modest steps towards that direction have been completely shut down so far. Tom Coburn introduced a bill in the Senate that didn't go as far as BIDS, and he couldn't even get a vote on it during the whole Newtown gun control push despite extending background checks to every sale of a firearm.

Ultimately, I think a recordless but more widely applied background check would do more to protect our rights than trying to keep NICS from being expanded.

[ATN082268]

My first thought is what is the cost of the BIDS system and the updates. I doubt it would ever pass though as is because the government loves to stockpile information on you. The BIDS system might pass if it was used in conjunction/replacement of the NCIS system, where the "benefit" of BIDS was merely to drive up costs of guns/ammunition and/or collect more data on you.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Salmoneye

Under BIDS, what would be the redress for incorrect denial?

I would venture to guess you will have to contact your local FBI and/or BATFE to find the reason for being on their no-purchase list. Your LGS will not have that info. Double edged sword of keeping in tune with privacy but the individual needing to do the footwork of finding out why.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I generally disagree with the utility of the background check; but fact of the matter is the current NICS system - especially if applied more broadly - lends itself to registration and other privacy abuses. An alternate system with no recordkeeping would be a vast improvement for privacy as well as a modernization of a decrepit firearms transaction system designed around 1930s bureaucracy and paper records.

And BIDS, IMO, would be a great alternative.

Originally Posted by ATN082268

My first thought is what is the cost of the BIDS system and the updates. I doubt it would ever pass though as is because the government loves to stockpile information on you. The BIDS system might pass if it was used in conjunction/replacement of the NCIS system, where the "benefit" of BIDS was merely to drive up costs of guns/ammunition and/or collect more data on you.

The cost would be a tiny fraction of what it costs to operate NICS. It would shrink the number of FBI personnel dramatically. The amount of time your FFL spends verifying your name isn't on the data base will be nothing compared to the time they spend tying up their phone lines calling in to get the go-ahead to sell a firearm to you. I have no clue why or how BIDS would drive up the cost of guns/ammunition. There is actually LESS data the government will have on you. If you have a clean record, they will never know you will be buying a firearm. All the FFL does is look on the database to see if your name is in there or not. If not, he sells the gun to you and you're on your merry way. Under BIDS, they do not report the sale to BATFE, IIRC.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Shane Tuttle

The cost would be a tiny fraction of what it costs to operate NICS. It would shrink the number of FBI personnel dramatically.

The number of FBI agents required to run the new BIDS system would most likely be less but I doubt that would translate into there being less FBI agents.

Originally Posted by Shane Tuttle

I have no clue why or how BIDS would drive up the cost of guns/ammunition.

A lot of it depends upon the cost of the BIDS system and especially the updates. And whatever costs the government imposes on a business have an excellent chance of being passed onto the consumer.

Originally Posted by Shane Tuttle

There is actually LESS data the government will have on you. If you have a clean record, they will never know you will be buying a firearm. All the FFL does is look on the database to see if your name is in there or not. If not, he sells the gun to you and you're on your merry way. Under BIDS, they do not report the sale to BATFE, IIRC.

I think the BIDS system as described is great. My main problem is I don't think that is close to what will actually pass or that it will stay that way in the future.

[johnwilliamson062]

How do they verify the FFL is actually completing the checks? Beyond sending in agents for stings. I just don't see how this will work.
There are tens of thousands of FFLs. No one is just going to trust they all comply.
Some of them aren't the brightest either. How can you be sure they will correctly check the list? Yes, I have been in some shops where i am not sure the employess would be capable of reliably checking purchases. Now they just read the info and the agent checks and makes the call.

FFL dealers may destroy 4473s after 20 years. Of course, many FFLs don't know this.

I meant the 4473s that are sent by FFLs when closing down. I do not know what happens to those.

[dogtown tom]

They lost my support in their second sentence:
..Each gun dealer would have a list of all persons prohibited from buying guns. Instead of a government background check, dealers would check the list to see if potential buyers have firearms disabilities...

Those "authors" have no freaking idea how many people living in the USA have THE EXACT SAME NAME. Thinking that such "a list" could be easily and quickly accessed by a dealer is ludicrous.....heck, there are still dealers who don't have email.

