State Response to 77R Privacy Lawsuit

Patrick · Sep 19, 2013

They basically admit the effed up and had to go fix it accordingly.

Guys, we forced them to alter their procedures. Win.

Their excuse for not getting a TRO: OK, we ****ed up but as of now we listened and we fixed it.

That was the goal of step one.

Now it's on to step two...

fabsroman · Sep 19, 2013

Patrick said:
They basically admit the effed up and had to go fix it accordingly.

Guys, we forced them to alter their procedures. Win.

Their excuse for not getting a TRO: OK, we ****ed up but as of now we listened and we fixed it.

That was the goal of step one.

Now it's on to step two...

Was the TRO granted? Guessing it wasn't since the problem had already been fixed (i.e., it was moot).

Edit to add: Thanks for the quick update. I actually thought about this during lunch today and wondered how it went.

dgapilot · Sep 19, 2013

Just tried to load the document and it says the file is damaged!

Patrick · Sep 19, 2013

So I posted before reading it fully.

Basically they contend that we should eff off because they broke the law, but have now conveniently stopped.

JailHouseLiar · Sep 19, 2013

Opened for me, great job :thumbsup:

Patrick · Sep 19, 2013

fabsroman said:
Was the TRO granted? Guessing it wasn't since the problem had already been fixed (i.e., it was moot).

Edit to add: Thanks for the quick update. I actually thought about this during lunch today and wondered how it went.

Hearing starts now at 2 PM.

fabsroman · Sep 19, 2013

Patrick said:
Hearing starts now at 2 PM.

Good luck. Let it be known I am your biggest fan and harshest critic. Hoping I don't have to visit Texas this summer to look at houses.

occbrian · Sep 19, 2013

Just finished reading. We have our admission that our claims were true.

"But, it isn't true anymore!!!!"

Patrick · Sep 19, 2013

Take a look at Exhibit 3. They admit the sent the data over unencrypted links and that everything we claimed was true!

occbrian · Sep 19, 2013

"Counsel informs me that the plaintiffs have complained that the website into
which data was entered failed to use any encryption at its login portal. That is no longer
true.

Counsel informs me that the plaintiffs have complained that the employees of agencies outside the MSP did not have unique user names and passwords.- That is no longer true

Counsel informs me that the plaintiffs have complained that access to the
MSP data entry system is not restricted to State-controlled IP addresses. That is no longer true"

and so on and so on.

eruby · Sep 19, 2013

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Once again, to quote My Cousin Vinnie regarding the State's Brief:

"Everything that guy just said is bulllshiit. Thank you."

jpo183 · Sep 19, 2013

IMO (IANAL) it does not read that way. They simply are saying we cant do what they want because it is not there anymore. (The program terminated)

It simply states that everything the plaintiff claims is a mute point since we are not doing it.

Without going back and reading the exact wording of the original TRO.

I see this as good and bad.

Good because it forced them to stop what they wanted to do and should help

Bad because they probably will win the defense and the media will tout it that we are just knuckleheads.

The only thing I can see that would be good from here is that in the original TRO it asks for the court to say "No you cannot do this and it MUST be done by MSP and no other department" if that is the case then it works out well for us.

Someone proof my logic there...hopefully it is valid......

Patrick · Sep 19, 2013

eruby said:
Once again, to quote My Cousin Vinnie regarding the State's Brief:

"Everything that guy just said is bulllshiit. Thank you."

+1000

occbrian · Sep 19, 2013

The purpose of asking for a TRO was not to get it... we know they are done. The point was to get them to ADMIT to the negligent handling of our PII.

They've done just that.

Now on to step 2.

PJDiesel · Sep 19, 2013

Uh, they are claiming the backlog that requires the extra attention includes only applications submitted as far back as September 1st? I have an app from June 6th that never came back, and another from Mid August with no word.

He must be mistaken.

Patrick · Sep 19, 2013

jpo183 said:
IMO (IANAL) it does not read that way. They simply are saying we cant do what they want because it is not there anymore. (The program terminated)

It simply states that everything the plaintiff claims is a mute point since we are not doing it.

Without going back and reading the exact wording of the original TRO.

I see this as good and bad.

Good because it forced them to stop what they wanted to do and should help

Bad because they probably will win the defense and the media will tout it that we are just knuckleheads.

The only thing I can see that would be good from here is that in the original TRO it asks for the court to say "No you cannot do this and it MUST be done by MSP and no other department" if that is the case then it works out well for us.

Someone proof my logic there...hopefully it is valid......

Good points.

The point of the lawsuit was to get them to stop doing dumb things. The sad state of affairs in this state is that you need to sue to stop stupidity. We did. They stopped.

We made clear early that we would not drop this. That we would chase their ass until they stopped exposing our private info on the internet.

They say they heard the word and did it. Yay. TRO does not matter any more. We got what we wanted: stop doing dumb things.

The also concede they screwed up.

Now we get to go back in time and get them to notify everyone and fix it.

Steps, my friend. Baby steps.

fightinbluhen51 · Sep 19, 2013

Page 5 Para 5

As of September 1 1 ,2013, the individuals who had previously been enlisted to assist in the data entry effort no longer had access to the MSP data entry system at issue, the user names and passwords that had been supplied for the effort were canceled, and the website address through which the data entry had previously been performed was moved from the public domain and changed.

Was it userS plural, or singular?

fightinbluhen51 · Sep 19, 2013

Patrick said:
Good points.

The point of the lawsuit was to get them to stop doing dumb things. The sad state of affairs in this state is that you need to sue to stop stupidity. We did. They stopped.

We made clear early that we would not drop this. That we would chase their ass until they stopped exposing our private info on the internet.

They say they heard the word and did it. Yay. TRO does not matter any more. We got what we wanted: stop doing dumb things.

The also concede they screwed up.

Now we get to go back in time and get them to notify everyone and fix it.

Steps, my friend. Baby steps.

I have a t-shirt you can send to MSP head & O'MAOlly

drthv8r · Sep 19, 2013

Great job Patrick and the rest of the crew thanks for all the hard work.

clandestine · Sep 19, 2013

MSI is becoming a freaking legal badass.

Thanks MSI and everyone involved.

State Response to 77R Privacy Lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Active Member

MSI Executive Member

Banned

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

MSI Executive Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Active Member

AR-15 Savant

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics