Glock And Privacy Issues

[Frank Ettin]

....At the end of the day, what we have is a private company asking for access to secure, government forms without the consent or knowledge of the person who filled them out. The reason for which does not matter.

Well you might not like that, but as Spats McGee pointed out your disliking it doesn't make it illegal.

 

[Ruger480]

I've googled around and as far as I can tell, the Terms and Conditions of being a BLP dealer are not published on the internet.

I can't find them either. If any one has them, I'm sure a lot of us would like to know the specifics.

Is your belief based on any particular statute, or simply your belief that your information should be private?

It's based on the idea that I'm dealing with an entity who is being up front about all the requirements for participating in a program.

The 4473 isn't "the best document" to confirm the identity of the buyer. It's *the only document* that will confirm the identity of the buyer.

Again, that is a problem for GLOCK to figure out how to handle, either by telling people they will have access to their 4473 or by some other means.

If you purchased a gun from an FFL, you voluntarily shared that information with the FFL. One hopes that the FFL will not share the information beyond the boundaries of the law. If showing the 4473 was "in bounds," though, then neither the dealers nor Glock have much incentive to change the program.

Isn' that what we're debating here? Whether or not this practice is "in bounds"?

Not liking something doesn't make it illegal. I don't care for the prospect of my information (at least that which I see as private) being shared by companies. Nonetheless, if I choose to engage in business with those companies, I have to give them that information.

You give them that information with the understanding beforehand. From what I can tell, the buyer has no knowledge this practice was going on.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Isn' that what we're debating here? Whether or not this practice is "in bounds"?...

Kind of hard to know what we're debating or why. But the bottom line is that Glock's business practices really aren't any of our business. Glock doesn't owe any of us an explanation or justification.

If you don't like what Glock is doing, don't buy Glock products. I have no trouble with their conduct here.

 

[Spats McGee]

Is your belief based on any particular statute, or simply your belief that your information should be private?

It's based on the idea that I'm dealing with an entity who is being up front about all the requirements for participating in a program.

In other words, not upon a statute prohibiting the sharing of 4473s.

The 4473 isn't "the best document" to confirm the identity of the buyer. It's *the only document* that will confirm the identity of the buyer.

Again, that is a problem for GLOCK to figure out how to handle, either by telling people they will have access to their 4473 or by some other means.

I know of no way that Glock (or ATF, or any other entity) can figure out to whom an FFL actually transferred a firearm, except for the 4473.

If you purchased a gun from an FFL, you voluntarily shared that information with the FFL. One hopes that the FFL will not share the information beyond the boundaries of the law. If showing the 4473 was "in bounds," though, then neither the dealers nor Glock have much incentive to change the program.

Isn' that what we're debating here? Whether or not this practice is "in bounds"?

Yes, but I have yet to see a statute that prohibits the practice being discussed here.

Not liking something doesn't make it illegal. I don't care for the prospect of my information (at least that which I see as private) being shared by companies. Nonetheless, if I choose to engage in business with those companies, I have to give them that information.

You give them that information with the understanding beforehand. From what I can tell, the buyer has no knowledge this practice was going on.

A purchaser's prior consent to dissemination of information may or may not be required. Whether or not you (or I or any other individual) likes that is irrelevant to the question of legality.

 

[Ruger480]

Kind of hard to know what we're debating or why. But the bottom line is that Glock's business practices really aren't any of our business. Glock doesn't owe any of us an explanation or justification.

If you don't like what Glock is doing, don't buy Glock products.

I concur. Frank, no hard feelings. There are worse ways I could have spent an afternoon.

Good day all.

 

[Snyper]

Again, that is a problem for GLOCK to figure out how to handle, either by telling people they will have access to their 4473 or by some other means.

It's hard to imagine they didn't tell the dealers they would be expected to prove they sold the guns to qualified persons.

Anyone with the proper ID could fill out a form requesting a Glock at a lower price.

That has nothing to do with the specific pistol, and only lists the qualifications to get the discount

So, then Glock ships that gun to the dealer, where the actual SALE takes place.

Without seeing the 4473, Glock has no clue who really bought that specific pistol

All they need to verify the transfer is to see the same name on the discount application and the only LEGAL document that links a person to the pistol, and can't be faked without risking their entire business

Why would the buyers care if Glock saw one more form when they already had most of the information?

 

[Doyle]

All this begs the question, Why is Glock offering "special" deals only to a certain exclusive class of people? The idea of a manufacturing business is to sell product. If they want to maximize sales, then using a particular class of people is the wrong way to do it.

For instance, take a clue from the auto industry and offer "loyalty" discounts for someone who already owns the product.

