Other information was also mistakenly released, including data from firearms safety certificates, dealer record of sale and the state’s assault weapons registry. “I remain deeply angered that this incident occurred and extend my deepest apologies on behalf of the department of justice to those who were affected.” “This was more than an exposure of data, it was a breach of trust that falls far short of my expectations and the expectations Californians have of our department,” Bonta, the attorney general, said in a news release. Investigators found that no one – neither the employee who compiled the data nor the officials that supervised the employee – knew the proper security settings to prevent the data from being available for public download. But the employee who created the website included several datasets that contained personal information. State officials thought they were providing anonymous information in the aggregate for research and media requests about the use of guns in California. By then, the information had already been downloaded thousands of times. State officials would not disable the website until about noon the next day. They got the website working again at about 9.30pm. Another group of state officials worked to bring the website back online, unaware of the breach. Meanwhile, the website crashed because so many people were trying to download the data. Two unnamed employees – identified only as “Data Analyst 1” and “Research Center Director” – investigated and mistakenly assured everyone that no personal information was publicly available. State officials at first thought the report was a hoax. Officials at the California department of justice did not know about the breach until someone sent attorney general Rob Bonta a private message on Twitter that included screenshots of the personal information that was available to download from the state’s website, the investigation said. The firm said it had “the mandate and autonomy to conduct an independent investigation that followed the facts and evidence wherever they led”. The department of justice contracted with the Morrison Foerster law firm to investigate the data exposure. “There are a lot of gaps and unanswered questions, perhaps deliberately so, and some spin on this whole notion of whether this was an intentional release or not,” he said. Michel noted the leaked data likely included information from people in sensitive positions – including judges, law enforcement personnel and domestic violence victims – who had sought gun permits. He said the association is preparing a lawsuit against the state and is encouraging people impacted by the exposure to talk with an attorney about filing their own lawsuits. Instead, they said state officials planned to publish what they thought was anonymous data “to meet anticipated heightened public interest in firearms-related data” following the court ruling.Īn intentional breach of personal information carries more stiff fines and penalties under California law, according to Chuck Michel, an attorney and president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association. Investigators said they “did not uncover any evidence that the timing of the (data breach) was driven by a nefarious intent or was personally or politically motivated in any way”. Lawmakers then tried to pass new restrictions for concealed carry permits, but failed. The decision invalidated a California law that said people must give a reason for wanting to carry a concealed weapon, such as a threat to their safety. The data was exposed just days after the US supreme court ruled that people have a right to carry guns in public.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |