The Great Media Gun purchace Beatup

Forums › Off topic › The Great Media Gun purchace Beatup

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1411032 22-Oct-2015 12:08

MikeB4:
Geektastic:
SaltyNZ:
kingjj: but she's made it a shed load harder for honest purchasers to do it online now.

Well, my personal opinion is that 'lethal weapon' and 'easy to do online' should only go in the same sentence if that sentence is 'We are not going to make purchasing a lethal weapon easy to do online.' Absent transactions have been, since the beginning, and always will be, the easiest to subvert.

A kitchen knife or a screwdriver - or even a biro - can be a lethal weapon. Should we stop the sale of those on line as well?

Why, if you have a firearms licence, should you not be able to buy a firearm on line?

Agreed, but it appears the system needs strengthening and maybe a stand down after the order is placed before dispatch and the Police advised of the order and requiring Police OK before final dispatch approved...... I think.

But it has been a million years since I owned firearms and not that up on current regulations.

I've done it a couple of times and you are supposed to take the mail order firearms form to the Police station, have an officer (usually the Arms Officer) witness your licence and countersign the form, which you then send to the seller.

At least that is how it works here in South Wairarapa. I've even bought from Gun City by mail and that was the procedure.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Jeeves

301 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1411051 22-Oct-2015 12:22

Geektastic:
SaltyNZ:
cruxis: When fair go do under age alcohol store stings, they make sure they dont complete a sale to avoid breaking the law.

She should have shown the loophole without breaking the law. She should get proscuted let a judge decide her fate.

I think we need to be careful with this attitude. There's a reason why there are public interest/journalism exceptions for many laws. In this particular case it appears the police were already aware of, and have closed, the loophole used. But what if they weren't? Our government isn't typically very responsive to being told privately about problems. (Yes, not just our government, and yes, many reasons why). Sometimes our society needs this kind of thing to happen very, very publicly in order to force things to change.

Why, just think, the government would never have had to change the law to make GCSB spying on kiwis legal if Dotcom hadn't made it public. :-/

However, they could easily have shown this WITHOUT actually doing it, simply by writing to the police and explaining it.

Of course, that would get no ratings. There is no public interest in the actual breaking of the law, since it was not necessary to do so in order to remedy the defect in procedure.

EG if I work for Bloggs & Co and realise that their petty cash procedure would allow me to receive $100 a week with no justification due to a procedural flaw, I can remedy that by meeting with the Finance Manager and illustrating the point in a discussion - there is no need for me to steal money from them for a while just to show it can be done....

Fair Go wouldn't be much of a program if people were content to just sit down and have a cup of tea with the instigator.

The whole point of doing it publicly is to get bums off seats and something done quickly.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1411063 22-Oct-2015 12:37

Jeeves:
Geektastic:
SaltyNZ:
cruxis: When fair go do under age alcohol store stings, they make sure they dont complete a sale to avoid breaking the law.

She should have shown the loophole without breaking the law. She should get proscuted let a judge decide her fate.

I think we need to be careful with this attitude. There's a reason why there are public interest/journalism exceptions for many laws. In this particular case it appears the police were already aware of, and have closed, the loophole used. But what if they weren't? Our government isn't typically very responsive to being told privately about problems. (Yes, not just our government, and yes, many reasons why). Sometimes our society needs this kind of thing to happen very, very publicly in order to force things to change.

Why, just think, the government would never have had to change the law to make GCSB spying on kiwis legal if Dotcom hadn't made it public. :-/

However, they could easily have shown this WITHOUT actually doing it, simply by writing to the police and explaining it.

Of course, that would get no ratings. There is no public interest in the actual breaking of the law, since it was not necessary to do so in order to remedy the defect in procedure.

EG if I work for Bloggs & Co and realise that their petty cash procedure would allow me to receive $100 a week with no justification due to a procedural flaw, I can remedy that by meeting with the Finance Manager and illustrating the point in a discussion - there is no need for me to steal money from them for a while just to show it can be done....

Fair Go wouldn't be much of a program if people were content to just sit down and have a cup of tea with the instigator.

The whole point of doing it publicly is to get bums off seats and something done quickly.

And where that does not involve carrying out an illegal act, it is a good idea. Otherwise, not so much.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1411083 22-Oct-2015 12:56

I can only speak for myself, but if I discovered a loophole that enables people to break, or at least side-step, the law - particularly a law that could put lethal weapons in the hands of unsuitable/irresponsible/criminal people - rather than go to the media (even if I was the media) I'd prefer to go directly to the Police or the government department that administers that particular law and tell them what I found. If I was ignored by that authority then I'd consider making the story public in an effort to bring attention to it and have it resolved.

Now, I haven't seen the original news item on this, only the subsequent media fallout, and standard-IANAL-disclaimer, but I have read (and apologies if any of this is incorrect) that:

HdPA used the details of a valid firearms licence holder on the application - it wasn't some "lucky guess" random name and number made up on the spot,
HdPA invented a fictitious police officer and put his details and signature on the form,
the firearms licence holder was present when HdPA took receipt of the rifle.

