DOJ orders apple and google to hand over identifying data of every user of gun scope app

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

39 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

That's why nobody does drugs anymore right....RIGHT?

No, that problem persists in the US because politicians were more than happy to look the other way when pharmaceutical companies got tons of people addicted to opioids in the form of legal prescription drugs.  And the dealers are just using the high demand to make an easy buck. 

It's nowhere near as bad in most other developed countries, just like we have no real gun problems here either.

 

 

Anyway : As was already pointed out, the amount of data they are asking is just insanely out of proportion to whatever crime they might be trying to investigate.  Hopefully both Apple and Google tell them to get lost. 

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, colonel_mortis said:

This is definitely not a necessary or proportional way to go about doing that. If they had requested just the aggregated country data (how many downloads per country), that would allow them to achieve that goal without invading the users' privacy.

 

Then that would suggest they want names. 

 

Besides this is an order not a request.  Not sure how the process works in the US but wouldn't failing to fulfill the order be considered contempt?  Appealing might be an option as MS did when the US government tried to request emails from one of their Irish servers, but if the appeal fails then it won't be up to apple or google to choose.

[AngryBeaver]

1 hour ago, Captain Chaos said:

No, but you can put lengthy jail sentences on illegal possession.    Give it a decade or two and the amount of gun-related crimes will drop dramatically.

The problem is our justice system here in the USA is going to crap. Our jails are not actually rehabilitating people, they have actually shown to increase the recidivism rates. We have moved from a system of truth based on facts and turned it into a competition for who can tell the most convincing story.

 

I think punishment should definitely be there for these offenders, but I don't think our current system is going to benefit them or us in the end.

[justpoet]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Besides this is an order not a request.  Not sure how the process works in the US but wouldn't failing to fulfill the order be considered contempt?

I can understand the confusion, but at this stage it is more of an order like ordering off of a menu.  They're asking the court to approve it, which would then turn it into basically a subpoena.  At that point, it would be the same as when they requested Apple break into the phone of somebody.  Apple and Google could comply (with probable consumer backlash), or not comply and fight the order in court (as was being done in the phone case until the govt dropped the case).

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, justpoet said:

I can understand the confusion, but at this stage it is more of an order like ordering off of a menu.  They're asking the court to approve it, which would then turn it into basically a subpoena.  At that point, it would be the same as when they requested Apple break into the phone of somebody.  Apple and Google could comply (with probable consumer backlash), or not comply and fight the order in court (as was being done in the phone case until the govt dropped the case).

So it's not a court order as claimed in the article its a request of the courts to order?  Fucking media.  Never trust a word they say.

[justpoet]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So it's not a court order as claimed in the article its a request of the courts to order?  Fucking media.  Never trust a word they say.

Quote

If the court signs off on the order, Apple and Google will be told to hand over not just the names of anyone who downloaded the scope app from August 1, 2017 to the current date, but their telephone numbers and IP addresses too, which could be used to determine the location of the user. The government also wants to know when users were operating the app.

Quote

 

He said that if the request was granted it may also have a “serious chilling effect on how people use the Google and Android app stores.” He added, “The idea that Google could be compelled to turn over, in secret, all of my identifiers and session data in its possession because I downloaded an application for research is such a broad overreach it's ridiculous.”

Though the order is unprecedented in America, non-U.S. governments have tried a similar tactic before on a grander scale. As Forbes reported, an unnamed government had asked Apple for data on 58 million users of a single app as they tried to trace a terrorist cell. Apple declined to provide the data.

 

Some additional quotes from further down the forbes article.  But yes, just a request of the court to order.  That, in and of itself, is unprecedented for this kind of data in the US though.

[dalekphalm]

This seems... highly illegal and a gross violation of privacy. 

 

But hey every now and then I get surprised. 

[Video Beagle]

11 hours ago, 79wjd said:

Apple hasn't cooperated in the past with things like backdoors. They WILL (historically anyway) comply with warrants for iCloud data. This would seem more like the warrants for iCloud data than a request for a backdoor into iOS.

A judge would have to issue a warrant, and then apple can either comply or challenge. I'm sure the government can find a judge willing to issue such a broad warrant, but Apple would likely challenge it for being overlybroad, and it would likely get squashed as both privacy advocates and gun rights advocates would be against it.

