Ultimately, the Problem is the State

In re my ethics complaint against Gannettfor outing permit holders, correspondent "Frank in Atlanta asks:

WHY are we sitting around being mad that the horse got out -- when the REAL culprit is the state:  WHY is the barn door being left open in the first place ?

He's got a point, and adds a similar concern about arrest records and the damage done with those.  I'll email him back and ask for permission to include his entire email as an update to this post, because he raises some really good points.

Correspondent "Bklyn" shared another disturbing link that bolsters Frank's contentions.  Check this out.

Interesting, this "activist" concerned in identifying others is masking himself.

UPDATE: I received permission from "Frank in Atlanta"--here is what he wrote:

Greetings David,

I appreciated your 1/5/13 Examiner article questioning media ethics.   I see a connection with Dave Workman's Examiner 1/5 article tying the 1st and 2nd Amendments together.  I offer 2 counterpoints then 3 questions that are "outside the box" for the present discussion.  FYI, put your 2 articles together with what I share below and there is something going on in the Georgia legislature which the NRA needs to get involved in asap.
POINT 1:  Mad at the Wrong Guys:  gun owner records are "information assets" which are "owned" by the state.  So is the state adequately protecting these assets, given the debate of safety for individuals versus FOIA for the neighborhood ?  What is the gain vs loss in "outing" gun owners ?  FYI, newspapers, TV et al are AMORAL entities that sustain revenue through info-tainment (titillation).  So WHY are we sitting around being mad that the horse got out -- when the REAL culprit is the state:  WHY is the barn door being left open in the first place ?!   Said another way, if you leave meat on the table with the dog in the room to go answer the door, when you come back the meat is GONE.  Dogs will be dogs.  The fault lay with the meat owner, not the dog.  Only 1 of those can institutionally change their nature.
POINT 2:  Gun Records and Arrest Records vs "outing" people -- a similar ethics question:   what's true of mis-used gun records is also true of ARREST records.  How many people do you know, who were found innocent of a minor crime 10 years ago or more, have recently had "sealed" arrest records show up on a mugshots.com type website run by low-lifes out to shame people into paying to take it down ?  These sites take the damage further by letting viewers tag their mugshot photo with sexual references, and it includes a google map link to their home address.
7 million people in the USA and counting are impacted by this -- that's a lot of people who suddenly would become supporters of the NRA if it was to position to treat mugshots and gun records as a common cause.
A "mugshots.com" type website but for outing gun owners ?  You too will soon be branded on dozens of internet websites as "a hottie" along with your address and photo online -- IT'S COMING unless the people act NOW.
THREE QUESTIONS:  On mugshots and gun records, the state must again be questioned as the meat-hungry dog strikes again to the detriment of 7 million americans and counting.

First question, why should the state "out" people by posting the arrests online and harming that individual's reputation BEFORE the case has been concluded (at least for non-violent crimes and first-time offenders) ?  Media gets potpourri to get ratings and sell papers, but otherwise what value comes from this ?
Second question, in protecting the info asset, there is a chain of custody issue:  3rd parties archive old arrests independent of the official source because they know that many of them will eventually be sealed, and along the way they fail to keep them up to date, and so become dirt purveyors to prospective employers and gossip seekers (e.g. rent-a-cop companies, Spokeo, Intelius, Mugshots.com). The state fails to assert info asset ownership and citizens needlessly suffer.  Contrast this with the heavy regulation by the state of credit bureaus subject to litigation for failure to keep current and accurate info.  A double standard ?
Third question,  the federal courts have ruled to withhold federal arrest records from the mugshot profiteers as they argue that public interest would not be served versus loss to the individuals in outing them.  Yet I hear that the Obama administration wants to publish the complete gun owner registry ?  Another double standard ?
Gun records and arrest records are one in the same:  and a "mugshots.com" to out gun-owners is COMING.  This is a PRIVACY issue, to which we must look at proper control by the state over "information assets" and "chain of custody" and "intellectual property ownership" of those assets.   And sharing these outside of law enforcement and government offices, in this new age of "the internet of everything" is an ethics and safety issue.  A more clear line around the FOIA is required.  Dave Workman's Examiner article this week pointing to Sanford Levinson's work is timely.  It's time to deal with the 2nd and 1st Amendments together head-on.  Peoples very lives, and livelihoods, are at stake here.  And in the meantime, let's not allow ourselves to be intimidated by AMORAL mass media and the 2-edged sword of FOIA.  The state serves the people well before it need serve the press.

UPDATE: Class action in 2013 by Ga Rep Bruce on Mugshots:  http://www.11alive.com/News/Crime/268273/445/Georgia-lawmaker-wants-to-police-mugshot-websites