CA DOJ Leak of CCW and Firearm Purchaser PII

[flhxxx]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

Sounds like my sig-line below....




---

Precisely, I believe we should put an end to them maintaining databases of citizens. At some point this information could be used to target firearm owners who are unwilling to comply with a tyrannical regime's despotism. This information does not have any value in preventing crime or stopping criminals, therefore why should they be allowed to maintain these databases at all?

[SkyHawk]

Well now I am digging into the data, just starting to scratch the surface.

Spot checking only (no heavy machine analysis yet) I see a single birthdate, White Male, with 639 DROS records at a single gun store.

Likely all the same person. All in 2014 through 2017, nearly half of them in 2014 alone. 262 pistols in 2014, bought with a C&R 1/30 exemption.

Also 46 RAWs for the same birthdate to a male or males in a single county - all with the same effective date (probably a single person, and maybe the same as above).

Another - female, 30 RAWs, same county DOB and effective date - probably the same person (baby girl, I love you! )

Good times.

[92E2]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

...

Another - female, 30 RAWs, same county, DOB and effective date - probably the same person (baby girl, I love you! )

LOL, who'd a thought it turned into a dating database !!!

[ForceOfNature]

Some have observed that the RAW data is duplicative.

Originally Posted by Vagabond

My RAWs are showing up twice for some reason. Glitch in the matrix maybe? Still makes you say WTF.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Makes you wonder how valid the research @ UC Davis & Stanford is regarding this...

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by ForceOfNature

Some have observed that the RAW data is duplicative.



Makes you wonder how valid the research @ UC Davis & Stanford is regarding this...

Yes, I have seen almost 100% duplicity in the RAW data in the small sample I have.

And yes, I wonder how that plays into Wintemute's numbers.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by ForceOfNature

Some have observed that the RAW data is duplicative.

Makes you wonder how valid the research @ UC Davis & Stanford is regarding this...

Yes, after more study I do believe they are duplicates of duplicates of dupl...., however they all have different registration numbers (usually two guns per AWR)

Definitely not accurate (I also deleted my post).

Originally Posted by Vagabond

My RAWs are showing up twice for some reason. Glitch in the matrix maybe? Still makes you say WTF.

I can see my own RAW in the data, and mine are also all showing twice

[Gnzrme]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Well now I am digging into the data, just starting to scratch the surface.

Spot checking only (no heavy machine analysis yet) I see a single birthdate, White Male, with 639 DROS records at a single gun store.

Likely all the same person. All in 2014 through 2017, nearly half of them in 2014 alone. 262 pistols in 2014, bought with a C&R 1/30 exemption.

Also 46 RAWs for the same birthdate to a male or males in a single county - all with the same effective date (probably a single person, and maybe the same as above).

Another - female, 30 RAWs, same county DOB and effective date - probably the same person (baby girl, I love you! )







Good times.

When I worked at a gun store just before Roberti Roos, we had an individual who would come to the store and purchase guns every Wednesday (his day off) and would frequently buy multiple firearms each time.

He shared with me that he had hundreds of guns and pistols. The nicest guy...

[US1776]

Has anyone actually been able to verify the actual scope of exactly what information was available on the various sub menus, other than CCW.
IE: Can anyone actually prove that PII (Residential address and/or CDL) was NOT available via the DROS or FSC?

[MajorSideburns]

Originally Posted by rd2play

The Democrat Progressive outrage is very selective... as anyone who follows politics knows by now.

I agree entirely, California should give the people on the list a new DL number, if they want one. They should also pay for credit monitoring for every affected individual for at least five years.

Who the hell cares about credit monitoring? The state should pay for security enhancements to the property and pay for armed professional security guards should the residents want that, or pay for the relocation costs including costs of new property should the resident prefer to move.

[Lanejsl]

Has anyone actually been able to figure out why people refuse to ask these questions under the plethora of posts that already exist on this topic??

Originally Posted by US1776

Has anyone actually been able to verify the actual scope of exactly what information was available on the various sub menus, other than CCW.
IE: Can anyone actually prove that PII (Residential address and/or CDL) was NOT available via the DROS or FSC?

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by US1776

IE: Can anyone actually prove that PII (Residential address and/or CDL) was NOT available via the DROS or FSC?

How do you prove a negative?