Putting the additional burden of checking a list with hundreds of thousands if not millions of names............and there being many duplicates is a burden few dealers would want.

I sure as heck wouldn't want the responsibility and liability that comes from performing my own background check. With the current FBI NICS THEY are the ones taking the blame for giving someone a proceed or deny......not me.

Bartholomew Roberts I generally disagree with the utility of the background check; but fact of the matter is the current NICS system - especially if applied more broadly - lends itself to registration and other privacy abuses.

The FBI NICS is only told that the person is buying a handgun, long gun or other firearm. They don't get make, model serial#, caliber or anything else that's a part of "registration".

ATN082268 The number of FBI agents required to run the new BIDS system would most likely be less but I doubt that would translate into there being less FBI agents.

FBI "agents" have absolutely nothing to do with NICS. NICS is a contracted call center staffed by customer service reps who simply type in the buyers info and wait to see if any records return that indicate a potential disqualifying condition. If it does they forward the call to an FBI Legal Documents Examiner, who determines if the John Robert Smith trying to buy a gun is the same John Robert Smith who has a felony, or the John Robert Smith who is a deserter or if there are no John Robert Smiths who are prohibited. Yeah, I want to search through a list of a hundred JRS's and guess.

FBI NICS is one of the most efficient, well run, polite government agencies you will ever encounter.

johnwilliamson062 How do they verify the FFL is actually completing the checks?

They trust us.
Seriously, when ATF comes to do a compliance inspection they inspect those 4473's. The ones that had a NICS check run will show a NICS Transaction Number. That NTN is sequential and easily checked to see if it matches the date the NICS check was made. For example, the NICS checks I ran today started with "368P-xxx" if the dealer was stupid enough to invent a NTN he better be within the range for that particular day. Needles to say it would be a felony for the dealer to knowingly transfer a firearm without conducting a NICS check when required. If he were caught, losing his FFL would be the least of his worries.

There are tens of thousands of FFLs. No one is just going to trust they all comply.

Even if the dealer WANTED to comply and agreed with the philosophy of no records on "the good guys"........who the heck wants to be the dealer that let the wrong John Smith have a gun?

Some of them aren't the brightest either. How can you be sure they will correctly check the list? Yes, I have been in some shops where i am not sure the employess would be capable of reliably checking purchases. Now they just read the info and the agent checks and makes the call.

Heck, there are dealers who use the yellow 4473's that became obsolete in 2008. Because they do so few transfers, they rarely get a compliance inspection.......but their next one will be a doozy.

I meant the 4473s that are sent by FFLs when closing down. I do not know what happens to those.

Turned in to ATF along with ALL the dealers bound books.

[44 AMP]

A better version of a bad idea is still a bad idea.

"blind" or not.

From the earliest days of the Republic, until 1968, the only people legally denied their natural right to arms were those who were actually locked up, and generally only for the amount of time they were locked up.

People who wound up in jail or prison, or a sanitarium, when they were released, having done their time, or being judged not a danger to themselves or others, could if they wanted arm themselves without possession of a gun being a crime. It broke no law. Until/unless they committed another crime.

In 1968 we created a legal class of "prohibited persons". The law NOW prohibited possession of arms FOR LIFE, if you were convicted of felony level crimes, or adjudicated mentally incompetent. Later the law was expanded to prohibit people who committed certain misdemeanor crimes.

We are closing in on half a century now, and the idea that it is proper to deny fundamental rights to certain people, for life, based not just on what they did do, or what they are doing, but on what they MIGHT DO has become firmly entrenched in our laws and our thinking.

I believe we went down the wrong road there, and a better car with a smoother ride doesn't change our direction at all.

[ATN082268]

[Snip Post]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

People who wound up in jail or prison, or a sanitarium, when they were released, having done their time, or being judged not a danger to themselves or others, could if they wanted arm themselves without possession of a gun being a crime. It broke no law. Until/unless they committed another crime.

We are closing in on half a century now, and the idea that it is proper to deny fundamental rights to certain people, for life, based not just on what they did do, or what they are doing, but on what they MIGHT DO has become firmly entrenched in our laws and our thinking.

