UPDATE 2: Visitors from The Atlantic Wire-- it looks like Adam Clark Estes has no more integrity than the other two --he repeated the lie in his column even though he had the link and knows better.
My original blog post from 2007 follows.
-----
Wintemute’s first challenge was to find some way to eavesdrop on gun transactions without attracting notice. At first he tried recording his observations by speaking into a hidden tape recorder that he carried with him, but the quality of the recordings were poor.
“Then I realized that everybody (at the gun shows) was using cell phones,” he recalled in a recent interview.
Wintemute decided to do likewise. He recorded his observations by calling up his voice mail, the capacity of which he had expanded for the study. The voice mail messages were then transcribed by members of Wintemute’s staff. He made visual recordings of the gun shows by taking pictures with a hidden camera. [More]
I won't go here into why I think this study is crap, aside from the fact that Wintemute is one of the more notorious agenda-driven anti-defense propagandists out there. Going to gun shows is hardly equivalent to doing "shoe-leather epidemiology" in South Central or East LA amongst these guys. And I'll only note in passing what a disappointment I find this PhysOrg.com site to be--is this what purported scientific "news" has been reduced to: blatant rah-rah press releases for anti-defense fanatics?
What stands out most for me was this character snooping in on private transactions without the knowledge of the people involved--and many gun shows I've seen have a "No Cameras/Recording Devices" policy. I've also seen some case law involving "news gathering" and hidden cameras/microphones, but "research"--particularly for propaganda purposes--is arguably a different beast altogether. If the shows were posted to keep cameras out, dealers and patrons may well have had some sort of expectation of privacy. I invite anyone with knowledge of California law in this regard to weigh in via "Comments," below.
At the very least, it ought to tell us something about the ethics of this character who has to sneak around like a cheap, bumbling East German spy. And here's the clincher:
Eventually, he hopes to train others to become observers at gun shows — and possibly to go one step further than he did and notify local police when they witness an illegal transaction.This isn't science. This is a police state informant developing his own private snitch patrol--and I would hope any evidence he gathered would be inadmissible, since he's made it clear his real purpose is to effect criminal prosecutions.
Actually, I would hope he's done something for which he can be prosecuted and sued. And I wouldn't mind if he was forcibly ejected from the next gun show he attends.
In the mean time, as a public service, WarOnGuns would like to assist promoters, dealers and customers in detecting an enemy in their midst--feel free to adapt this into a flier to post and distribute at gun shows:
WARNING!
IF YOU SEE THIS MAN, NOTIFY SECURITY IMMEDIATELY.
HE IS GAREN J. WINTEMUTE,
AN ANTI-GUN "RESEARCHER" KNOWN TO STALK GUN SHOWS WITH HIDDEN CAMERAS AND RECORDERS. HE IS REPORTEDLY TRAINING HIS FOLLOWERS TO MONITOR YOUR TRANSACTIONS AND CALL THE POLICE!
IF YOU SEE THIS MAN, NOTIFY SECURITY IMMEDIATELY.
HE IS GAREN J. WINTEMUTE,AN ANTI-GUN "RESEARCHER" KNOWN TO STALK GUN SHOWS WITH HIDDEN CAMERAS AND RECORDERS. HE IS REPORTEDLY TRAINING HIS FOLLOWERS TO MONITOR YOUR TRANSACTIONS AND CALL THE POLICE!
I guess it's easier going after citizens at gun shows than it is stalking and reporting on criminals. It's sure a hell of a lot safer for "The Hero of Medicine"--because we know what the folks who are truly causing the problems do when they find snitches in their midst.
"The Hero of Medicine." That sounds like a title Stalin would hand out, doesn't it?
27 comments:
Looks like he was breaking the law from what I see online.
California
Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear. This information was included with my telephone bill.
California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.
source
California Law: Employers that provide e-mail and Internet access in California, or that monitor communications between their employees and persons in California, must be aware of two California statutes, commonly known as the Wiretap Statute and the Eavesdropping Statute.
The California Wiretap Statute provides that anyone who "willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communications when the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state," has committed a criminal offense and also may be sued for damages by an aggrieved party. Cal. Penal Code § 631 (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode? section=pen& group=00001-01000& file=630-637.9). Under the Statute, before a conversation may be overheard, intercepted, or recorded in real time, the consent of both parties to the communication must be obtained. Accordingly, even if a company has obtained effective consent from the employee to the monitoring of that employee's communications, real-time interception of the employee's communications with non-consenting persons might expose the company to criminal liability.
The California Eavesdropping Statute applies only to "confidential" communications. Specifically, the Statute prohibits anyone who does not have the consent of all parties to a "confidential communication" from eavesdropping upon or recording that communication by means of "any electronic amplifying or recording device." Cal. Penal Code § 632 (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode? section=pen& group=00001-01000& file=630-637.9). Arguably, reading stored e-mails does not constitute "eavesdropping" with the aid of an "amplifying or recording device." However, there is no published opinion addressing this issue.
Taking the two California statutes together, the best approach for employers is to review the contents of employee communications only after those communications have been transmitted and are in storage on the employer's server. Also, in order to ensure that the acquired communications will not be classified as "confidential" for purposes of the Eavesdropping Statute, employers should clearly notify employees that their communications are subject to monitoring.
Eventually, he hopes to train others to become observers at gun shows — and possibly to go one step further than he did and notify local police when they witness an illegal transaction.
I simply love the way this guy thinks. Only he is on the wrong side of the line.
I have always advocated, and tried to point out the power of the camera. They can be more powerful than firearms when combating the police-state.
Darkness can't survive the light. Think of the Glover incident. Or ask yourself how history might have played out differently if there had been a militia/patriot that snuck into the Waco siege area and set up a video camera when the media had been blocked out.
What is thrilling about this day and age is...anyone can have a camera/audio recon devices, and often do(cell phones), that they carry with daily. Now there is YouTube for easy access to broadcasting techniques. Everyone is a reporter and can get news out with the filtering of the MSM.
Take what this fellow said above, and switch alliances.
C.H.
I don't believe the wiretap laws apply here becuase he was recording his own observations into the cell phone as he spied on transactions NOT the conversations between the parties (assuming he didn't capture these anyway--if there were legal grounds to do so, subpoenaing the recordings and transcriptions might yield some interesting evidence). Still, he was using it as a recorder, and also had a hidden camera, presumably to take pictures of goings on, and both of these activities are generally prohibited by gun show entrance rules. The invasion of privacy, if a legal one exists, would be with using a hidden camera to take pictures documenting people engaging in gun deals without their knowledge.
He looks so damned familiar but I can't place from where.
He wears a suit and has his hair tied back in a pony tail. That pretty much says it all, for me.
Hoplophobia is a mental illness. This man needs a psychiatrist.
He's trying to show that California law reduces "illegal" gun purchases. It has a much more profound effect on "legal" gun purchases. It isn't having an effect on violent crime, property crime or organized crime, and is of dubious value in terms of public safety. (However, I have recently learned that public safety is defined by mayors, not by reality.)
Also:
"Some were fairly blatant. On three occasions, all outside California, he observed straw purchasers buying multiple guns in a single transaction. He even saw a licensed retailer at a gun show in Florida processing multiple straw purchases simultaneously."
Was he unwittingly spying on federal agents?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CRIME_FIGHTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
“So I infer from that that there’s no substantial effort to enforce [the federal law banning straw purchases] at gun shows.”
Those that enforce the policies may be the ones conducting the "illegal" transfer to catch violators, genius.
Given that this research was conducted by a person who has a observably strong career bias and implied personal bias in favor of gun control, and was funded by an organization (the Joyce Foundation) that has a observably strong policy bias in favor of gun control, can the results of this study be considered trustworthy at all? It seems as if Dr. Wintemute saw what he wanted to see when he went to gun shows.
"The study, titled “Gun shows across a multistate American gun market: observational evidence of the effects of regulatory policies,” was funded by the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation and the Broad Foundation of Los Angeles and was approved by the UC Davis Institutional Review Board. It is based on observations Wintemute made while visiting 28 gun shows — eight each in California and Nevada, six in Arizona, four in Texas and two in Florida — between April 2005 and March 2006. California was chosen because it tightly regulates gun shows — requiring for example that gun show promoters be licensed — while the other four states don’t regulate gun shows at all. The four states were chosen because they are the leading sources of guns used in crimes in California."
If there is a lawsuit, or criminal charge, would it not include those that funded and/or approved the act? They knew what he intended to do. Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Dude that is a serious mullet!!! What a douchebag!!!
David,
I realize this post is over a year old, but would you happen to have a PDF which generates a 8.5x11 poster page of the Wintemute warning in this post?
Something we can download, print, and hand out at shows?
Thanks!
Mike
I can't make pdf files-I can only read them. Email me and I'll send you a Word file. I just tried posting it on esnips, and for some reason it won't let me post there with this doc--their auto sw deems it a potential copyright violation.
A quick question, guys, about something that has puzzled me for years about the NRA and others who oppose essentially any restrictions on firearms: what exactly do you think the agenda of gun control advocates ("anti-defense fanatics") is? I grew up in a small town in Texas surrounded by guns, and spent many a Sunday afternoon firing them with my dad and his friends; I've also listened to quite a bit of Alex Jones' material, so I understand there is a fear that the federal government is planning to herd everyone into concentration camps (or whatever), and that this would be much easier to do to an unarmed population. Avoiding the question for the moment of why they would ever want to do this (it would immediately destroy the US economy and evaporate the wealth of the Powers that Be, which wouldn't seem to be to their advantage). What I'm curious about is what you think the ulterior motives of millions of private citizens who favor controls on gun sales are? What motivates them if it's not a genuine desire not to see so many people murdered with firearms? Thank you for your time and consideration.
FYI: I'll concede that I'm puzzled why a gun-control advocate goes around with a suit and a ponytail. I'm guessing I'm considerably less socially conservative than most of you good folks, but that look screams liberal douchebag even to me.
Anon, this post is 5 1/2 years old. Nobody is going to be coming here engaging in discussions. To answer your question, I believe the majority of ordinary citizens who agree with gun control have motives of wanting to see fewer killings and an inclination to look to government for the solution.
I don't consider that to be an excuse, though. I consider it to be citizenship malpractice -- we owe it to ourselves and to our countrymen to be informed, and to understand that our votes have consequences that can lead to the use of force against others by those we enable.
Don't expect a debate here from me. I'm far too busy to drop what I'm doing for a one-on-one exchange where no one will see it. I'll put your comment and this reply in a standalone post later today, and if anyone wants to jump in and engage, go for it.
And assuming you also just posted the other comment, no argument about the ponytail, except to say that any aging man who has one has a right to do so without being hassled by me -- and if I try to hurt him for it, or for anything else about him or his lifestyle, he should be able to have the means to repel me with all appropriate levels of force required to make me stop.
Above-referenced discussion here.
Accusing somebody of being Stalinist sure makes you sound like a wingnut.
Intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote sure makes you sound like a liar. Insulting people anonymously sure makes you sound like a coward.
As an amature wannabe burgler, I would like to know what are the locations Mr. Waitaminute real estate holdings. I'd like not to get shot on my first job.
Hey, how cool, you are deathly afraid of spies at gun conventions, no cameras allowed, and God forbid someone report an illegal firearms transaction. It's absolutely fascinating how you want guns for freedom and are oh so terribly afraid of photographs of illegal transactions at gun conventions. Huh. So you actually WANT gun conventions to be breaking the law. Isn't that interesting. Who ya gonna shoot next, tiger?
Oh, and, wait, this comment will never get posted because you are opposed to freedom of speech, preferring freedom of death.
David (I'm the original Anon from yesterday):
Thank you for your respectful and measured response. I apologize for commenting on such an old post--as you might have guessed, I'm one of the many readers who followed the Slate link here, and didn't realize until I opened the page again just now that the last comment was in '08. When I have time, I'll continue the discussion on the new post you were gracious enough to create.
As usual, Ian, your type has totally misrepresented what has been written. You have totally ignored the lie that brought you here in the first place.
But yes, I am against sneaks, spies and snitches who violate the privacy rights of others, and who view all of those they ideologically oppose as criminal suspects. Funny you should bring up being "deathly afraid," though, ignoring the paranoia in the lie that linked you to this post that equates warning people that the spying is going on and urging them to lawfully and peaceably notify those tasked with ensuring rules of appropriate conduct are followed with a death threat-related "Wanted" poster. But you know that. You just want to direct things away from the lie and the liars who told and perpetuated it.