#1 sounds illegal - is that identity theft? #2 must be illegal - passing yourself off as a police officer must be just as wrong on paper as it is in person. #3 indicates the licence holder was in on it from the start, and I would guess allowing his details to be used in what he knew to be a fraudulent application by an unlicenced person would also be illegal, leading to charges for him as well.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1411088 22-Oct-2015 13:12

I'm wondering if in addition to possible Firearms and Fraud charges that she may also be charged with "Impersonating a police officer"?

SaltyNZ

8061 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1411091 22-Oct-2015 13:16

Geektastic:

EG if I work for Bloggs & Co and realise that their petty cash procedure would allow me to receive $100 a week with no justification due to a procedural flaw, I can remedy that by meeting with the Finance Manager and illustrating the point in a discussion - there is no need for me to steal money from them for a while just to show it can be done....

At a previous job, I documented a procedure whereby a tier 1 CSR could become the root user on a backend system handling several hundred million dollars in revenue. The developer concerned didn't want to know about it, even when I included 'but if you just set the sticky bit on /tmp, the hack is entirely prevented.'

That became part of the standard build later anyway, but it wasn't because I reported things the "right" way.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

manjina

33 posts

Geek

#1411188 22-Oct-2015 15:43

Wow, HDPA probably shizzing bricks atm.

Technically, she has committed a dishonesty offense, and if convicted, the long term repercussions will be significant.

S240, Crimes Amendment Act 2003
Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

“(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
- “(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
- ..............
“(2) In this section, deception means—
- “(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
  - “(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
  - ..............

qyiet

454 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1411222 22-Oct-2015 16:32

SaltyNZ:
... I included 'but if you just set the sticky bit on /tmp, the hack is entirely prevented.'

That became part of the standard build later anyway, but it wasn't because I reported things the "right" way.

I've reported some probably worse security problems with IT systems to 3rd party companies. If you don't provide a practical example (like "and here is a list of your user data") they think you are nit picking about something that is theoretical at best. I suspect it's because I'm pointing at a problem they don't understand, so therefore it must be too hard for others to understand either.

I suspect the same thing would happen to administration problems like this one, "there are checks, the likelyhood of bypassing them will be low" is the response I'd have expected from a letter pointing at the problem. This way at least the admin problems will (hopefully) get fixed quick-smart.

Warning: reality may differ from above post

scuwp

3868 posts

Uber Geek

#1411226 22-Oct-2015 16:38

I doubt the Police would prosecute her. It is not in the "public interest" which is one of the criteria that they must meet when taking a prosecution. Looks like the boss of Gun City however is out for blood. Funny that he runs a gun shop and allegedly has criminal firearms offences himself.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#1411237 22-Oct-2015 16:42

Could she not have obtained proof of and then declined the delivery?

scuwp

3868 posts

Uber Geek

#1411247 22-Oct-2015 16:58

ubergeeknz: Could she not have obtained proof of and then declined the delivery?

But that would not have made sensationalised TV and increased ratings

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#1411252 22-Oct-2015 17:09

scuwp:
ubergeeknz: Could she not have obtained proof of and then declined the delivery?

But that would not have made sensationalised TV and increased ratings

Also I wrote that before reading the bit where she forged official documents and impersonated a police officer. Yeah that's BS.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1411469 22-Oct-2015 23:48

I'd say the young lady in question has just found the limit and will be in court one way or the other.

I heard the viewing figures for the alleged 'current affairs program' on a radio show today - somewhere around 150,000. That is less people than watch Country Calendar by some margin!

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1411470 23-Oct-2015 00:05

mdooher: Well well well, I wondered how they did it.

Heather du Plessis-Allen would have us believe she "made up" a firearms licence number and sent it to Gun City on the from and they just sent her a gun.

No she didn't, she used the name, firearms licence and credit card of a person who already had their details and firearms licence registered with Gun City and had the Gun sent to her.

So, so far no problem. But the naughty bit was to fill out the "police" section of the form and forge those details.

The end result is the person whose firearm licence they used got the gun (he was there) so he is in legal possession but the way he got it was illegal.

You dont see any problem with Gun City sending a firearm without knowing or verifying who it was actually sent to?

What checks do they (Gun City) have to verify their online orders go to the licensed gun owner who the order is (supposedly) from? I wonder how many crims have used this 'method' to get firearms illegally?

Bung

6324 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1411475 23-Oct-2015 02:25

mdooher:
nakedmolerat: Let me correct you -

She uses fictitious name, fictitious gun license (this happen to be correctly guessed) - they can only check whether the gun license is correct or no, but they don't have the ability to match up the details.

She also uses fictitious police name, ID and signature.

No she didn't, I'm looking at a copy of her form right now, It is not a fictitious name and it is a matching firearms licence number

Gun City makes you send them a colour photocopy of your licence the first time you purchase

This is the odd part. If the order was coming from an existing customer with just the verification section forged why is the mainstream media and the gun shop owner persisting with the "a valid number but fake name" story?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7