Whether or not an action amounts to a criminal offence is generally for the Public Prosecutor to decide. The perp may disagree, but they're at a disadvantage in the argument, as it depends on the law at the time in question rather then being a matter of opinion.

Whether the action should be a criminal offence is quite a different matter, and is indeed a legitimate matter of opinion, although the opposing parties are liable to have predictable positions on it.

Would like to know the reasoning for the thumbs down to what seems like an exceptionally balanced comment.

Perps?

It's an Internet forum, balanced opinions are not allowed.

You must be incredibly offended and vitriolic about some grand yet generalized point in order to be accepted by your peers, here on The Internet.

Assuming rhat everyone who owns a shotgun can be lumped in with the Hunting Crowd as the OP seems to think that it's a black and white issue?

I own what is technically a shotgun, and is registered as such, but have no truck with those who hunt inedible wild animals for 'sport'.

As my muzzle loading replica musket is only proofed for blank firing, I wouldn't even use it to shoot rats!

You're a [fox] baby-killer with your murder-stick, you rat bastard! May your life be filled with misery and pain, obviously!

—The perps

Had wondered about reenactment firearms, but why would you go to a site like GunTrader to buy or sell a reenactment firearm?

Then again, I did point out to the police (a long time ago when I was involved with reenactment) - it would be a particularly desperate criminal who stole a musket and tried to threaten someone with it...

*hefting the musket* Hands up! And keep them up. What do you mean I don't have any slow match? I've got a lighter! Primed the pan? What the hell are you talking about? Is it loaded? Look, mate, I've got this gun and... ooof! Stop that! I'm warning you! ouch! Don't hit me! Ouch! Stop it! Ouch! I surrender! Seriously, stop hitting me with that walking stick you mad old bat!

It is ultimately for the court to decide, and (t||s)he(y) can argue that it isn't at the hearing.

" It is ultimately for the court to decide "

The courts decide on innocence or guilt in respect of an alleged offence as defined by current statute or regulation, not on whether an action constitutes an offence or not. They don't make the law - that privilege ultimately rests with Parliament in the UK.

Yes they do decide whether the action constitutes an offence.

In a jury trial, the jury decides whether they did it, and the judge decides whether or not it is legal.

In appeal hearings, it is always about whether or not it is legal.

> SWRCCU confirmed to The Register that it is not treating the latest Guntrader data dump as a terrorism offence.

But hopefully they will be held criminally responsible for anything resembling a crime committed at those addresses until the end of time.

of GDPR then? Or the computer misuse act?

Well he's going to be getting an earful now, I'd wager.

And rightly so.

It may not be a criminal offense, but he had no authority to publish data concerning the private lives of over 100K people, whether or not he likes whatever activity he thinks they have.

I inherited two rifles from my late father-in-law. I never have wanted a firearm at home, now I have two. Is he going to lump me in with the hunters he very visibly doesn't like ?

I don't see that he's making any effort to make a difference. 5-year-old data doesn't phase him one bit. Collateral damage is obviously not his problem.

In short, he's a terrorist.

Jail the fucker.

(Paris for the fur coats)

"Ernie" will probably read this, so maybe "they" would be interested in general public opinion:

Upvote for "Irresponsible little miscreant"

Downvote for "Responsible journalist & moral crusader"

Let's just be clear, just because someone runs a blog does not make them a journalist. Journalists tend to stick to an editorial code (although one has to question which editorial code certain broadsheets comply with these days) and tend to not be totally irresponsible.

But there we are.

Journalists tend to stick to an editorial code...

Yeah:

1. more ads viewed are better;

2. always base your facts on facebook and twitter;

3. clickbait! clickbait! clickbai!

4. he who pays is always right

5. do not bite the hand that feeds you.

Did I miss anything?

The days of real journalism are waaay into the past.

Harsh. Advertising has funded journalism since the first newspapers, and some handle it well and some do not - eg the Telegraph not running any criticism of HSBC's mexican-drug lord money laundering, because they're a major advertiser. Google "Peter Oborne Telegraph" for details. And it's a two edged sword - advertisers pulling content from Fox or Breitbart when their propaganda gets a bit much to stomach is no bad thing.

As for the rest, ironically you might want to check your facts. If your news articles have "one weird trick" in the title, or if it comes from some tit ranting on youtube or facebook, it's not journalism. Find a newsource with an editor, and that's big enough to sue. Keeps people honest.

Stupid is as stupid does.

So those who use guns for recreational purposes (clay pigeon shooting) and self-defense is now getting tar-and-feathered along with those who enjoy a traditional fox hunt?

And people who use guns for their work like my vet who occasionally has to shoot horses, or the RSPCA man we got out yesterday to shoot a fawn that had broken its leg on a barbed wire fence and was being eaten by maggots. Please don't steal their guns.

I wasn't aware that fox hunters carried guns on their horses. Obviously there is some overlap on the venn diagram of fox hunters, game shooters and other shooters, but there will also be plenty outside it. As far as I'm aware the majority of shooters aren't hunters.

Where I grew up there was a lot of pheasant shooting, and fox hunting. Most people I knew of usually only participated in one sport. ie some people preferred shooting and only did that, other people preferred hunting and stuck to horses. Makes sense, both guns and horses are expensive and most people can't afford to have both hobbies.

There is however, a lot of overlap socially and politically.

I wasn't aware that fox hunters carried guns on their horses. Obviously there is some overlap on the venn diagram of fox hunters, game shooters and other shooters, but there will also be plenty outside it. As far as I'm aware the majority of shooters aren't hunters.

Traditionally not. These days of course all hunting is (at least notionally) drag hunting. The master or another officer of the hunt tends to carry a firearm in case the hounds pick up the scent of a live fox and depart from the drag scent. This allows them to dispatch a fox legally rather than letting the hounds on it unlawfully.

(Hunt Sabs would argue with the intent or sincerity of drag hunting, but that's not relevant to this aspect).

As you say, after counting out target and clay shooters, the proportion of firearm owners who hold firearms for hunting are almost universally those conducting pest control (including the shooting of foxes), wildfowling and activities such as deer stalking (necessitated by the local extinction of European wolves).

The overwhelming majority of shooters do not ride out with the mounted fox hunts. On a fox hunt only one rider (at most) will be carrying a firearm. Many riders will not own firearms or only have a shotgun for clay shooting. The venn diagrams touch, but only just.

@rg287

You missed out the huge numbers of pheasant / grouse shooters.

They do not come into "pest"* control wildfowling or deer stalking that you mentioned.

* foxes are not pests, I live in a rural area, farms all around me, lots of foxes, lots of people with "fowl" such as chickens, ducks, geese for eggs. Foxes do not take any of these birds because they are safely locked up at night, can get to safe areas in daytime if foxes out in the day. Foxes only a pest if you do not look after your egg laying birds (in general foxes useful as reduce rat, rabbit etc. numbers that can affect farmers crops)

You don't have a gun in the UK for self defence. If you use one for such purposes, expect to find yourself in court.

You don't have a gun in the UK for self defence. If you use one for such purposes, expect to find yourself in court.

You can't own it for self-defence. The case law on usage trends the other way.

I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation.

If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take.

You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.

– (Judge) Michael Pert QC, September 2012

Of course this requires that you shoot in legitimate self-defence. If you shoot someone in the back as they flee then that's murder in pretty much the entire western world, including the US. But if you somehow have time to retrieve your gun from a locked cabinet then burglars beware. British case law absolutely entitles you to use it in self-defence as a weapon that "came to hand". Subject to the "reasonable and proportionate force" test of course.

If you shoot someone in the back as they flee then that's murder in pretty much the entire western world, including the US.

As far as I can see, in the US, it depends on where you are and then the complexion of the back...

Look lads I'm as in favour of disrupting those Berkeley Hunts what attend the Berkeley Hunt as the next soft-left urbanite, but mass doxxing a load of personal information of high interest to very dangerous criminal types, without even any kind of idea or regard as to whether any of the people you're doxxing are the people you intended to doxx is very much not cricket.

Speaking as a complete layman when it comes to the law, could "Ernie" not be charged with various "Conspiracy to" charges? For example, conspiracy to commit burglary (he/they have published addresses), conspiracy to incite violence (he/they have published addresses where firearms are allegedly stored), conspiracy to commit murder (if one of the aforementioned weapons is subsequently stolen and used in a murder or attempted murder) and so on.

While I have no issues with "Ernie"'s own moral or political beliefs, does he/they not realise the potential danger that he has created for all these people whose data has been leaked?

For the record, I have never owned a firearm, have no intention of ever owning one and have no links to anyone who has. But if anyone wishes to own one, as long as they are responsible and all checks have been carried out, why not?

Similarly, if you are against firearms, then please go ahead and campaign correctly against them.

I have no issue with, or preference, for either side of this argument.

Finally, from the self-righteous way that "Ernie" has described his actions, essentially turning it into a moral crusade where we are the ones responsible to analyse his data carefully before deciding which action to take against the owner of the property and it's not his fault if we don't analyse the data properly then, frankly, he is (to use a legal term), a dick.

"does he/they not realise"

"self-righteous"

You've answered your own question. Ernie, and folks like him, just don't care. The ends, however imagined, justify the means to people like this. Collateral damage doesn't bother them as they view themselves as the moral superior, and those they target as irredeemable.

In the US this situation would be even worse I fear, as the gun owners here overwhelmingly keep them for self/home protection. So while some may be more hesitant to visit these addresses, of those that will, they are more likely to be caught in a shootout.