I think part of it is the government's attempt to punish people without spending or spending as much in the way of resources to put people in jail, to death, etc. Unfortunately this lets criminals run loose in society before being adequately punished and encourages more irresponsible behavior.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

FBI "agents" have absolutely nothing to do with NICS. NICS is a contracted call center staffed by customer service reps who simply type in the buyers info and wait to see if any records return that indicate a potential disqualifying condition. If it does they forward the call to an FBI Legal Documents Examiner, who determines if the John Robert Smith trying to buy a gun is the same John Robert Smith who has a felony, or the John Robert Smith who is a deserter or if there are no John Robert Smiths who are prohibited. Yeah, I want to search through a list of a hundred JRS's and guess.

FBI NICS is one of the most efficient, well run, polite government agencies you will ever encounter.

I appreciate the clarification but it only matters to my point if it affects the size of the agency, contract or otherwise. If the FBI stays the same size after the BIDS system, then the system is just another added cost.

[Hal]

Not only no - - but - H-E-(double hockey sticks) NO!

Present NICS is bad - but, it's not blatant.
Present law calls for all information collected to be destroyed in x-number of days - or hours.

BIDS, by design, would eliminate that. It has to in order to function. Let's look at the issue from a technical standpoint.

Facts--
An 8 bit database has a "foot print" the size of this period.
A 16 bit database has a "foot print" the size of a postage stamp.
A 32 bit database has a "foot print" the size of a post card.
a 64 bit database has a "foot print" the size of - Manhattan Island.

In other terms - a 32 bit database can hold the name and address of 6 billion people (the population of the planet in 2010).
OTOH - a 64 bit database can hold every detail about every person that's lived on planet Earth since the beginning of recorded history (since 7000 BC)

A 64 bit database can house a single database that is 64 Exabyte in size. A 32 bit Database maxes out at 32 terabyte. An exabyte is 1 million terrabyte.
64 exabyte of storage, at costs, runs just shy of - half a million dollars.


Not only that, but, modern day data mining allows that huge database to be parsed in a matter of milliseconds.

So - in conclusion - - it's very well within the present technological and financial ,means, for anyone to build a database system that uses simple desktop technology - - that is available to anyone with a few thousand dollars. That database could hold every detail about every person on a prohibited list.

The rest is simple go - no go. If your name isn't on the "Do not sell" list, it can be assumed you are a gun owner.
Other more comprehensive "lists" can further narrow down that probability.
For example, that "customer loyalty" card that's swiped at Dicks when you buy ammunition just narrows down things even more. Such as why buy ammo if you don't own a gun?

Sorry this is so long - - but - people bandy about terms like "database" and they have no clue as to how incredibly powerful today's 64 bit database systems really are. Just 10 years ago, saying it was possible for the .gov to have a record of every detail of your life, would have brought rolling eyes and calls of tin foil hats.
In reality, the truth was that then it was 100% possible, just hugely expensive - well beyond the financial means of even several governments pooling their money.
Today? I could fund such a system with my Discover card....

[Hal]

P2---

I've mentioned this before - about database back ups.
Databases come in two basic flavors.
FIPS compliant and non-FIPS compliant.
FIPS stands for Federal Information Processing Standards.

In order for a FIPS relational database to function, the database isn't written to directly. Transactions are written to a log, which then writes each transaction to the database.
To back up the database, all you need is the empty shell of the database and all the transaction logs, to recreate the database.

The logs are not considered valid records since all they are is a record of transactions.
The data in the database is considered a valid record.

In theory - you could start with the empty shell of the NICS database, that has the structure of the database but has no data, and recreate the database at any point in it's history by applying the transaction logs in their proper sequence.
That's the way backups and restores of a database are done.
It's the accepted standard for a FIPS compliant database (Oracle or MSSQL).

One could have an empty database shell AND unapplied transaction logs, and still have the ability to create a fully functional database - - at any point in the life of that database - - and still be 100% within the requirements to delete information after X number of days or hours.

So - when "they" say that the data inside the NICS database is destroyed after X number of days or hours, they are correct. The data inside the functional database is destroyed.
HOWEVER - the two pieces of the database, the data file and the transaction log(s) remain separate non-functional pieces.
As long as they are not brought together.

I hope this brief explanation makes sense.

