Results 11 to 20 of 36
-
September 11th, 2006, 06:36 PM #11Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
-
Pennsylvania
(Lancaster County) - Posts
- 487
- Rep Power
- 544384
I am not a Berks county resident, but if I was I would attempt to give the Sheriff some political grief.
I reviewed his website and application form. He requires references to be Berks county residents. What about people who have just moved into the State or county for that matter? Then he requires references to fill out a form. There is not a statutory basis for these requirements. The sheriff in my opinion needs to go.
These are things that Berks county residents should be made aware of come election time. This forum could provide a method of informing members of this and other Sheriffs actions, plus position of his opponent. I know unfortunately there is often not an opponent, but if there was an issue maybe there would be an opponent to take up the cause.
-
September 11th, 2006, 11:07 PM #12
The application doesn't REQUIRE your two references to be Berks residents. It states they SHOULD be, not MUST be, and I called their office to verify this before I applied. My references were residents of Montgomery and Lehigh county, those references weren't even checked, and I received my LTC in about 2-3 weeks.
FWIW, I've found Sheriff Jozwiak to be, all in all, a friend to responsible firearms owners in Berks, even in light of the current situation. After my call to the office today, the impression I received was that the Sheriff's Office hired Canon to ultimately make the database more secure; they weren't aware that Canon was going to handle the information in a less than secure way during the process, nor did they have any control over it. In addition, they seem anxious to make sure that everyone affected is notified as soon as possible, and are also providing information that will help protect individuals from identity theft, regardless of whether one is at risk from this situation or not.
Again, realize that although the Sheriff's Office is ultimately responsible for the lapse in confidentiality, they are also caught in the middle.
Like I said, take it FWIW.Last edited by ChamberedRound; September 11th, 2006 at 11:11 PM.
-
September 12th, 2006, 08:30 AM #13
ChamberedRound...the one issue for me is they NEVER needed to give legitimate information to Canon for testing purposes. They could have created several fake files and only given them to Canon. As I stated before, I like Jozwiack, but I am a litlle pissed that they did give actual info.
-
September 12th, 2006, 08:51 AM #14
i think this is primarily Canon's fault...they're the service providers here...a company in the business of selling data management services should have some clue and show responsibility...
FOAC * GOA * SAF * NRA Life Member
-
September 12th, 2006, 09:12 AM #15
I am not sure the Sheriff's office had legal right to disseminate the information as they did....
-
September 12th, 2006, 10:36 AM #16
To be fair Sig, we really don't know if it would have been possible for Canon to do their job without a sampling of actual database entries. The only way to know this would be to either a) ask the Sheriff's Office (which I didn't), b) ask Canon, or c) be a Canon employee working on this project.
In many cases, the best way to test if a system works is to manipulate REAL data.
I concur with your concerns here. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the application paperwork that mentions our information will be kept confidential.
I'm a Software Engineer, so to look at this from Canon's perspective, dealing with real data is ideal. However, if the Sheriff's Office was not within their rights to provide this information to Canon, then Canon should have done their best to deal with the above issue of testing using emulated data.
Believe me, I'm not happy with this situation, and I'm not defending the Sheriff's Office. But it's times like these when I think of the saying, "I'd rather the Devil I know than the Devil I don't know".
Personally, I am more upset at Canon for not recognizing the sensitivity of the data they were working with and the lack of best practices to secure their copy of the data.
The whole situation is a mess and could have been handled better.
-
September 12th, 2006, 12:02 PM #17
ChamberedRound, I am a MCSE (which used to mean something) and my father ownes a Law Office and a computer company. The computer company does all the intranet/extranet work for the Law Office. We always make fake files to test new designs. We have never allowed the computer techs to see the client information, even though we trust them to the nth degree. It is an extremely rare case where the fake file works and the real file does not. The fake file should be produced in the same manner as a real file, but with bogus entries. I don't know if you are clued into something I am missing, but I see no point in Canon needing the real information. I am currently laying low to see what occurs. If I find out that my information has been given out, I may have no other choice but to litigate. This has nothing to do with Sherrif Jozwiack (because I like him), persay, but all to do with keeping ALL of our info confidential. If I find out that my Class III paperwork was given to Canon, I will be severely pissed. All I need is for someone to submit transfer papers, using my serial number, and having the BATFE crawling up my butt.
On a side note, do a search on Sheriff Jozwiack, it has been alleged that he used CCW permit info for his election campaign previously. Nothing was ever done about it. So to me, this sets a trend of not caring about our privacy.
-
September 13th, 2006, 02:19 PM #18
Believe me, I'm not clued into anything you don't know. I'm just assuming that Canon must've had a reason to ask for a sampling of the data, a reason which Jozwiak and Co. thought was understandable. Whether their logic was sound is obviously debatable.
Whenever there's the possibility of change, there are those who oppose it and those who support it. In this situation, I'm hesitant to support it. Just my opinion. Like me, you have a right to express yours, which you have.
I sincerely hope your information and Class III paperwork wasn't disclosed, and if litigation is in your future, I wish you luck in your efforts. Keep us posted.
-
October 6th, 2006, 09:44 AM #19
UPDATE
This just stinks:
http://www.readingeagle.com/re/news/1578158.asp
-
October 6th, 2006, 12:00 PM #20Miller said the county and Canon are not offering to pay permit holders to obtain a copy of their credit report to determine if they have been the victim of identity theft.FOAC * GOA * SAF * NRA Life Member
Similar Threads
-
florida permit
By rugerp95 in forum GeneralReplies: 29Last Post: October 8th, 2007, 10:19 PM -
carry permit
By rgb03 in forum GeneralReplies: 30Last Post: January 27th, 2007, 12:41 PM -
sbs in berks
By billy870m9 in forum NFA/Class 3/Title IIReplies: 4Last Post: December 14th, 2006, 01:36 PM -
PIC and permit to carry
By klpolk3 in forum GeneralReplies: 17Last Post: September 20th, 2006, 09:34 PM -
permit
By troy in forum GeneralReplies: 28Last Post: September 15th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Bookmarks