VA CCW list published by Roanoke Times 3/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
i understand

you are implying the mantra that "all publicity is good publicity". I am not saying you are wrong, but i do think this does not apply here. These people are running scared. The people hitting the site are mad at the advertisers and plan on boycotting them. If I were an advertiser, I would be not too happy if I hade to pay the site more for clicks and views of those that were actually angry at the paper and myself.

The fact is, we will never get total agreement, even on a gun site in this situation, but I think we all should be proud of forcing these jerks to back down.
 
The other possibility is that someone requested stuff in his name, go on the DHL site and look under SHIP, then order supplies. It did NOT ask for you to sign up for their service. Not unlike the old prank of sending magazines with the pay later checked. But in this case, a box sends a whole new message. Not even illegal I bet.

John
 
The R.T. website is probably getting more 'Net hits per day than they EVER could with a "normal" story.

Net hits = $$$ from advertisers

Nonsense. We're typically talking less (often MUCH less) than a penny per ad view for internet advertising. If the Roanoke Times gets a temporary traffic blip of a few thousand or even a few tens of thousands of extra visitors, it will barely be noticed in terms of advertising revenue.

On the other hand, if some major print advertisers begin pulling ads worth hundreds or thousands of dollars from the newspaper, that WILL be noticed. Especially if it causes long-term pain due to the permanent loss of advertising contracts.

The Roanoke Times is taking a huge public relations hit which could cost it big bucks and readership, among other problems. I'm sure Tejbal never expected any significant repercussions. He and the other editors just thought they'd have a bit of fun taking a poke at impotent gun owners.

Instead they are getting Zumboed. It's a totally new and unexpected experience for them. And I guarantee you it's not a pleasant one.

Let's keep working to enhance their experience.
 
Last night, Glenn Beck (On CNN Headline News channel) did a piece on the DC Gun thing. He was very adamant about being a gun owner and wanted to protect 2nd Amendment rights. Maybe someone should send him word of this fiasco and give it even more coverage. Just sayin'.
I listen to Glenn every chance i get..he is definately pro 2a and from what he was saying today, it sounds like he has been through a nra chp pistol course..not sure but sounded like it..I sent him an e mail with a copy of the original post from here. I hope he responds to this issue on radio or tv.
 
I have sent Glenn a note on this. Also,

Sometimes, just because something is covered under the information act, you just don't do it. Like, how would everybody feel opening a paper and seeing all the children's names and addresses and ages that attend public school? Common sense dictates that this would be a pedophile's dream. So it is not done. Why did this idiot do this????


Lets write and try to get it changed so that only LEO has access to this info.
http://legis.state.va.us/
 
Public Info

One thing I have been thinking about, even though this is public info, how many gun seeking criminals, would be willing to go to the Virginia State Police, and pay 100+ dollars to get this info?
Do you have to provide the VSP with ID and sign a form to get this info?
How many would be gun thieves, would have thought about this before mr. trejbal made it public?

While VA CHP list, is currently public info, mr trejbal, in his ignorance, and arrogance, has done more damage to decent citizens than he can ever possibly imagine.
Still waiting for the apology.

Holding my breath in VA:banghead:
Dave
 
The company I work for publishes (among other things) a couple of phone books for a couple smaller markets around here.

We bought the phone data from a company that maintains big phone/address databases called InfoUSA (we didn't buy the data from the phone company because that's like pulling teeth ... they're required to sell the data but they don't make it easy).

Anyway, the data from InfoUSA contained EVERYTHING from the areas we cover ... without taking into account "unlisted" numbers (when you request an unlisted number, that request only goes as far as your local phone company ... if you want to be assured you're unlisted you need to contact InfoUSA and every other mailing list company out there).

We've had calls from half a dozen different women who's previously unlisted numbers were published in our books who are livid and frightened because they are hiding from former abusive husbands/significant others.

We're protected because the data is "in the public domain" but still, if one of these women were harmed because of it we could still be sued (we'd win, but it wouldn't be cheap).

So no, the paper (nor the editor) can be held responsible for publishing data that is "in the public domain".
 
I'd like to remind everyone in Virginia to remember to write their Delegates and state Senators. We all know the the Roanoke Times and their fleet of carpetbaggers are no friends of traditional Virginians. No surprise there.

The REAL issue is WHY this is public data to begin with. I could see some legit uses - like a REAL reporter doing a story on CCW may want to aggregate the data by geographic reagion and gender for his or her real story. They would then destroy said list. But that is kind of a lame reason, to be honest.