 

[Moomooboo]

All this begs the question, Why is Glock offering "special" deals only to a certain exclusive class of people? The idea of a manufacturing business is to sell product. If they want to maximize sales, then using a particular class of people is the wrong way to do it.

For instance, take a clue from the auto industry and offer "loyalty" discounts for someone who already owns the product.

Wow youre saying gun manufacturers dont profit from giving an exclusive group a discount? This begs the question of what kind of business acumen you hold.

Take a clue from other businesses who give these same particular groups discount and how they benefit from providing discounts. More than likely if glock didnt, theyd lose alot more business.

 

[Doyle]

Wow youre saying gun manufacturers dont profit from giving an exclusive group a discount?

I didn't say they aren't making a profit. I said they aren't maximizing sales/profit. Huge difference. You add far more to the bottom line by making a little profit on a very large group than you do by making a bigger profit on a small group. And by the way, my acumen is just fine thank you.

 

[Tom Servo]

Let's dial back on the interpersonal snark. That's the gentlest warning that will be issued.

 

[Moomooboo]

I didn't say they aren't making a profit. I said they aren't maximizing sales/profit. Huge difference. You add far more to the bottom line by making a little profit on a very large group than you do by making a bigger profit on a small group. And by the way, my acumen is just fine thank you.

You lose a big base of customers who will go elsewhere. I only go glock because of the discount and i like them. Id be picking up springfields or sigs if i didnt get the discount, im not the only one.

With your theory, I guess you maximize profits but lose revenues which results in an overall decrease in profit.

 

[Dashunde]

There are two basic issues here... The buyers personal info privacy from Glocks prying eyes, and whether or not Glock can perform a satisfactory audit without seeing the 4473.

On privacy, we simply don't know if their reviewing 4473 is perfectly legal everywhere.
Frank seems to think Glock has done due diligence in determining that their not violating any privacy laws before looking over the form. He may or may not be correct.
I contract for a bunch of insurance companies...
Its naively optimistic to think corporations do what they do because they have thoroughly researched the legalities of their activities, they often don't and they get their hands slapped occasionally for it.
But here's the rub...
The slap is usually cheaper than the legal fees to perform due diligence and the act in question often saves loads of money in the bigger picture... so they continue on doing what they're doing and accept the penalty on occasion.

As I mentioned before... there are many thousands of items sold which are later audited.
Somehow those audits manage without a DOJ form that has been run through the FBI.
Glock has alternatives that would withstand legal scrutiny, such as signed/witnessed bill of sales for BLP transactions.
Glock simply wants to use the 4473 because it exists.

 

[Frank Ettin]

All this begs the question, Why is Glock offering "special" deals only to a certain exclusive class of people? The idea of a manufacturing business is to sell product. If they want to maximize sales, then using a particular class of people is the wrong way to do it.

For instance, take a clue from the auto industry and offer "loyalty" discounts for someone who already owns the product.

Wow youre saying gun manufacturers dont profit from giving an exclusive group a discount?...

And the bottom line here is that it is none of our business. Glock gets to run its business however it wants (subject to applicable law and subject to the rights of shareholders).

....As I mentioned before... there are many thousands of items sold which are later audited.
Somehow those audits manage without a DOJ form that has been run through the FBI....

Those items are not necessarily guns. In any case, let's see some evidence. Exactly what items are you talking about? Exactly what is being audited? Exactly how are those audits conducted?

...Glock has alternatives that would withstand legal scrutiny, such as signed/witnessed bill of sales for BLP transactions.
Glock simply wants to use the 4473.

It's up to Glock to decide how its audits will be conducted, and those decisions will be made in consultation with people who understand auditing and auditing procedure. You are not qualified or competent to provide advice to Glock, or anyone else, about how a proper audit should be conducted.

A bill of sale or other internally created document, no matter who signs it and no matter how many people witness it, can be fabricated, especially in the context of a small business. It is inherently less reliable than the 4473.

You might find Glock's use of the 4473 to be distasteful, but, again, it's none of your business.

 

[Dashunde]

Those items are not necessarily guns. In any case, let's see some evidence. Exactly what items are you talking about? Exactly what is being audited? Exactly how are those audits conducted?

The product is irrelevant. It’s the BLP discount and its documentation being discussed.

Its self-evident that thousands of items are discounted and those sales are later audited in many ways for many reasons.
Its a nuisance request Frank, but if you insist...

Automotive incentives/rebates similar to the BLP as pertaining to specific people for specific reasons are good examples:
New college grads - a dated copy of the diploma or letter of pending graduation from the registrar is good enough.
Military discounts - photo id
Owner loyalty - old registration
All of them could be falsified, yet none require a DOJ form.

