The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Fecking ambulance chasers! GT were a victim of crime, suing them as well? At least it appears that GT attempted to keep information safe. Unlike Facebook, Google or Amazon who will sell your personal details as part of their business plan!

Sim G wrote:Fecking ambulance chasers! GT were a victim of crime, suing them as well? At least it appears that GT attempted to keep information safe. Unlike Facebook, Google or Amazon who will sell your personal details as part of their business plan!

Well said

Sim G wrote:Fecking ambulance chasers! GT were a victim of crime, suing them as well? At least it appears that GT attempted to keep information safe. Unlike Facebook, Google or Amazon who will sell your personal details as part of their business plan!

I get what you're saying but I'd imagine GT have insurance in place to cover any legal costs or pay-outs.

While I'm generally against the 'compo culture' that is appearing to thrive in this country I also feel shooting related companies should be held to account for breaches to consumer rights, data protection laws, public liability etc. just like any other.

According to the ICO,

Under data protection law, you are entitled to take your case to court to:
enforce your rights under data protection law if you believe they have been breached
claim compensation for any damage caused by any organisation if they have broken data protection law, including any distress you may have suffered, or
a combination of the two.

(my highlights).

I know a GT account doesn't 100% prove you have firearms at your address, but it's a damn good indicator and while not over reacting, I'm more than a little concerned that my details, linked specifically to firearms ownership, have potentially been made available to Organised Crime Groups.

I'm not saying sue or don't sue, that's an individuals decision, but I am saying it's not a black or white call.

As Walesdave says, they'll have (or should have) insurance to cover any claims.

My full name, address, and postcode were in their database, and I don't like the thought that that information is now available to anyone looking to steal firearms.

While I (and the Met) have always been happy with the level of security at my house this added risk makes me think it might need improving.

If I do, then I may well be looking at GT to recover some of the costs.

The piece in the link suggests that everyone on the Guntrader database actually owns a gun: "The data relates to people who own firearms"...........but then Hayes-Connor would say that, wouldn't they, trying to drum up a bit of class action business, maybe?.
If you've ever bought anything gun-related online (dies, bullets, optics....), then your details are most likely on a database which could possibly be hacked without the owners knowledge.

Pete

Pete wrote:The piece in the link suggests that everyone on the Guntrader database actually owns a gun

The worry is that any criminal gangs might think the same way.

walesdave wrote:

Pete wrote:The piece in the link suggests that everyone on the Guntrader database actually owns a gun

The worry is that any criminal gangs might think the same way.

I still think there is more chance of being followed home from a range........

snayperskaya wrote:

walesdave wrote:

Pete wrote:The piece in the link suggests that everyone on the Guntrader database actually owns a gun

The worry is that any criminal gangs might think the same way.

I still think there is more chance of being followed home from a range........

There is more risk that you will have a heart attack than get hit by a car. Bet you still look both ways crossing the road though.

GunTrader used the same reasoning that it doesn't specifically say you own guns. But as others have said, its a damn good indicator.

I don't agree with suing left right and centre. It drives me nuts. Two of my sisters are nurses and have both been sued by people who would have died without their actions which just shouldn't be possible.
But GunTrader should be held accountable, whether that is by way of a fine or whatever else. It would be nice of course if that fine was distributed among the people who had their data leaked but no chance of that once a government agency have had a sniff of it.
And yes they will have insurance to cover it, but their premium will go up drastically after a claim like this is likely to be. Maybe that's the right thing to happen... But something needs to happen. Otherwise you set a precedent and everyone knows they can get away with crap security measures and we will all be even more at risk.

My biggest beef with it is how we are told to keep our ownership of guns out of public knowledge. I.e. hide our passion/hobby, even our achievements if we are winning competitions etc, from all but our closest friends/family. And our efforts to do that are made completely irrelevant by this data breech.

Where are we told this?..........my neighbours all know I shoot, and have done since I started, two of them even giving references for my FAC. (I have known them for years......houses rarely change hands in my road).
A couple of them even attended Bisley open days with me, back in the day...

Pete

Pippin89 wrote: I don't agree with suing left right and centre. It drives me nuts. Two of my sisters are nurses and have both been sued by people who would have died without their actions which just shouldn't be possible.

Totally agree - but people see it as a way to "make money" the same as cash for crash scams.

A little off topic. I have an aunt in the USA and in the apaprtment complex she lived in, everyone tried to avoid contact with or parking near a certain couple. Why? They lived bu sueing or attempting to and taking a settlement. Then one day, they tried to sue a firm or attorneys, becasue they refused to handle a case for them, but no-one would take it on.

GT or their insurerers should "negotiate" with ICO and agree to make a "compensation payment" to one or more of the shooting organisations in exchange for a nominal fine. That way we might is some ways see some of it albeit indirectly.