The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03 2022, @08:59AM
(3 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday July 03 2022, @08:59AM (#1257703)
I'm a staunch supporter of all the guaranteed rights but I really can't see much wrong with this.
It is not a violation of the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments to read what someone is publishing. If it was a search of private communications, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Hands off private communications without a warrant, but read everything posted publicly. Most mass shooters (the big ones that are planned and kill a lot of people, not the ones that happen every day where someone shoots a couple of people at random) give obvious warning signs on social media. It shouldn't just be about guns, either, they need social workers too. Gun restrictions will at most slow them down long enough for someone to help them.
I agree that "good moral character" is vague, but it also seems to fit within the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment. This is a devil in the details situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03 2022, @01:10PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday July 03 2022, @01:10PM (#1257740)
The list of "sensitive places" where even permit holders are not, well, permitted, is a much bigger issue. The list includes everywhere, making this a fig leaf for a continued ban.
No password is required to read anything I've ever published publicly. Hochul and company want those passwords to all accounts. They obviously don't want to read only what I've published - they want to dig into private communications as well. They want to see who I've friended, who I've unfriended, who I've followed, who I've liked and disliked, probably my reading history, groups I've approved of, etc ad nauseum.
Handing over the passwords to all of your accounts amounts to handing over your diary or journal. There is a lot of private information contained in your account that should be private, and require a warrant before government can access it.
Worse, if you're smart enough to not have social media accounts, you'll be denied your rights, based on that alone?
-- “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04 2022, @04:05AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 04 2022, @04:05AM (#1257933)
Hochul and company want those passwords to all accounts
This does not seem to be the case, the law only says "a list of accounts." I don't see any way to spin that into including the passwords too, which are not mentioned at all.
It probably doesn't matter, since the obvious intent is to make the permit so useless and the process so onerous that nobody does it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03 2022, @08:59AM (3 children)
I'm a staunch supporter of all the guaranteed rights but I really can't see much wrong with this.
It is not a violation of the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendments to read what someone is publishing. If it was a search of private communications, that would be one thing, but it isn't. Hands off private communications without a warrant, but read everything posted publicly. Most mass shooters (the big ones that are planned and kill a lot of people, not the ones that happen every day where someone shoots a couple of people at random) give obvious warning signs on social media. It shouldn't just be about guns, either, they need social workers too. Gun restrictions will at most slow them down long enough for someone to help them.
I agree that "good moral character" is vague, but it also seems to fit within the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment. This is a devil in the details situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 03 2022, @01:10PM
The list of "sensitive places" where even permit holders are not, well, permitted, is a much bigger issue. The list includes everywhere, making this a fig leaf for a continued ban.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 03 2022, @02:27PM (1 child)
No password is required to read anything I've ever published publicly. Hochul and company want those passwords to all accounts. They obviously don't want to read only what I've published - they want to dig into private communications as well. They want to see who I've friended, who I've unfriended, who I've followed, who I've liked and disliked, probably my reading history, groups I've approved of, etc ad nauseum.
Handing over the passwords to all of your accounts amounts to handing over your diary or journal. There is a lot of private information contained in your account that should be private, and require a warrant before government can access it.
Worse, if you're smart enough to not have social media accounts, you'll be denied your rights, based on that alone?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04 2022, @04:05AM
This does not seem to be the case, the law only says "a list of accounts." I don't see any way to spin that into including the passwords too, which are not mentioned at all.
It probably doesn't matter, since the obvious intent is to make the permit so useless and the process so onerous that nobody does it.