A bill of sale or other internally created document, no matter who signs it and no matter how many people witness it, can be fabricated, especially in the context of a small business.

But that’s fraud isn't it... we have criminal punishments for that.

And it sort of harkens to something you said earlier...

The possibility of engaging in illegal conduct does not prevent one from engaging in legal conduct.

You might find Glock's use of the 4473 to be distasteful, but, again, it's none of your business..

[T]his is a discussion forum, not a court of law, we're free to discuss whatever we like within the scope of the rules established by TFL.
We're also free to disagree on principle and fact, and should be able to do so without your intense efforts to challenge, embarrass, belittle, or chase off everyone who disagrees with you.
For evidence of that substandard behavior we need only read the preceding pages of this thread.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Its self-evident that thousands of items are discounted and those sales are later audited in many ways for many reasons.
Its a nuisance request Frank, but if you insist.......

The words "self evident" are not a substitute for evidence.

...New college grads - a dated copy of the diploma or letter of pending graduation from the registrar is good enough.
Military discounts - photo id
Owner loyalty - old registration...

In those cases, the document is a document establishing eligibility and is a document from an independent source. In any case, you still need to establish comparability of what is audited and the audit procedure.

In any case, the nature and procedure for any audit is determined based on all the circumstances. The fact that a certain audit procedure might be used in one context does not mean that the same methodology is suitable or appropriate in a different context.

....Either way, this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, we're free to discuss whatever we like within the scope of the rules established by TFL. We're also free to disagree on principle and fact,...

Yes, and when that discussion is based on a lack of knowledge or understanding, I, or anyone else, is free to point that out, challenge erroneous statement that have been made, and interject some fact into the discussion.

What value do one's personal, subjective beliefs have when they are demonstrably inconsistent with reality? People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. Some people seem to be interested in learning about, and trying to actually understand reality; and some people seem determined to avoid learning and just pretend that they know things.

Ill informed opinions or misinformation or inaccurate information does no one any good. But when those with informed opinions or those whose training, education and experience cause them to have good and accurate information on a topic share those opinions and that information, the rest of us can learn something. That is productive.

It never ceases to amaze me how folks who have no knowledge or experience in a number of pretty technical fields, like law and auditing, and have no interest in actually learning about such subjects, nonetheless know how thing are and should be done and are so anxious to share their insights(?) with folks who have done those sorts of things for a living.

That is actually a well documented phenomenon, and this article by a psychologist, David Dunning, who has studied that phenomenon might be interesting to some. As Dr. Dunning writes in that article:

... The American author and aphorist William Feather once wrote that being educated means “being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don’t.” As it turns out, this simple ideal is extremely hard to achieve. Although what we know is often perceptible to us, even the broad outlines of what we don’t know are all too often completely invisible. To a great degree, we fail to recognize the frequency and scope of our ignorance.

In 1999, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, my then graduate student Justin Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize—scratch that, cannot recognize—just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. ....

 

[zincwarrior]

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.

Its not voluntary if you're a purchaser and don't know about it. There's nothing voluntary involved in third parties viewing your information from a government form.

 

[Mike Irwin]

As I understand it from the time I sold firearms, Form 4473 is subject to privacy act stipulations ONLY when it is held by the government.

When the form is in the hands of an individual dealer, it is not subject to privacy act restrictions.

 

[zincwarrior]

Thanks Mike. Do we know what the legal requirements under the FFL are for maintaining and protecting those records? That might be despositive as well.

 

[Mike Irwin]

According to this, the dealer must retain the records for a minimum of 20 years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.129

If the dealer goes out of business, I believe that any existing 4473s have to be surrendered to ATF.

As for dealer storage requirements, I can't find anything that says how the records must be stored.

I would suspect that, since they're not subject to privacy act requirements, that the dealer would be expected to provide reasonable protection of the forms.

There might be something in this publication.

https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-3317-2.pdf

 

[Dashunde]

When the form is in the hands of an individual dealer, it is not subject to privacy act restrictions.

That, in and of itself, is very problematic.
I could really care less if Glock looks at a relatively few 4473's related only to their BLP purchases.

What is bothering me about all of this, and should bother all of you too, is that this very detailed form that we all have to file out for virtually every firearm we purchase appears to be secured only by the honesty of our dealers.
Even worse, this info must be kept for years rather than shred after use.

Is there no one here who can determine if this type of personal information provided to a retail store is, or is not, factually protected under ordinary State or Federal privacy or consumer protection laws?

For example, could a FFL sell our information to a 3rd party?