Thankfully, we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US, so there's no list to be stolen and given to "perps". And, well... we get to have better, and more numerous, firearms here than in the UK, so "crusaders" would be ill-advised to attempt foolishness like this Ernie alludes to, were there such a list. However, it would be a boon to burglars, crack-heads, and out-of-ammo gangbangers.

> we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US,

It was a private company's database that was stolen. I imagine there are private companies in the US with similar databases, eg the NRA, or Smith & Wesson.

"Thankfully, we have no registered firearms-owners database here in the US,"

Irrelevant to the point at hand - the database was of members of the public accessing a gun trading website. The US has gun trading websites too, correct?

...while I wouldn't personally be particularly upset if this "Ernie" turned up to a hunt and got accidentally shot in the face, based on his attitude, I don't actually see why reformatting the data for Google Earth makes it any more accessible or dangerous versus its original form. As I understand it, the original form included a spreadsheet with names, addresses and postcodes, so an animal rights nutter looking for local gun owners could simply search on city or postcode - does putting it on a map really make any difference?

It makes it easier to see, in "picture" form, where the regsitered holders are located and you can easily zoom into your neighbourhood (or that little cluster of dots here, or the cluster of dots over there) to see who is a registered holder.

Yes, you can find out the same information via a spreadsheet, but how do you easily search for it? My own town has two distinct postcodes, but literally a few minutes' away to the west of my house is the countryside and that area has a different postcode to my town. Do I need to try to find all permutations of local postcodes so that I can search for those? Or do I look at a pretty picture and zoom into where I want to look?

I mostly agree with you, but IMO Ernie made it easier to get ahold of the information as well. No specialized knowledge required now to know where to look for the dump.

Criminals are, in the main, pretty stupid. A simple CSV file would be beyond the ken of many of them to decode and pull information from. A Google map with all the names and addresses nicely plotted together with Google imagery and streetview to help them plot a raid is a very different matter.

This is criminally irresponsible re-use of data, and should be treated as such under GDPR.

The site is hosted in Iceland, which although not being part of the EU has adopted GDPR into its own laws (mostly because most of its internet feed comes from Europe). I would therefore think that invoking GDPR in Iceland and asking their police force to enforce it and stop the hosting of material that contravenes the act would be a sensible and proportionate way forwards.

Iceland is part of the EEA, therefore most EU laws, and certainly this one, apply there.

I don't actually see why reformatting the data for Google Earth makes it any more accessible or dangerous versus its original form.

Removing a technical step is one part.

Presenting on an anti-fox-hunting blog (when most shooters do not ride out with hunts or even approve of such) and encouraging their readers to call up shooters and harass them is quite a different kettle of fish.

From the site:

Many of these people will be on this database, please do contact as many as you can in your area and ask them if they are involved in shooting animals, the database contains plenty of contact details.

It's the incitement to harassment (an invitation to direct action) that moves this from mere reposting to rather more dangerous rhetoric.

if Ernie's name and address somehow appeared in the next issue of Hunting Monthly or whatever those types read.

... Ernie put his name and address where his mouth is:

"If a judge and jury of our peers finds us guilty of any offense, we will of course accept the punishment with good grace and apologise to anyone who can be defined as a victim."

Go on Ernie, make a statement to the police about what you did, sign it and let's see if the crown prosecution service decides to take it further. Although it is really tempting to advocate mob justice for those who insight it on others the result is innocent bystanders caught in the cross fire. This is Ernie's opportunity to show his true commitment to ideals by accepting any possible legal consequences for his actions.

While shooting animals isn't my bag and not something I endorse, doxxing gun owners is irresponsible in the extreme.

Ernie and pals better have some decent legal representation down the track.

I'm inclined to think that nothing will happen to them, as those in power tend to agree with the motivations. Are either of my assertions wrong?

I take it you know "those in power" will be some of the gun owners and hunters being targeted.

As there isn't a large amount of money to be appropriated I think those in power would "do the popular thing". Ernie is clearly not popular here but I would not call us commentards at The Register a representative sample of the electorate.

as those in power tend to agree with the motivations

Er, I think you might have missed a Conservative government being in power for the last twenty years.

Indeed. Irresponsible actions of a few tend to have consequences for the many. As any fule no.

Irrespective of the contents, if data is illegally purloined from a source by person A and posted in the public domain, is it legal for person B to copy and/or repost that data in any form? As the data was already in the "public domain" and was not protected in any way, does that make any difference?

I don't know about this case, but you may remember the Sally Bercow case from a few years ago. A prominent public figure had been falsely accused of child abuse, and Sally Bercow sent a tweet referring to him. The law in England and Wales is clear that repeating a libel is the same as making a libel in the first place. I recall it cost her some money and a public apology. So in some civil cases, reposting is as bad as the original leak.

I suppose in principle that Guntrader could sue Ernie for copyright infringement for republishing their data. Finding out who Ernie is, and publishing their name and address in the court papers, would follow naturally.