Comments on: another attack on privacy

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:01:40 +0000

commercial appeal compilation

(I tried to make an independent, non-dated “page” containing this information, but I seem to have broken that aspect of my weblogging engine. I will strive to keep this page updated as best I can, so feel free to refer…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:12:33 +0000

proliferation

I find it somewhat ironic that the shortest month of the year is also my most prolific, and that it received the highest amount of traffic, ever, for my website. I guess I should thank the staff of the Commercial…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:16:40 +0000

uhm… what?

Now this is a search phrase you do not see every day: “I lied on my ohio ccw application” I do not want to come anywhere near knowing why someone would be running a search for that… especially considering the…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:08:54 +0000

once more into the breach (again)

Crap on a crutch… the staff of the Commercial Appeal just cannot keep their mouths shut: Martino Johnson, charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Terrelle Beasley this week after a minor traffic accident, held a Tennessee-issued pe…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:25:42 +0000

commercial update

In response to the public hue and cry concerning their privacy-invading database, the Commercial Appeal did not take it down… no… they went and updated it. Their numbers are slightly more believable this time around, claiming 219,245 entries as of…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:37:02 +0000

comment autocracy

To all those individuals who would like to leave comments at the Commercial Appeal concerning their invasion of private, law-abiding citizens’ privacy by publishing a database of handgun carry permit holders, and especially at their most recent editori…

By: Linoge

Linoge — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:13:10 +0000

Heh, using their logic, Name Witheld, everything would/should be outlawed. However, they only appear to apply that logic to things they disagree with – no surprise there.
Huh, after you posted about your comments at that thread disappearing, I logged out of my account at the Commercial Appeal. Lo and behold, all of the comments I left there pointing back to this post and my earlier posts on this topic have disappeared, as did my post including all of the links disproving the “43 times” fallacy.
“Reasoned discourse”, at its finest.
I do find it very interesting that the posts did not disappear until I logged out, though… Furthermore, the comments re-appear all over again when I log back into the account. Curioser and curioser. Not only is the Commercial Appeal attempting to suppress dissent at its site, it is further attempting to hide that oppression.
It would appear as though their logo and “motto” are more accurate than we might think – it is just that they want to be the ones in charge of the light, and what it is and is not shined upon.

By: Name Witheld

Name Witheld — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:27:45 +0000

I posted an number of items on the CA site, and was careful to adhere to all of their standards.
Every post vanished “poof” within minutes like some kind of magic act.
There was nothing there except an opinion that differed from the CA, no bad language, no non-factual information, no slamming others.
The CA appears to be very actively censoring thoughts and ideas.
The Chinese would be so proud of our Commercial Appeal.
It is so ironic, the CA has that little light house beacon on the front of every paper, with some corny phrase about shining the light. It is not light they are shining for sure.

By: Name Witheld

Name Witheld — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:04:30 +0000

50,000 people a year die in auto accidents.
Using the CA’s logic, then we should outlaw cars because cars kill people.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:33:32 +0000

My biggest problem with that “reasoning”, Sevesteen, is that it indicates that the newspaper should take up their concerns with the FBI and the state’s local investegatory service, not go around publishing everyone’s pertinent information for the world to see. That is not trying to fix the problem, that is just being spiteful.
As for our situation, I am going to continue lobbying my representatives for a complete closure of the handgun carry permit holder list, with no access granted to anyone except the investegatory services, or in the rare instances of permit holders committing crimes. If we have to settle for the situation you have in Ohio, I would be less OK with that, but at least it would be better than our current arrangement.
This may be a paper for a big city, pistolero, but that does not mean good writing, good reporting, or even a good grasp on logic (or even a big paper – I am having my doubts on that). As for the property rights aspect of it, simply put up a sign telling concealed carriers that they are not welcome in your store – they will get the picture, and you will lose business. Simple as that .

By: the pistolero

the pistolero — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:53:55 +0000

What is it with big-city newspapers and piss-poor anti-self-defense arguments? I remember when the state of Texas took the CHL database out of the public record, the Houston Chronicle threw a wall-eyed fit. They actually tried to cast it as a property rights issue, if you can believe that.

By: Sevesteen

Sevesteen — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:41:27 +0000

Ohio went through this same cycle–Several newspaper printed lists of the license holders in their area. A bill was proposed to limit their access, they said they needed access to determine if license holders were causing crime, even though they had yet to use the list for that purpose.
We wound up with a system where a journalist can look up a name, but can’t copy it down. Seems to be a fair compromise. I think it would be even better if the newspapers that abused the list were not eligible to access the CCW list.