[Trik'Stari]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Don't they already know who has a gun?  I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

 

They know who has purchased guns legally. They (The federal government) claim there is no gun registry in the US, but any time you buy a gun from a gun store or a booth at a gun show (the gun show loophole is both a myth and a misnomer that means "private sales" in reality) you must fill out a background check and FFL transfer form which include the serial number of the firearm being purchased.

 

This paperwork, is required by federal law to be maintained indefinitely by the FFL holder, and can be searched at any time by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. This constitutes a gun registry, at a point of sale. Private transactions are not registered because.... well how are you going to enforce something on a transaction you have no knowledge of? It'd be like requiring sales tax for every illicit drug deal that happens.

 

Worth noting, there are already criminal charges in place for knowingly selling a firearm to someone who is not allowed to have a firearm (felon, etc.). As well as straw purchases (which a Journalist found out relatively recently. They wanted to proved the system was flawed by committing a straw purchase. Did so, and then received a nice visit from the BATFE or the DOJ because it turns out you can't just commit a crime and get away with it because you're a "journalist")

 

My opinion: This has nothing to do with their stated purpose, and is merely a means for them to set some sort of precedent. I can tell you that if this company actually hands this data over, they will be going out of business as the gun owning community within the US is very activist heavy, at least in how they spend their dollars. Usage of the app will drop almost overnight, and the company will tank.

[TechyBen]

16 hours ago, imreloadin said:

Can't melt down knowledge, same thing goes for nuclear proliferation.

I'm pretty sure nuclear proliferation can melt down...

 

Is that a small drum kit I see over there? Oops, I just tripped. [Budamptish]

[suits]

18 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

I guess it depends on how/where you buy the guns; I think it's different when going to a certified store as opposed to a gun show.

There is literally no difference between buying in a certified store and buying in a gun show. To sell in a gun show you must have your FFL. There is a specific spot on the 4473 that says "check if sold at a gun show" and requires you to put in the location. please dont spread ignorant, and misleading information.

[lewdicrous]

4 minutes ago, suits said:

There is literally no difference between buying in a certified store and buying in a gun show. To sell in a gun show you must have your FFL. There is a specific spot on the 4473 that says "check if sold at a gun show" and requires you to put in the location. please dont spread ignorant, and misleading information.

I was talking about the gun show loophole, if that doesn't exist then my bad.

[suits]

6 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

I was talking about the gun show loophole. 

It doesnt exist... you fill out the same background check. The seller has to have an FFL. You have to present valid IDs. Infact you fill out more informatiok at a gun show than at a store. I have an FFL  the laws are very specific you have fallen to false information amd propaganda. The only "loop hole" as some call it is you can obtain a pre-background check (which is the same as the normal required background check if not a more in depth background check) which is allowed on the 4473 under section 21. Please do not spread misinformation. Section 17 of the 4473 requires designation of a gun show sale. 

[suits]

7 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

I was talking about the gun show loophole. 

And just to be clear, to get my excemption from the background check, I went through a month of background checks and have my fingerprints filed with local, state, and federal government agencies.

[lewdicrous]

2 minutes ago, suits said:

It doesnt exist... you fill out the same background check. The seller has to have an FFL. You have to present valid IDs. Infact you fill out more informatiok at a gun show than at a store. I have an FFL  the laws are very specific you have fallen to false information amd propaganda. The only "loop hole" as some call it is you can obtain a pre-background check (which is the same as the normal required background check if not a more in depth background check) which is allowed on the 4473 under section 21. Please do not spread misinformation. Section 17 of the 4473 requires designation of a gun show sale. 

This is the link I shared after that post and I did say that it's outdated. 

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

I come from a country that doesn't have gun problems, so excuse my ignorance. 

[lewdicrous]

1 minute ago, lewdicrous said:

This is the link I shared after that post and I did say that it's outdated. 

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

I come from a country that doesn't have gun problems, so excuse my ignorance. 

This is what that site referenced.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

I come from a country that doesn't have gun problems

The vast majority of the US doesn't have gun problems either. The places that do are the places with gang problems and excessive regulation on their citizens.

[lewdicrous]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The vast majority of the US doesn't have gun problems either. The places that do are the places with gang problems and excessive regulation on their citizens.

Though those problems are amplified to us who don't live in America. 

 

Also, this says that there is/was a loophole, so either they're lying about there ever being said loophole in the first place, or there's something I'm missing.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

 

That's what my posts were referring to. 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Also, this says that there is/was a loophole,

The "loophole" they described is private sale. To which, background checks can't be enforced.