However - I propose that "public records" containing personal information, especially on something as volatile as handpun carry permits, have some sort of enforecable "terms of use" or something. I do NOT think a third party should be able to acquire this data and republish it in compilation format like the Times did. It's just not appropriate.

Can anyone think of a real reason WHY this data has to be public record? Also - by what statute is this public record at all? I don't recall signing anything when I applied for my permit relasing my name and address to the entire world.
 
if that is true

then it should be more than trejbal, it should be debbie meade, the president and publisher. Also, she is the one that said "we took the list down not because of the outrage", of course that was last night, tonight she says it will not come up. Nice to see our newspapers are so honest.
 
If I were an advertiser, I would be not too happy if I hade to pay the site more for clicks and views of those that were actually angry at the paper and myself.

I've been wondering whether or not it's worth it to point this out to the advertisers when we email them....
 
There were also some threatening comments directed at Trejbal that led the newspaper to place a security guard, at least temporarily, outside his Christiansburg house.

His actions made a lot of people feel insecure and threatened. However, when HE felt threatened, his employer bought him protection to stand guard outside his house - something most of us do not get the benefit of. Typical liberal elitism. "I'll mock you for protecting yourself, but when I feel threatened I have someone hire a security guard."
 
My emphasis added...

Although the legal concerns stated by the newspaper as the reason for removing the names no longer seem to apply, Roanoke Times president and publisher Debbie Meade said Tuesday that there are no plans to put the information back online.

“The list was put up as an example of a public record,” Meade said. “It was never intended for that information to be housed indefinitely on our site.”


Color this Goalie skeptical......
 
They'll get theirs:

Tom,

We're all over it. Must stop...Hope to see you at the George Allen event for me at Old Hickory 27 March...

Best,

Scott


To: <[email protected]>
From: <Leatherneck> Date: 03/14/2007 07:43AM

Scott,
I imagine you're aware of the rising furor over the Roanoke Times decision to publish a searchable database of all Virginia's CHP holders, along with the home address of each of us. The writer is now getting Zumboed, but good. Read all about it here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=261555

I hope you're intending to remedy this situation legislatively ( and that's from a guy who thinks most problems stem from too many laws, not too few). If not, then I would request that you do so. I believe that personal info of CHP holders should be for official use only. No good can possibly come from the misuse and publication of this information by these carpetbagging morons in Roanoke.

My best to you and your family, as always.
Very respectfully
Tom
 
>>We're protected because the data is "in the public domain" but still, if one of these women were harmed because of it we could still be sued (we'd win, but it wouldn't be cheap).<<

So, the company endangers women, and it knows it.

You know, if that scenario happens, a relative of that woman might be reaching for something other than the jury box to make things right.

I find it interesting that so many people and companies measure actions against "can we defend this in court."
 
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/108536

"There were also some threatening comments directed at Trejbal that led the newspaper to place a security guard, at least temporarily, outside his Christiansburg house."

Oh the irony! Betcha the guard is armed. Might even have a permit. Think he is enjoying this assignment? Think Trejbal is more or less nervous with his protector?
 
Okay, so we've managed to tear down the big neon "billboard" but we still need to get focused and go after the legislation that makes such "personally identifible information" public domain because now that people are aware, others can go looking.

The "sunshine laws" have a very valid place and I think it's a good thing to be able to access information on government functions such as "there are XYZ number of CCW permits in VA". I can even tolerate listing just names (though I'm not happy about that). But when it starts publicly listing individual citizens addresses and phone numbers then we have gone far beyond monitoring of the government and moved into the privacy of the citizens.

We MUST go to the source on this one.
 
I've been watching this furor, and posted the following comment on the paper's comment section

To the Editor,

I have to say that overall I am proud of my fellows in their responses to your actions.

The most amusing thing is watching elitist journalists meet the capitalist system.

Your sponsors are probably in your ears right now, and when they yank hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars from your pathetic little rag you may learn a lesson.

As for Christian Trejbal, my suggestion is that you change your name, and relocate. Not because of any physical threats you face, which I am fairly sure are non-existant. Merely for the fact for you to work again in journalism it will be necessary.

However, Mr. Trejbal, you will find out just a bit of the pain you caused the people who you revealed to the predators they hide from. If you don't think the name change is necessary, keep in mind that you and your actions have been discussed on state and national fora. Come to my area of the country, St. Louis, and get a job with the Post-Dispatch.

When your name appears, we can contact the advertisers and get your worthless butt fired again. Your career is over, and rightfully so.

Their (automatic) Response
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval.
 
We are makiing headway...

This morning on their website:

The Roanoke Times will not re-post a list of gun owners on its Web site, even after being told amid continuing public furor that releasing the information does not violate state law.

First published Sunday, the database of more than 135,000 people allowed to carry concealed handguns has become the most controversial content in roanoke.com's history -- sparking threats of violence, litigation and legislation.

One day later, the list was removed from the site because of concerns that state police might have inappropriately included the names of crime victims on a list it provided to the newspaper.

Although there is a law that protects the identity of some victims in certain circumstances, state police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said Tuesday the restriction does not apply to the concealed-weapons list.

"The information released to The Roanoke Times was in total compliance with the Freedom of Information Act," Geller said. "It is up to the recipient of that information to be a responsible guardian of the information."

While Geller declined to comment on whether the newspaper acted responsibly, hundreds of angry readers have said in e-mails, phone calls and even threats that it did not.

By naming everyone in Virginia who has received court permission to carry a concealed weapon, critics said, the newspaper invaded the privacy of law-abiding citizens and all but invited criminals to burglarize homes for guns. Another concern is that victims of domestic abuse, who might have armed themselves for protection, are now in danger of being tracked down by their abusers via the database.

Although the legal concerns stated by the newspaper as the reason for removing the names no longer seem to apply, Roanoke Times president and publisher Debbie Meade said Tuesday that there are no plans to put the information back online.

"The list was put up as an example of a public record," Meade said. "It was never intended for that information to be housed indefinitely on our site."

The list, which included the names and street addresses of concealed-gun owners searchable by their hometowns, ran with a column by editorial writer Christian Trejbal that was published Sunday in the Current, a section of the paper that covers the New River Valley.

Trejbal used the occasion of Sunshine Week, a national initiative to recognize open government and public records, to note that in Virginia the list of citizens "packing" is a matter of public record.

After obtaining the data from state police under the open records law, the newspaper published the list so that its readers could, in Trejbal's words, "search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun."

But just because the newspaper had the information is not reason enough to publish it, said Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University.

"Maybe there's a point there. [The information] is instructive and I don't want to be completely dismissive of that," Wasserman said. "But it's coming at a real cost, and I don't think the invasive nature of it is sufficiently outweighed by its instructional value."

Concealed-weapon permits are on file in local courthouses for anyone who asks to see them. And a statewide list maintained by state police in Richmond is available through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Yet critics have complained that aggregating the information into a central database accessible by a few quick clicks of a mouse goes too far -- especially when there is not a compelling reason to release en masse such details as home addresses.

One possible irony is that Trejbal's stated intent to trumpet open records could result in their being slammed shut.

"The fear is that this kind of scatter-shot use of public records is going to bolster the position of those who would now want to pull that information from the public domain," Wasserman said.

In fact, Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, said Tuesday that he is seeking an attorney general's opinion on whether state police were within their legal rights in providing the information to the newspaper.

Even if the attorney general finds that police acted correctly, requesting the opinion could be the first step in a move at next year's General Assembly to pass a law exempting concealed-weapon permit information from the Freedom of Information Act.

"It's something that we're going to have to take a look at," said Nutter, who had received more than 20 calls from constituents concerned about the newspaper's use of the information.

Meanwhile, The Roanoke Times continued to feel the wrath of readers.

By midday Tuesday, there had been more than 2,000 visits to an online discussion forum, at least 36 canceled subscriptions and countless angry calls -- some that showed up in company voice mail well before dawn.

There were also some threatening comments directed at Trejbal that led the newspaper to place a security guard, at least temporarily, outside his Christiansburg house.

Concerns were heightened early Tuesday afternoon when a mysterious package was delivered to the house.

The street was closed, a state police bomb squad was called in and at least some neighbors were evacuated after Trejbal found the package during a lunchtime trip home.

Lt. Mark Sisson of the Christiansburg Police Department said that Trejbal said he definitely didn't order the package, "so we're going to take every precaution." However, it turned out the box was full of blank postage labels and cardboard mailers
 
The Roanoke Times may not be putting it back on line, but meanwhile, the fact that the VSP can still provide it to someone for $100 is not good! There needs to be some kind of immediate action taken, maybe like court injunction, to prohibit the VSP from just giving it out to anyone filing a FOIA and $100. I know the VCDL is on the move and is organizing a boycott of businesses that advertize in the Fredricksburg, VA rag that publishes the names of county VA CHPs. :fire: :cuss: :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top