& for the record, I was a certified database administrator from 2002 until 2011 when I retired.
Since the requirements for FIPS (and ANSI for that matter) are strict, all compliant database systems are pretty much 99.999% the same. Oracle and MSSQL and DB2 are all three nearly the same. Only very minor differences separate them.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Hal

Present NICS is bad - but, it's not blatant.
Present law calls for all information collected to be destroyed in x-number of days - or hours.

BIDS, by design, would eliminate that. It has to in order to function.

Originally Posted by Hal

So - when "they" say that the data inside the NICS database is destroyed after X number of days or hours, they are correct. The data inside the functional database is destroyed.
HOWEVER - the two pieces of the database, the data file and the transaction log(s) remain separate non-functional pieces.
As long as they are not brought together.

I appreciate the information. So, is it really that much of a difference between a BIDS type system that doesn't destroy the information and an a NCIS one which supposedly does but still can be retrieved? And what is stopping an agency from also sending the information to be stored elsewhere? The best line of defense is keeping the information from the government in the first place.

[zukiphile]

Hal, I'm not very computer literate, but if I understand you correctly you are suggesting that if the BATF have all the parts to make a working gun owners registry, they should be held to constructively possess such a registry.

[Hal]

So, is it really that much of a difference between a BIDS type system that doesn't destroy the information and an a NCIS one which supposedly does but still can be retrieved? And what is stopping an agency from also sending the information to be stored elsewhere?

With BIDS - the information can't be destroyed because the whole system is based on the information being there.
With NICS, any information placed in there today, by law has to be deleted tomorrow.


BUT...

If I have the backups, I can go back to today at any time I wish - just by doing a restore.

It's splitting hairs because if you use something like Access for the database, then you could also restore today's backup at any time in the future. But...since the backup is a 100% working part all by itself, it could be successfully argued that the backup is a complete record and it's illegal to keep it.

With a relational database - - neither the data file or the transaction log(s) are a complete record & neither is a backup, because only a portion is being backed up.

Absolutely nothing prevents the storage of information at an alternate location - - other than the .gov promise that they won't do that.

The only real difference between BIDS and NICS is that with NICS, you have to resort to restoring backups - - which is a very, very, very,very minor thing for a knowledgeable DBA (database administrator) to do.

I'm not very computer literate, but if I understand you correctly you are suggesting that if the BATF have all the parts to make a working gun owners registry, they should be held to constructively possess such a registry

Absolutely
The situation I describe, doing a daily or weekly backup of the data file, then doing backups of the transaction logs every 15 min to one hour are industry standard best practice.
The situation I describe is exactly how any database administrator that wanted to keep their job would handle it.
Whoever is in charge of NICS can be assumed to have the ability to recreate any hour of any day since the system was put into service - just by replaying the proper log files against the proper data files.


It's really that easy...

Plus, it's probably a requirement of the system administrator to have such complete backups & since the backups are a working complete record of all the data, on their own, they do not violate the requirement to purge data

[rwilson452]

Back in my Navy daze, we would have three generations of backup tapes.

[Hal]

SQL backups are not anything at all like backup tapes or backups of any other sort.

With SQL (a relational database system), you can build an empty shell and then populate it by applying the proper transaction logs in the proper order.

You can also do a point in time restore of the database.

Say the database crashes at 12:25 PM. You take an immediate backup of the transaction log, then restore the data file and leave the database open and non-functional.
You apply all the transaction log files in sequence until you get to the one you just took.
Then you restore that transaction log backup and stop the restore at 12:24:59 - and only lose 1 second of data input.

Vs doing a complete restore of the system and losing everything inputed since the previous day.

Since these transaction log files only contain very small bits of transitional information, they are very tiny in size.
A typical transaction log backup, for an enormous multi- terabyte database, for an hour or so, can be small enough to fit on a 1.4MB floppy disk.

Anyhow - - what I'm trying to get across is that the .gov can purge all the live data from NICS, but, as long as they follow normal accepted best practices for managing the health of a relational database, they will have access to a complete history of every single call made to NICS since the system went online.
By doing so, they don't violate the letter of the law because the log backups are not a complete record & the data file backup isn't a complete record either.

