Data breach undermines gun rights
This editorial board takes a back seat to no one in our advocacy for open records so the public can hold accountable our public officials. Yet it's one thing for the government to post public information about its inner workings and quite another for it to post personal data it collects about Californians.
On June 27, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the its 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal, which provides data about the number of California who purchase guns, secure concealed-carry permits and take safety classes. For instance, the data showed a 1,231% increase in gun-violence restraining orders over a fiveyear period.
That's useful information, but the Department of Justice also did something unconscionable. It released the names and addresses of Californians who complied with state laws and provided gun-ownership information to the state, including hundreds of judges and law-enforcement officers. It released driver's license numbers, as well as information about Californians prohibited from owning a firearm.
To his credit, Attorney General Rob Bonta removed the information and expressed his dismay: “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred ... We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”
It's unclear whether simple incompetence or maliciousness caused the data breach, but the situation highlights the dangers of gun-registration schemes. Even with the most benign explanation, government does a poor job protecting personal data. It wasn't hard to see this coming, especially given past data scandals at the Department of Justice — including one where the department released private donor information from nonprofit groups.
The Washington Examiner last year made this prediction: “If government workers leak private IRS data despite felony penalties, California gun owners' private data will be leaked too. It is not a question of if, but of when. This will not only violate gun owners' privacy, but it will also give criminals a nice list from which to work when looking for guns to steal.”
Ironically, the Department of Justice's statement announcing the new portal said that the effort balances the need for firearms research with “protecting the personal identifying information in the data the department collects and maintains.” So much for the government's promises.
The Department of Justice said the information was released for only 24 hours, but that's plenty of time for it to have been downloaded and shared widely. In the current Internet world, it's impossible to un-ring this bell. We doubt that everyone will heed the department's request not to share the data, nor do we put much stock in its promise to provide credit-monitoring services.
There's no evidence that the personal information was purposefully released, but we don't blame gun-rights activists for suspecting foul play. The entire purpose of the portal is to build a case for tougher guncontrol laws.
“One of my continued priorities is to better provide information needed to help advance efforts that strengthen California's commonsense gun laws,” Bonta said in his original statement. Some California officials want to make it as difficult as possible for individuals to exert their Second Amendment rights.
We have nothing against publishing general data to help inform public debate, but the state should be strictly limited in the data it may collect. It simply can't be trusted with it.