Ethical? Interactive map of gun permit holders

[ringer]

What did you think of the Westchester newspaper's decision to create and publish an interactive map that gives names and addresses of all the local residents who have permits to own guns (when you scroll over it)? It's public information. And it does serve the public interest. Is it ethical?

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

 

[Norrin Radd]

Intrusive and unnecessary.

Criminalizes a group of people unfairly.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Intrusive and unnecessary.

Criminalizes a group of people unfairly.

Think of the high-fives in the editor's and publisher's office, a least until a big advertizer is on the list.

 

[YankeeFan]

I don't have a problem with them doing it, but they did it poorly. They provided no context.

At the very least, they should have also put together a searchable database.

But, tell us who's on the list. Who are these people? Get some of them on the record. Why do they have a gun? Why do they feel like they need one?

Who are the famous, or politically connected on the list? Who on the list are you concerned about? Is there anyone on the list that should be ineligible? Did you cross reference for felony convictions, spousal abuse arrests, etc.?

It's also very incomplete. From what I can tell, it doesn't include federal, state, or local law enforcement.

It doesn't include people with rifles or shotguns. And, because it's only a list of permit holders, it doesn't even mean they actually have a handgun.

 

[J-School Blue]

Yeah, this is what bugs me. There's an interesting story to be made out of this data, but WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE GUN NEXT DOOR!!!!!!!! is not the interesting story to be made out of it. This is everyone from to casual target shooters who may not keep an actual weapon at home, to collectors who have a permit for their random Civil War-era museum piece. And, yeah, I'm unclear how this treats law enforcement personnel. As raw data it's interesting, but it's not anything more than that.

 

[Songbird]

Blogger hits back and lists addresses -- and photos -- of Journal staff:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/blogger-retaliates-against-gun-permit-holder-map.html

 

[buckweaver]

Blogger hits back and lists addresses -- and photos -- of Journal staff:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/blogger-retaliates-against-gun-permit-holder-map.html

I would not have published the map, especially without any contextual information. But that's a real deck move.

 

[JRoyal]

Intrusive and unnecessary.

Criminalizes a group of people unfairly.

How does it criminalize them? They're legal gun owners. It could be argued this makes their neighbors more of a target for crime because now burglars know who has guns. I don't think it serves much interest putting the information out there, but I think saying it criminalizes people is a stretch.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Blogger hits back and lists addresses -- and photos -- of Journal staff:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/blogger-retaliates-against-gun-permit-holder-map.html

I would not have published the map, especially without any contextual information. But that's a real deck move.

Proper retaliation.

The press doesn't get to lob rocks from a perch on high without consequence. It's not the 1980s anymore.

Viva the InterWebs.

Intrusive and unnecessary.

Criminalizes a group of people unfairly.

How does it criminalize them? They're legal gun owners. It could be argued this makes their neighbors more of a target for crime because now burglars know who has guns. I don't think it serves much interest putting the information out there, but I think saying it criminalizes people is a stretch.

Look! THESE are the GUN OWNERS!!!!!!!!!! They are DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!! In your COMMUNITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHOOTINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[buckweaver]

Blogger hits back and lists addresses -- and photos -- of Journal staff:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/blogger-retaliates-against-gun-permit-holder-map.html

I would not have published the map, especially without any contextual information. But that's a real deck move.

Proper retaliation.

The press doesn't get to lob rocks from a perch on high without consequence. It's not the 1980s anymore.

Viva the InterWebs.

Publishing personal information about the food editor? The transportation reporter?

What "rocks" did they "lob"?

They should get "retaliated against" because they happen to work for the same large company? That's bullshirt.

 

[JRoyal]

Intrusive and unnecessary.

Criminalizes a group of people unfairly.

How does it criminalize them? They're legal gun owners. It could be argued this makes their neighbors more of a target for crime because now burglars know who has guns. I don't think it serves much interest putting the information out there, but I think saying it criminalizes people is a stretch.

Look! THESE are the GUN OWNERS!!!!!!!!!! They are DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!! In your COMMUNITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHOOTINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's if you assume every gun owner will shoot someone. It could be equally argued that this could show just how many regular, everyday people out there own guns. Maybe it's because I'm an Okie, but I'm pretty damn liberal and I don't assume every gun owner is going to shoot someone.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Blogger hits back and lists addresses -- and photos -- of Journal staff:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/blogger-retaliates-against-gun-permit-holder-map.html

I would not have published the map, especially without any contextual information. But that's a real deck move.

Proper retaliation.

The press doesn't get to lob rocks from a perch on high without consequence. It's not the 1980s anymore.

Viva the InterWebs.

Publishing personal information about the food editor? The transportation reporter?

What "rocks" did they "lob"?

They should get "retaliated against" because they happen to work for the same large company? That's bullshirt.

Too bad.

Newspaper leadership should have made a wiser decision. They want to drop something like this on the community, fine. They brought the spotlight. They wanted attention, and they got it.