Thu, 10 May 2007 14:51:00
More thoughts on privacy, public records and accessibility of data
Dig if you will, a picture: It’s an idyllic Saturday in spring, a typical suburban stripmall anchored by a mega-sized grocery store. Two vehicles arrive near each other and park. Out of one hops a 40-something Soccer mom and her two kids, her “Kerry 04” sticker gleaming in the sun right next to the one that says “Hillary 08.” She opens the side panel to her minivan and out pop two beautiful children, somewhere between 6 and 9 years old.
Out of the other hops Joe Citizen, who has a permit to carry his gun. He’s also 40-something, has been around guns his whole life, has taken classes, practices regularly and follows all common sense safety precautions as well as all laws pertaining to his firearm. No one can see his gun at any time. In fact, SoccerMom has no idea if Joe has it with him. What she does know is that Joe is in a bitter custody battle with his wife, and that anything she can do to help her friend Jane would be obviously justified. It doesn’t matter than jane drinks and Jane is the one that cheated on Joe. Jane is her friend and friends help each other.
It just so happens that in this morning’s paper, Joe’s name was on a list of concealed carry permit holders in her state. A plan develops in Soccermom’s mind, and she walks to a pay phone outside the store to dial 911.
“Oh my God there’s a man with a gun in the grocery store! He’s threatening people with it! You’ve got to come quickly!” Eventually it’s discovered that Joe did nothing wrong, but before his name can be cleared and retractions printed in the media, his wife uses the incident to wrangle custody away from him.
All because true conservatives thought it a great idea to publish permit holders in the paper to make the information easily accessible to all.
Scenario two:
Mike and Steve were in love. They decided to move to Massachusetts, a state that recognizes their right to be emotionally and legally bound as simply as a straight couple, and they got married. Unfortunately for them, the Boston Globe publishes a list of all gay marriages on the front page of the paper so as to easily identify who is getting “gay married.”
Mike is a lawyer, and a damned good one. He applies for a job with a law firm. He’s infinitely qualified. He’s perfect for the job. But the hiring partner is a conservative Christian, and not only does he believe as a matter of religious faith that homosexuality is a sin, he knows his clients will be uncomfortable with a gay attorney.
Mike is not in any way a stereotype. He could never pass for gay on TV, where ridiculous flamboyancy is exchanged for reality. He’s just a regular guy who looks like any other guy, gay or straight. he doesn’t talk about being gay to clients, he isn’t an activist, he’s not even associated with any gay causes or websites via a Google search! The only way anyone would know Mike was gay is if Mike told them...or they read it in the Boston Globe.
What’s wrong with publishing lists like this? After all...CCW permits and marriage certificates are public record, right? Why make it difficult for the bigots (or worse) to procure the information? It should be splashed across the sides of buses.
Posted by JimK at 02:51 PM on May 10, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, Guns - 2nd Amendment, Other
Tags:
Technorati: Andrew Sullivan firearms guns civil rights
Comments:
No comments yet.
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)