The other thing I wish to convey is that a system such as BIDS is/can be as bad if not worse since it can operate 100% out in the open.
With that system, the fact that you don't show up in that database, is the same as saying you do show up in a database of gun owners OR a database of very likely gun owners. Combine a few assorted other databases and the information they contain - such as CCW permits, FOID holders, private shopping data mining databases (such as the ones retailers like Dick's use to track purchases), etc and it's a good as having an active atabase of gun owners.

Guys - this isnt tin foil hat stuff. This is the (I hate to use the overworked term but,,,,) awesome power of 64 bit databases & data mining that's out there right now as we speak.

Yes - this stuff was available in the past but - if you reread my little analogy about "foot prints", the amount of data you could store was miniscule.

[Hunter Customs]

I'm with 44 AMP on this one.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[Shane Tuttle]

Hal, I get your point about BIDS having to retain a database and NICS required to destroy/delete the info.

My counterpoint is, how do we know without a doubt that information is being deleted. Yes, by law, they have to under 18 USC S922(t). After seeing the abuse of gov power for the past 40 years, I don't trust that notion. They won't allow a public audit. WHY?

The only people in the database are ones that are not legally able to own a firearm. It's just a search of your name (and SS# is my speculation). If your name isn't on the list, then out the door with your new gun. The fed gov knows nothing.

The less involvement the fed gov has, the better I feel.

44 AMP's statement is surely a valid one. We need reformation of the laws regarding those that have done their time. But I think we're comparing two different issues here.

[44 AMP]

It might be considered two different issues here, but they are interrelated, I think.

Without a "prohibited class" there is little point to a background check.

Which has just put me on another track, where I think I now see another issue with the blind system. To be sure, let's see if I get this essentially correct (and please correct me if I'm wrong),

The BIDS is, essentially only a list of the names (and identifiers) of prohibited persons. The idea is that only the dealer sees the list, and if you aren't on it, sale proceeds.

And only prohibited people are on the list, so its ok, right? THEY don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, right? Or, do they? Is this a valid legal issue? Is the dealer an "agent of the government"? Or not?

It seems to me that any list (which has to be provided by the govt.) would also have to be provided as a written list (as there is no requirement I know of that an FFL HAS to have computer access).

A written list, which has to be periodically updated, NOT in the hands of government employees with security rules could very easily become "availiable" on the street. And last month's old copy thrown in the trash would be just as valuable.

So, that's ONE point. Another point is how inclusive the list can be. WHAT are the things that get on the prohibited list??

Conviction of listed offenses, or a court order. Is there anything else??

The court order part is particularly troublesome, are we actually at the point where locally issued restraining orders (order of protection, etc.) are or can be entered into a national database?? (as an aside, does a court order, issued by a state judge carry to other states? In other words, if a CA judge issues an order prohibiting you from buying a firearm, is it still a valid order in Maine?)

Are we currently putting this level of information into NICS? Are supposed to be and just doing it inefficiently? I don't know, but I do know our system and the fact that it relies on the people in it, so it is going to have "holes" in it, despite everyone's best efforts.

Is there a legal difference between govt employees (LEO or subcontract) looking at your records, in the course of an investigation (background check) and the gun dealer doing it? YOU are giving permission for YOUR records to be checked, but the dealer has to look at EVERYONE on the list to see if you are there. Might this be a privacy issue??

And if you don't include those people under "temporary" court orders on the list, then a sale to someone who is prohibited at the time, could easily occur.

If we aren't doing that now, then not doing it under the blind system doesn't change anything, and still leaves what could rightly be seen as a large hole in the system's ability to prevent purchase by prohibited persons.

Just a few points, I'm sure others will come up as we discuss this further.

[kilimanjaro]

Sounds to me all this concept does is move access to the NICS database further down the chain to the FFL, who would be responsible for making the determination of purchaser status instead of the FBI.

It also would allow for non-compliance by the FFL without oversight, seems to me.

Not a good idea.

If you're opposed to registration, as I am, just destroy the records after a term of years. I've yet to hear just what the public good is for being able to discover that the proverbial firearm found at a crime scene was purchased at Charlie's Hardware Emporium on March 21st, 1973. The question is who was in possession of it on the day of the crime. Even registering firearms to the title owner won't tell you that.

[kilimanjaro]

And, you could live in a state that does this :

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firea...ing/652012.pdf

Washington state does not register guns, but it does register handgun purchases.