MSI UPDATE

JasonB said:

The Sun is running a piece about how we are whining and that the NRA jut wants to eliminate background checks.
http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#story/bs-ed-gun-permits-20130910/

Click to expand...

NRA-ILA beat the Sunpapers to the punch ...

Posted on September 9, 2013
Maryland: State Police Release Confidential Application Information to Other State Agencies

mr h said:

Correction...

The Administration likely gave the order... MSP may be getting set up to take the hit.

In any case...

Are we angry yet?

Click to expand...

Angry? Does I'm considering contacting Federal law enforcement tell you anything?

csanc123 said:

Yep. 100%

Click to expand...

I disagree.

This is more an obfuscation action on the part of OweMalley.

He is willing to do anything to have SB281 survive a lawsuit come 10/1. If any portion of SB281 is sucessfully challenged in court, OweMalley will be considered a disgrace.

Bolts Rock said:

Breitbart is aware and will look into it. Anyone hit the guy we all won't admit we ever watch?

Click to expand...

I suggested that yesterday (though I never do go to The Site that Shall Not be Named), but got no response.

Kenn Blanchard should be brought in on it, as should Lollar.

Inigoes said:

I disagree.

This is more an obfuscation action on the part of OweMalley.

He is willing to do anything to have SB281 survive a lawsuit come 10/1.

Click to expand...

you sir are correct.....but I'm positive he would throw MSP under the bus if the SHTF.

csanc123 said:

you sir are correct.....but I'm positive he would throw MSP under the bus if the SHTF.

Click to expand...

What politician wouldn't?

It goes with the territory of being a political appointee.

Bolts Rock said:

Angry? Does I'm considering contacting Federal law enforcement tell you anything?

Click to expand...

Oh, I know YOU'RE on the warpath!!


We need every person out there to rustle every bush they can. This has GOT to be held to the light.

Somewhere, O'MAOlley's (and Gansler's) fingerprints are on this. We need to find them.

mr h said:

I suggested that yesterday (though I never do go to The Site that Shall Not be Named), but got no response.

Kenn Blanchard should be brought in on it, as should Lollar.

Click to expand...

OK, posted to A. Jones through their FB link. He may have presentation issues but he does make the right kind of noise more often than not.

Inigoes said:

I disagree.

This is more an obfuscation action on the part of OweMalley.

He is willing to do anything to have SB281 survive a lawsuit come 10/1. If any portion of SB281 is sucessfully challenged in court, OweMalley will be considered a disgrace.

Click to expand...

People within MSP leadership have been non-antagonistic toward us all throughout this. Some have even taken a neutral position. Some have been reassigned to the state equivalent of a radar station in Alaska.

I am not at all ruling out that this has at least one finger pointed that way.

Make no mistake, legal action is in the works.

JasonB said:

The Sun is running a piece about how we are whining and that the NRA jut wants to eliminate background checks.
http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#story/bs-ed-gun-permits-20130910/

Click to expand...

The sun believes the lies that it is all on encrypted disks.

Please correct them with me.

I'll assume for the moment that the file itself may be encrypted... but it's useless if 200+ people are accessing it with the SAME CREDENTIALS!!!

Of course the leaking of this info is a bonanza for identity thieves.

mr h said:

I'll assume for the moment that the file itself may be encrypted... but it's useless if 200+ people are accessing it with the SAME CREDENTIALS!!!

Click to expand...

Even more useless when they are accessing a non-secured site to enter the data....the site is NOT secured. Traffic is NOT encrypted..it's going in the clear.

Getting good coverage o 680 right now

Take a look at the following MD law regarding SSN's:

§ 14-3402. Display of Social Security number prohibited.


(a) In general.- Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, a person may not:

(1) Publicly post or display an individual's Social Security number;

(2) Print an individual's Social Security number on a card required for the individual to access products or services provided by the person;

(3) Require an individual to transmit the individual's Social Security number over the Internet unless the connection is secure or the individual's Social Security number is encrypted;

(4) Initiate the transmission of an individual's Social Security number over the Internet unless the connection is secure or the Social Security number is encrypted;

(5) Require an individual to use the individual's Social Security number to access an Internet website, unless a password, unique personal identification number, or other authentication device is also required to access the website; or

(6) Unless required by State or federal law:

(i) Print an individual's Social Security number on any material that is mailed to the individual;

(ii) Include an individual's Social Security number in any material that is electronically transmitted to the individual, unless the connection is secure or the individual's Social Security number is encrypted; or

(iii) Include an individual's Social Security number in any material that is transmitted by facsimile to the individual.

(b) Applicability of section.- This section does not apply to:

(1) The collection, release, or use of an individual's Social Security number as required by State or federal law;

(2) The inclusion of an individual's Social Security number in an application, form, or document sent by mail, electronically transmitted, or transmitted by facsimile:

(i) As part of an application or enrollment process;

(ii) To establish, amend, or terminate an account, contract, or policy; or

(iii) To confirm the accuracy of the individual's Social Security number;

(3) The use of an individual's Social Security number for internal verification or administrative purposes; or

(4) An interactive computer service provider's or a telecommunications provider's transmission or routing of, or intermediate temporary storage or caching of, an individual's Social Security number.

(c) Exceptions.- This section does not impose a duty on an interactive computer service provider or a telecommunications provider actively to monitor its service or affirmatively to seek evidence of the transmission of Social Security numbers on its service.


[2005, ch. 521, § 1.]
- See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/maryland/commercial-law/title-14/subtitle-34/14-3402#sthash.5JL85wYf.dpuf

How much do you want to be some of these employees homes have unsecured wifi.

If any input person is reading this.

Please delete everyone from Southern Maryland

csanc123 said:

Even more useless when they are accessing a non-secured site to enter the data....the site is NOT secured. Traffic is NOT encrypted..it's going in the clear.

Click to expand...

Yeppers...

Was just commenting on the file issue, is all.

This whole thing rhymes with Buster Chuck.......

I think the state's actions are indicative of how desperate they have become. Instead of heading off a lawsuit, they've made it very likely they'll be more than one. This blew up in their face big time. God Bless the person who alerted AGC to this scam.

This kind of behavior on the part of MOM and Gansler is criminal IMO. This was willful and intentional and it proves both criminal behavior and incompetence on their part. Rip them a new one.