 

And outright bans are ignored by criminals (or more accurately, favored by them as less people can fight back), and rarely have a preferable effect on overall rates of violent crime (meaning that even if gun crime goes down, other forms of crime with other weapons go up in relation).

[Video Beagle]

6 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Though those problems are amplified to us who don't live in America. 

I'd advise seeking elsewhere for discussion of American gun issues. ....some information presented in this thread is rather ...biased...if not right out wrong....and I suspect there's people who'd rather not see a tech thread get into a flame war over gun rights to bother commenting on those points.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, lewdicrous said:

Though those problems are amplified to us who don't live in America. 

 

Also, this says that there is/was a loophole, so either they're lying about there ever being said loophole in the first place, or there's something I'm missing.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

 

That's what my posts were referring to. 

i wanted my gf (lives in the UK) to come visit me and i had to promise her that theres not many people that own guns in my area before she agreed to come. its interesting how normal gun ownership is viewed here and how shocking it is to people outside of the US

[lewdicrous]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i wanted my gf (lives in the UK) to come visit me and i had to promise her that theres not many people that own guns in my area before she agreed to come. its interesting how normal gun ownership is viewed here and how shocking it is to people outside of the US

Just to clarify, we have guns where I live, but they're hard to get and we don't get much of the problems that we hear about from other countries, so it's kinda shocking. 

The place I spent my vacation some years ago in America had a shooting near by, so it greatly increases our worries as tourists. 

[Video Beagle]

4 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i wanted my gf (lives in the UK) to come visit me and i had to promise her that theres not many people that own guns in my area before she agreed to come. its interesting how normal gun ownership is viewed here and how shocking it is to people outside of the US

I'm active in a number of UK based groups online (I'm in Colorado, USA), and something I've discovered is the idea just how vast the US isn't felt over there.  It's known, but not really understood. So it can seem like shootings happen everywhere....on the other hand, shootings do pretty much happen everywhere.

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

They (The federal government) claim there is no gun registry in the US, but any time you buy a gun from a gun store or a booth at a gun show (the gun show loophole is both a myth and a misnomer that means "private sales" in reality) you must fill out a background check and FFL transfer form which include the serial number of the firearm being purchased.

From memory the specific thing that is not allowed is a searchable electronic database so when the ATF wants to look up records it has to be done in the most idiotic and near impossible way.

 

Quote

To perform a search, ATF investigators must find the specific index number of a former dealer, then search records chronologically for records of the exact gun they seek. They may review thousands of images in a search before they find the weapon they are looking for. That’s because dealer records are required to be “non-searchable” under federal law. Keyword searches, or sorting by date or any other field, are strictly prohibited.

 

Quote

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to submit sales records to the ATF when they close up shop. The ATF has acquired a massive library of such records: more than 285 million, which it scans and digitizes. Those documents are saved into one of the 25 “data systems” that help the ATF source guns used in crimes.

 

Quote

Congress imposes conflicting directives on the ATF. The agency is required to trace guns, but it must use inefficient procedures and obsolete technology. Lawmakers in effect tell the agency to do a job, but badly.

 

Quote

The government takes making gun records difficult to search quite seriously. A Government Accountability Office report released August 1 concluded that in two data systems, the ATF did not always comply with “restrictions prohibiting consolidation or centralization” of records. The GAO, which is entrusted with ensuring that federal agencies follow the law, was essentially chiding the ATF for making it a bit easier for its hundreds of investigators to do their jobs.

 

Quote

Until very recently, gun dealers were prohibited from using electronic, cloud-based computing systems unless the ATF granted them specific permission to do so. As a result, many records are on index cards, water-stained paper, or, in some instances, even toilet paper and napkins.

 

Quote

The war on searchable technology continued. In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearms Protection Act, which bans the ATF from creating a registry of guns, gun owners or gun sales.

 

Congress also put a rider barring the agency from “consolidation or centralization” of gun dealers’ records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011, then made the prohibition permanent, under law.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/

 

TL;DR A lot of effort has gone in to making a key area of responsibility for the ATF as ineffectual and difficult to carry out, I won't go in to who and how they achieved that (but we all know). Just be aware I'm not typically one for slippery slope arguments, if there is a specific issue or fear of something like the misuse of the data make a specific law that prohibits it.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

if there is a specific issue or fear of something like the misuse of the data make a specific law that prohibits it.

Doesn't work. Otherwise, the Hughes Amendment would not exist. The Assault Weapons Ban would have never happened. Hate speech laws wouldn't be a thing in any country with a constitution that includes freedom of speech.