From the data I have seen, which appears to be legit and comprehensive, there were no names or addresses in anything but the CCW data set. I have yet to personally see the FSC data but I believe the reports from those who have.

[pingpong]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

How do you prove a negative?

From the data I have seen, which appears to be legit and comprehensive, there were no names or addresses in anything but the CCW data set. I have yet to personally see the FSC data but I believe the reports from those who have.

I've seen the data and I can confirm no names, just the DOB, DL#, FSC #, and Issue Date. Of course, I'm sure there will still be people who are skeptical (paranoid?) even though we have no reason to lie...

[Dirk Tungsten]

Skyhawk and others thanks for poring over the data and confirming what was and wasn't released.

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by pingpong

I've seen the data and I can confirm no names, just the DOB, DL#, FSC #, and Issue Date. Of course, I'm sure there will still be people who are skeptical (paranoid?) even though we have no reason to lie...

I believe the county is included in the FSC data as well as the other files.

Just one thing tying the rest of them together.

[PaIadin]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

Lol. Angry much bro? Many of us have CCW here. Get used to it.

Take a look at the thread below this about workarounds.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...202120220SB918

The proposed law prohibits CCW in
Banks
Parks
Restaurants
Businesses that do not have a sign permitting CCW.

So go ahead and carry...on the street as long as it does not pass a park.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by US1776

Has anyone actually been able to verify the actual scope of exactly what information was available on the various sub menus, other than CCW.
IE: Can anyone actually prove that PII (Residential address and/or CDL) was NOT available via the DROS or FSC?

Too many actual and actually's- I don't understand your ask. stop using that word.

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by US1776

Has anyone actually been able to verify the actual scope of exactly what information was available on the various sub menus, other than CCW.
IE: Can anyone actually prove that PII (Residential address and/or CDL) was NOT available via the DROS or FSC?

CDL was definitely in the FSC data. I did have a copy for one county, but inadvertently deleted it.

As far as the GVRO item, there are actually fewer data in the download file than presented in the graphics on that dashboard page. The graphics showed the county, the number of GVROs, who initiated the RO, (LE, Family, etc). As I recall, the vast majority were LE, with only 2-3 family submissions. The graphics also listed the type of RO, whether a 21-day hold, an emergency hold, or other.

Most counties in the data file have very low numbers of GVROs for the year 2021. Even vast Los Angeles County had only 40. Most counties are in the single digits. However, there are a couple of exceptions.

Since this is a small file and contains absolutely no PII, I would like to share it here. It was publicly available for download from the DOJ site on Monday. Just the county name and number of GVROs.

Thoughts?

[Jason_2111]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Here's how you find out what they have and what might have gone out...Public Records Act Request.

IANAL, but I am an old, retired, pissed off State Bureaucrat...

I just sent this in:

Bury their *****es.

I've sent in my questionnaire to M & A to join the lawsuit... so I'm going to wait to send this request until after I hear back from them... I don't want this to potentially have a negative impact on being a plaintiff.

Thank you again, for sharing this with us!

[Rustlin’ Jack]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

CDL was definitely in the FSC data. I did have a copy for one county, but inadvertently deleted it.

As far as the GVRO item, there are actually fewer data in the download file than presented in the graphics on that dashboard page. The graphics showed the county, the number of GVROs, who initiated the RO, (LE, Family, etc). As I recall, the vast majority were LE, with only 2-3 family submissions. The graphics also listed the type of RO, whether a 21-day hold, an emergency hold, or other.

Most counties in the data file have very low numbers of GVROs for the year 2021. Even vast Los Angeles County had only 40. Most counties are in the single digits. However, there are a couple of exceptions.

Since this is a small file and contains absolutely no PII, I would like to share it here. It was publicly available for download from the DOJ site on Monday. Just the county name and number of GVROs.

Thoughts?

No. Not yet. Hold the line on the public release of the data until all this shakes out, if ever.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Gnzrme

When I worked at a gun store just before Roberti Roos, we had an individual who would come to the store and purchase guns every Wednesday (his day off) and would frequently buy multiple firearms each time.

He shared with me that he had hundreds of guns and pistols. The nicest guy...

Oh stop, you're making me blush.

---

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

CDL was definitely in the FSC data. I did have a copy for one county, but inadvertently deleted it.