It's telling that you want to blather on about your freedom to insult but are hostile to privacy and self-preservation rights, again, typical and hardly original.
And comments here are a privilege, not a right, which can be revoked if conduct is untruthful and/or insulting, and yours crosses both lines. I don't owe you a forum. If you want one, put the work into creating one and conduct it as you see fit.
So yeah, you got your shot and now you're out of here, "Tiger," first because you're an asshole, but also because, candidly, Ian, you're boring. Your indignant opinions are not worth my time to even read, let alone post and respond to.
It all comes down to whoever gets the drop on whomever... it doesn't matter what type of gun, camera or legislative initiative you're packing, if the assailant is intent, hidden, and also packing, you're toast!
You guys should touch up on your knowledge of legal jargon a bit:
No privacy laws were violated. You have no expectation of privacy in a public space. Though he wouldn't be allowed to show someone's face without permission, the audio recording is perfectly legal.
The first two things posted by "anonymous" refer to recording phone conversations, and the second refers to monitoring internet access and email. Neither of these are "public" items, and therefore the people involved have a legal expectation of privacy. No such situation exists when a conversation is carried out in a public forum with dozens of strangers within earshot.
As for this guy being a "spy," he is only trying to get police involved for illegal transactions, like when someone sells a weapon to someone they know is a criminal. Legal sales between private citizens are no problem, so why should any of you care?
What's there to hide from him? Why be afraid of him?
to further clarify the issue of whether he is breaking the law by recording at a gun show: the phrases two-party vs. single-party refer to wiretapping laws, typically applied to a two-way phone conversation where the person being recorded is in a different location than the person doing the recording. they don't refer to recordings made in a public place with no expectation of privacy.
in CA, recording audio in a public place is not wiretapping and you don't need anyone's permission to do so. the fact that he was using a phone as a recording device does not put this situation in the same category as a two-way phone call. phone calls have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but using a phone to transmit the audio goings-on around you to a remote recording device is not, for the purposes of privacy laws, considered a phone call.
Also, posting signs in a public place that say "No Recording Devices" is seen by the courts as a request and has no legal force. therefore ignoring them is not a crime.
The whole privacy rights is a load of bull. You have no rights to privacy in the way everyone seems to interpret it. If I can watch an illegal transaction and later describe it to someone this is the the same "invasion of privacy" as video-taping and displaying it during a presidential campaign, eyes-to-memory-to-playback. The only reason we have these laws is because people are uncomfortable not knowing which people know things. If it happens in person or in "public" you at least know the degree of exposure and who's possibly included. If it's something like a video its the same as a rumor but instead of other people getting the experience second hand it feels more first-hand. So your more self-conscious. Get over yourself. If it was something you wouldn't do in front of a crowd then you shouldn't be doing it in front of anyone. UNLESS your so familiar with all involved there's an implicit understanding that there will be no mention of it to anyone else. If a rumor isn't possible then you have the right to trust that a video isn't either. Also, your degree of familiarity with the people surrounding you determines how "public" you are, not your immediate location. If everyone around you is a new face you act like you would in any other public place, if your at a gun show you're assuming everyone has an interest in the guns and have only that level of familiarity. If it's a "positive" interest you assume, then you assumed falsely clearly and that's nobody else's fault but your own. Want it to be somebody else's fault? Then vet everybody. Then he'd ACTUALLY BE A SPY. While we're on the topic, you likewise have no "Right to be Forgotten", if someone else owns data that was not illegal in the first place. You have no right to restrict that person's use of the data. Nor anyone else's. And what's all this crap about the mullet and liberalness? Seriously? I've got long hair myself because my bones make me look like a murderer with almost all short haircuts. Also I AM liberal but in an anarchist sort of way. We need to stop being such dicks and get out of each other's business. That includes the gov't messing hard with gun control, etc. And also with the NRA messing with gun studies sponsored by the government. Get your dicks out of each others' face. The government is there for things where we need a collective for: Road repair, education (because we're getting more retarded compared to the rest of the world the more we adopt homeschooling and non-gov't education, so we obviously can't handle it ourselves), international politics, large studies, macroeconomics, etc. Not micromanaging banks or messing with individual liberties. And the people are for the micromanaging: your own problems, electing representatives, personal studies, your own businesses, etc.
Post a Comment