The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 26, 2018, 03:41 PM   #51
Dano4734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 693
I suspect bringing up issues in a town hall meeting with the press around is probably better than email or letters
Dano4734 is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 03:49 PM   #52
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 455
I hope you New Yorkers fight this.

Information requiring your log on and password is by definition NOT public. It would require a judicial order to be monitored. You are already a trusted and known entity as per the background checks. Even in depth background investigations for our highest security clearance levels do not require such information.

While it seems such a small thing to give up, it is significant loss of privacy to secure a constitutional right. While that right is not "unlimited" it most certainly does come with a reasonable expectation to defend oneself as well as "bear arms".

The Supreme Court has definitely frowned upon any limitation of that right that seeks to restrict the meaning of "bearing arms" to just moving from your kitchen to the living room.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 29, 2018, 05:20 PM   #53
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,801
Just an off the wall question, IF the state requires you to give your social media address(s) and log in information, can someone else get that info from the state via a Freedom of Information Act filing??

And. would you be informed if they did????
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 10:18 AM   #54
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 455
Quote:
Just an off the wall question, IF the state requires you to give your social media address(s) and log in information, can someone else get that info from the state via a Freedom of Information Act filing??

And. would you be informed if they did????

They could most certainly request it.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 11:17 AM   #55
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,182
Is there anything in the bill that prohibits the state from keeping, copying (e.g.: screenshots) personal data including data thats not pertinent to the background check ?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old November 30, 2018, 12:48 PM   #56
Dano4734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 693
No. It’s basically designed to have a reason to deny the permit especially from those who have one. My guess to disarm law abiding citizens the right
Dano4734 is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 09:16 AM   #57
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 455
Here is some thoughts straight from the Bill authors mouth:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/597609066...#sp=show-clips
davidsog is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 01:38 PM   #58
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,319
Quote:
Here is some thoughts straight from the Bill authors mouth:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/597609066...#sp=show-clips
So ... another lawmaker who doesn't really understand the fundamental principles of equal protection, and what's the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." He wants the government to be able to look at social media, but that's a very slippery slope. Who determines what in a social media post constitutes a disqualifying factor? What are the objective criteria, and what are the qualifications of the reviewer to make the determination?

I particularly enjoyed how he evaded Tucker's request for his passwords.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 02:17 PM   #59
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,801
I have no problem with the Government LOOKING at social media. They can do it the same way everyone on social media does.

Government logging in to your account and going through all your history? No, sorry.

Government ACTING on your legal rights based on what they see on social media? Really, really BAD idea.

Beyond the simple fact that the government has no business with any of that information, (exception being posts that meet the legal definition of a threat), who decides what is, and isn't "actionable"?? And what kind of UNIFORM standard is to be used. You might get on a "to be denied" list just because the reviewer thinks you are one of those "deplorables" and therefore a threat to their vision of the correct society.

Will there be public disclosure if you are put on that list? Will YOU be notified? or will you find out only when you go to renew your permit, or buy a gun??? IS there, or will there be any kind of challenge/appeal process???

And here's another point, if the govt has your account(s) login password what stops some individual in govt with that info from posting anything THEY want in your account, PRETENDING to be YOU!!!

Slippery slope? How about a nice high cliff they can push you off???
Consider this situation, they've got access to your social media, they can post the most disgusting, deplorable, possibly even criminal stuff, AS YOU, and then use that as the basis for denial.

PROOVE that YOU didn't post that? How??? (assuming there is even a mechanism for you to challenge it...)

Oh, and wait till they decide that you must be denied because you don't have a social media presence that they can monitor...If they get to take that first step, then that will be the second step.

I understand the basis they are using, it is the "ancient" requirement that you be a "person of good character" in order to be issued a permit. This was the reason they required 3 "character references" on the NY permit application back in the 70s. People (not relatives,) who knew you they could (and would) check with. I don't know if that is still the case today, it probably is, requirements never seem to be reduced...
Now they want to add your social media comments as another source of "testimony" about your character.

Social media, and everything else on the internet, cannot and should not be relied on as factual. Remember the Columbine killers? One of them had a webpage that was full of "peace, love, brotherhood" and "can't we all get along" slogans, which turned out to all be lies.

It seems the proposed NY bill would make internet hearsay a valid legal standard for denying your rights. I don't think that's a good idea at all.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 06:19 PM   #60
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,319


44_AMP said it much better than I did.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 06:44 PM   #61
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,296
Having seen the legislature of Wisconsin and Minnesota try to change the constitutional position of the incoming administrators, looks to me like politicos is a case of what I can get away with, not any one side.

As for the bills, states rights are supposedly sacrosanct in the constitution. I see the Federlais trampling all over that whenever it suits whichever administration.

Or as my old work nemesis said, don't do as I do, do as I say. Speaking with forked tongue me thinks but.......

On the other hand, there are restrictions on sawed off shotguns and machine guns.

If insurrection is legal (founding of the US) and the right to arms is based on ability to do so, then by definition weapons should have no restrictions of ownership.

Relevant is that to keep and bear arms means you have to have said arms in the first place. So we can have them for legitimate purposes, but only to a point.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 6, 2018, 08:59 PM   #62
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,894
Kinda amazing that we have gone so far in so little time.

If I commit an infraction in the real world, speak something or write something on paper there a path of remediation. I can return to near innocence in time, but first I have to be proven guilty or have some due process.

But on social media, you are guilty. There’s no redemption, no rehabilitation... now set in stone until the Internet ends.
What’s acceptable to say today may be offensive 5 to 10 years into the future.
This wasn’t even an issue in the recent past but it will be even moreover an issue in the near future.
I felt like this was coming so the last couple of years so I haven’t been starting any new online accounts and have been slowly closing out others. Eventually all my online accounts will be gone, including TFL. I’m going back to reading books, licking stamps and mailing checks.
I’ve had people tell me tha some employers already do this, but I have no supporting evidence.
rickyrick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08825 seconds with 9 queries