Since this is a small file and contains absolutely no PII, I would like to share it here. It was publicly available for download from the DOJ site on Monday. Just the county name and number of GVROs.

Thoughts?

That's a frickin' FAT NO!!

Not only do I have access to figure out who people are just with a CDL, it's highly like those that would do harm do too. Now add in some other associative data, and I can tell you what they had for breakfast - last Monday.

And think of it like this: even without the PII, you would be helping to share gun ownership statistics anyway that the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd, UC Davis, erroneous 'Gun Violence Prevention'orgs, and media 'presstitutes' demanded from the CA DOJ for painting the volume of private gun ownership as crazy. Let's keep it locked up for now.

Share/post nothing. ( Thank you. )

Besides, Kestryl, Librarian, Quiet, etc. will come along and delete it anyway.

---

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

That's a frickin' FAT NO!!

Not only do I have access to figure out who people are just with a CDL, it's highly like those that would do harm do too. Now add in some other associative data, and I can tell you what they had for breakfast - last Monday.

Share/post nothing. ( Thank you. )

Besides, Kestryl, Librarian, Quiet, etc. will come along and delete it anyway.

---

LOL. It's just county name and a number, but OK.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

LOL. It's just county name and a number, but OK.

I know, I revised my post above - reason being, let's keep this away from the anti-gun crowd that wanted that 'washed' data as long as possible: they want to use it to paint a picture against us and as it is now, they don't yet have access to it.

If the refiled TRO against the AB-173 data sharing gets reconsidered, and a judge shuts Bonta's Anti-2nd Amendment scheme down, they may never get access to it (unless of course the bribe, cheat, steal as usual.)

It's quite possible that Bonta's little release stunt could backfire on him and permanently block publication of this data going forward, especially if a few influential judges and politicians appeared on it.

---

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Experts: California lacked safeguards for gun owner info

Cybersecurity experts say the California Department of Justice apparently failed to follow basic security procedures on its website, exposing the personal information of potentially hundreds of thousands of gun owners.

The website was designed to only show general data about the number and location of concealed carry gun permits, broken down by year and county. But for about 24 hours starting Monday a spreadsheet with names and personal information was just a few clicks away, ready for review or downloading.

Katie Moussouris, founder and CEO of Luta Security, said there should have been access controls to make sure the information stayed out of the reach of unwanted parties, and the sensitive data should have been encrypted so it would have been unusable...

Attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said he has been fielding hundreds of calls and emails from gun owners looking to join what he expects will be a class-action lawsuit...

No evidence has so far revealed that the leak was deliberate. Independent cybersecurity experts said the release could easily have been lax oversight...

[EM2]

Originally Posted by Jason_2111

I've sent in my questionnaire to M & A to join the lawsuit... so I'm going to wait to send this request until after I hear back from them... I don't want this to potentially have a negative impact on being a plaintiff.

Thank you again, for sharing this with us!

What questionnaire?

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

I know, I revised my post above - reason being, let's keep this away from the anti-gun crowd that wanted that 'washed' data as long as possible: they want to use it to paint a picture against us and as it is now, they don't yet have access to it.

If the refiled TRO against the AB-173 data sharing gets reconsidered, and a judge shuts Bonta's Anti-2nd Amendment scheme down, they may never get access to it (unless of course the bribe, cheat, steal as usual.)

It's quite possible that Bonta's little release stunt could backfire on him and permanently block publication of this data going forward, especially if a few influential judges and politicians appeared on it.

---

Heh.

[Ols seabee]

I wonder if theist was Cherry picked so only Republicans or conservatives show up. If so then his hole would be too deep for him to ever get out. Sad crap all of this.like a bunch of little misfit kids

[2AforCA]

Originally Posted by EM2

What questionnaire?

The questionnaire is found here:

https://crpa.org/ca-doj-dox-gate/

CRPA has a dedicated page for the leak and has been updating it with new information throughout the week.

[92E2]

Armed Scholar discusses the PRK's vindictive reactions, doxxing and retaliatory new unconstitutional anti-2A gun laws:

[92E2]

Originally Posted by 2AforCA

The questionnaire is found here:

https://crpa.org/ca-doj-dox-gate/

CRPA has a dedicated page for the leak and has been updating it with new information throughout the week.

