zincwarrior
New member
However, unlike with a loan you're not being informed when you write out a 4473 that this information may be shared. Unless thats disclosed
1. Its a problem.
2. Is this legal in the first place?
Glock And Privacy Issues
- Thread starter Joe_Pike
- Start date
However, unlike with a loan you're not being informed when you write out a 4473 that this information may be shared. Unless thats disclosed
1. Its a problem.
2. Is this legal in the first place?
kilimanjaro
New member
It is not legal to allow unauthorized persons to view the personal ID of other third parties, when it includes a Social Security Number. Go to the Personnel section of your employer and start rummaging through the files, if you want to see what will happen to you.
Not to mention, that 4473 form is between me, the FFL, and the US Gov't.
Might as well have a camera crew following you into church to see how much you put in the plate every Sunday.
Not to mention, that 4473 form is between me, the FFL, and the US Gov't.
Might as well have a camera crew following you into church to see how much you put in the plate every Sunday.
The problem with equating this to a loan is you expect to have to give out personal information in order to qualify for the loan. But it seems odd these days that I get re-fi letters from random companies asking me to re-fi my home loan and they know exactly how much I owe. I don't anticipate my bank giving away my private information, and only use it to qualify for the loan (or not). Likewise Glock's agent to administer the program is the gun shop and if they have an issue with the shop then they still don't need to see my personal info. Did the shop qualify for the Blue Label program? Yes, then let them administer it. or send in "secret shoppers" to test the shop. But my personal info is none of their business in this case. My $0.02.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
zincwarrior said:
I wasn't drawing an analogy. I was merely illustrating that privacy is elusive.Scorpion8 said:
And if you expect a special price from Glock, you need to expect to give out personal information necessary to qualify for their Blue Label program. Note that some buyers might be able to order directly from Glock and would be providing the necessary information directly to Glock.Scorpion8 said:
And obviously Glock disagrees.Scorpion8 said:
It's not a matter of having an issue with the shop. Any business having agents administer programs for them will audit their agents. That's how things are done in the real world. Agents who don't expect to get audited are naive. Businesses that don't audit agents will be unhappy with the way things turn out.
Then cite the law.kilimanjaro said:
Evan Thomas
Inactive
The solution is simple: if one doesn't want to give Glock one's personal information, one can choose not to participate in the program. No one is forced to take them up on the offered discount if they don't care for the terms, nor is Glock obliged to give anyone the discount -- it's a voluntary arrangement on both sides.
It looks like this may run afoul of Florida's firearms recordskeeping law.
http://laws.flrules.org/2004/59
http://laws.flrules.org/2004/59
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Irrelevant and wrong.Doyle said:
Irrelevant because in any case this law applies only in Florida. Trop Gun Shop referenced in the OP is in Pennsylvania.
Wrong because the allowing the inspection of 4473s by a Glock auditor is not within the scope of the prohibitions of the law. The Florida statute only prohibits certain specific and narrowly described acts (Section 790.335, Florida Statutes, paragraph (b) 2 (2), emphasis added):
The inspection of 4473s by a Glock auditor doesn't necessarily require making or keeping a list or record of privately owned guns.
Frank, you are sort of right. Even though Trop is in PA, Glock is doing this to FL dealers too.
The 2nd part of your argument is a "maybe". The law says (paraphrasing) "nobody can make a list of owners". Just because Glock said they want to "look" at the 4473's, what is to keep them from going one step further and either want copies or want to record the information off of them?
The 2nd part of your argument is a "maybe". The law says (paraphrasing) "nobody can make a list of owners". Just because Glock said they want to "look" at the 4473's, what is to keep them from going one step further and either want copies or want to record the information off of them?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Phooey. The fact remains that, according to Trop, Glock simply asked to look at the 4473s, and that does not violate the Florida statute. If a Glock auditor instead of doing what is clearly not prohibited under the Florida statute decides to engage in other conduct which could raise legal issues, that's another matter entirely.Doyle said:
The possibility of engaging in illegal conduct does not prevent one from engaging in legal conduct.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And exactly what Privacy Act would that be?Dashunde said:
There are a bunch of "privacy laws" dealing with financial institutions, medical information, the business of insurance. Have you done the research and determined that one of those laws applies to this situation? I so, which law and how does it apply?
Yes, but so what? Glock can still state a legitimate reason to inspect the 4473s: to verify dealer compliance with Glock's Blue Label program.Dashunde said:
Is this a legal opinion or just your belief based on your personal values? If the former, please cite the law. If the latter, you're certainly free to believe what you do, but it still remains that from a business perspective Glock has a legitimate, business purpose to inspect the 4473s.Dashunde said:
I’ve been through a number of audits in the manufacturing business. Often a job description will state that a person has to meet certain requirements for the job. The auditor might then ask for us to prove that a specific employee meets those requirements. The auditor might ask to see training records, resumes or education credentials. I’ve never seen an auditor copy any of this information they just review it and assure it meets the requirements of the standard.
So, if all GLOCK is doing is reviewing the document and not making copies it seems fine, but I suppose if they make copies it might be a concern. The gun shop statement in the OP simply references access and does not state that GLOCK wanted to make copies, so again it seems ok to me.
So, if all GLOCK is doing is reviewing the document and not making copies it seems fine, but I suppose if they make copies it might be a concern. The gun shop statement in the OP simply references access and does not state that GLOCK wanted to make copies, so again it seems ok to me.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Instead of remaining in doubt, perhaps you'd like to do some actual research to find out what sorts of privacy laws there actually are, what exceptions those laws provide for, and under what circumstances those laws allow access to information and to whom.Dashunde said:
Knowledge is available.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
An excuse for not knowing something is not the same as knowing it. One can certainly choose not to find the time to acquire knowledge, and in that case he will simply remain ignorant. One might have the right to remain ignorant, but he shouldn't expect to be congratulated for doing so.Dashunde said:
We're not discussing what you think "should be." If you think that such a law is needed, you're certainly free to get politically active and to seek to have such a law enacted.Dashunde said:
Last edited:
No one here knows the answer, no one here will look it up, and no one here is seeking congratulations for not wasting a full day researching individual States privacy laws just to satisfy Frank Ettin to avoid his keyboard wrath.
The fact is, no matter their reason for doing so, Glock's "reviewing" of a DOJ form containing such sensitive & personal information is unsettling for many, and is well outside the scope of intended use of 4473.
The ATF does not require that form so that it can be used/reviewed by Glock, or other profiting entities for their own purposes or verifications.
The fact is, no matter their reason for doing so, Glock's "reviewing" of a DOJ form containing such sensitive & personal information is unsettling for many, and is well outside the scope of intended use of 4473.
The ATF does not require that form so that it can be used/reviewed by Glock, or other profiting entities for their own purposes or verifications.
Spats McGee
Administrator
It may be unsettling, it may even be distatseful. That doesn't make it illegal, though. And ATF's purposes in requiring the form are largely irrelevant in determining whether disclosure of the information contained therein is illegal.Dashunde said:
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
IIRC, the article I read on this topic stated that Glock's requests (demands) violated a PA law. Perhaps one of the ones recently passed to provide privacy to gun purchasers.