Thanks.

I see they posted 2 email address to sign up as potential plaintiffs.

[SkyHawk]

Misc data - who was buying the guns 2012-2021. You 80's babies were hitting it hard. Us older folk were doing the same before 2012 though - and still doing it after 2012

[bigdaddyz1776]

Looks like Patrick Bateman decided to show off his AR-15.

https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/statu...71966943551489

Attachment 1099647

I feel like a chump for having a featureless build when the governor here has a regular AR-15 here.

[sevendayweekend]

So dopey ^^^^

[ForceOfNature]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyz1776

Looks like Patrick Bateman decided to show off his AR-15.

https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/statu...71966943551489

Attachment 1099647

I feel like a chump for having a featureless build when the governor here has a regular AR-15 here.

Was looking to see if the lower had a 3rd hole but it looks to have something odd on it running along the top edge of the lower & down to the magazine release... Don't know what it is.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

This isn't about "public information", this is about "public records pertaining to you". It is a Public Records Act request.

As a citizen, you have a right to access information maintained on you within a public agency record. Now, there are exceptions (ongoing criminal investigations, etc.), but given the nature of the Portal as designed, this information was anticipated to be released to the public in a sanitized, decollated manner to provide broad statistical data to the general public. However, since the files contained the deep background data, I suspect the intent was to provide researchers with a password-protected access capability to be able to download the raw data for research purposes. Regardless, data related to my firearms activity in this state as well as my personal identification data in these areas is in a standing data record within OAG.

And I want it. (I'm absolutely sure they can't make the case that they can't release my address to me.)

I can't ask for anybody else's stuff, but I sure have a right to know what the government has on file on me in these areas, especially since they breached the data and blew the stuff World-Wide-Web wide.
That can be a specific request, as contracting actions are public record. You would need to ensure that you ask for all "writings, notes, memoranda, internal communications, including emails and any other communications relevant to the issue". However, I would expect DOJ to reject that based on a claim that they have pending litigation or are undertaking personnel actions. (That's what I would do.....)

IT takes nothing to request.

They have 10 (or up to 14 days) to respond as to whether they will provide the data. I've started my clock.

Start yours.

I just did. Sent in my request just now as well.
Thank you for providing this template for us.

And yes, let's bury them in paperwork. It's a beginning.
Also, if they comply, you will know exactly what data they have on you and what was released 'into the wild'.

I'm luckier than most since I have never applied for a CA CCW; been waiting to do so with the city of Glendora. They 'say' Glendora PD will begin accepting applications in mid-August 2022. Whether in light of all this, in addition to the Bruen decision, that schedule remains, who knows.
And I wonder whether I even should any longer. If our PII is to be subject to deliberate release in the future... maybe this is just the final bell toll for me and family to make the move to Texas.

[Jason_2111]

Originally Posted by EM2

What questionnaire?

When you contact Michel & Assoc, they will email you back with a questionnaire to fill out and send back.

[Kokopelli]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Experts: California lacked safeguards for gun owner info

Oh goody. That means China has the info as well.

[US1776]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

How do you prove a negative?

From the data I have seen, which appears to be legit and comprehensive, there were no names or addresses in anything but the CCW data set. I have yet to personally see the FSC data but I believe the reports from those who have.

Point taken, wrt to proving a negative. (-puts on dunce caps and sits in corner).

In this case, I was really hoping that someone that had scraped the site, either through the interface or had brute forced the site, could say they had captured everything available.

Further that this person could list definitively what fields were available under each section.

To state the obvious:
If PII were available on the DROS or FSC sections, this would involve so many more folks, that swift and serious consequences would be guaranteed.

[Maxa1]

Other credible posts reported that names and addresses were present in FSC and non-CCW registered gun owners' sections.

Michel and Associates has an e-mail link and if you respond, they'll send you a questionnaire.

In Bonta's press release, he would notify the victims affected, if you believe him and the State's accuracy and reliability with such notifications.

You should assume the worst-case scenario about disclosure of your personal information and undertake appropriate safety precautions.

[US1776]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

Too many actual and actually's- I don't understand your ask. stop using that word.

There are several ways to get data from websites.
- Use the interface provided by the GUI.
- Use a CLI and HTML to look under the covers and see everything that is available.