ProPublica is a nonprofit news company that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
A U.S. senator this week criticized the firearms industry’s secret collection of personal information from gun owners for political purposes, calling it an “invasive and dangerous violation” of privacy and safety.
In a letter to the National Shooting Sports Foundation on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., questioned the legality of a “secret program” in which gun manufacturers have been sharing sensitive customer information with political operatives for years. presented.
Mr. Blumenthal said that even as the firearms industry presents itself as a protector of privacy and fights government and corporate efforts to track firearm ownership, the He cited a ProPublica investigation that found some secretly participated.
At least 10 firearms industry companies, including Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Remington, handed over hundreds of thousands of names, addresses, and other personal data to the NSSF without their customers’ knowledge or consent, and the NSSF subsequently I entered the following information in detail. Huge database. This database was used to gather gun owners’ electoral support for industry candidates running for the White House and Congress.
Blumenthal, who chairs the Senate Privacy Subcommittee, gave the NSSF a Nov. 21 deadline to respond to several questions. He wants to know more about which companies provided information to the database, what types of customer details were shared, and whether the data is still being used by that organization or by other organizations. I was thinking.
The senator, who served as Connecticut’s attorney general for 20 years and has consistently supported legislation to reduce gun violence, said he disagreed with what ProPublica revealed and the NSSF’s response to the office thus far. He said he was “disturbed” by the apparent contradiction.
In 2022, Blumenthal sent a list of questions to the NSSF after reading leaked documents that made references to the database. In its response, NSSF denied the existence of the database.
“The editing and sharing of sensitive personal information by NSSF and its partners appears to violate federal consumer protection laws and poses significant data privacy and safety risks to lawful gun owners.” “It seems like it is,” Blumenthal wrote.
Customer information was initially obtained from warranties filled out over decades and returned to gun manufacturers for rebates and repair or exchange programs. A ProPublica review of dozens of guarantees from the 1970s to the present found that some customers were promised their information would be kept confidential. Some said some information may be shared with third parties for marketing and sales purposes. None of the cards informed purchasers that their details would be used by lobbyists and consultants to win elections.
Privacy and legal experts believe that violating a guarantee card’s confidentiality promise or failing to mention that consumer information may be provided to the NSSF constitutes deception under the Federal Trade Commission Act. He said that it may be considered an act. Under the law, companies must follow their privacy policies and clearly communicate to consumers how their information will be used.
NSSF did not respond to messages seeking comment. The group previously defended the data collection, saying in a statement to ProPublica that “any suggestion of unethical or illegal conduct is completely unfounded.” “These activities were and remain completely legal and within the terms and conditions of individual manufacturers, companies, data brokers and other entities,” the statement said.
Glock and Smith & Wesson did not immediately respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. In the years following the data sharing program, Remington was split into two companies and sold. Remarms, which owns the antique firearms division, said it did not know what the company’s business was at the time. The remainder of the company is now owned by Remington Ammunition, which said it “does not provide personal information to NSSF or its vendors.”
Founded in 1961 and currently based in Shelton, Conn., NSSF represents thousands of firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, retailers, publishers and ranges. Although the NSSF is less well-known than the National Rifle Association, the chief lobbyist for gun owners, it is respected and influential in the business, political, and gun rights communities.
For two decades, the group has fiercely opposed attempts by governments and companies to collect information about gun buyers. Earlier this year, the NSSF pushed for legislation to ban credit card companies from creating special codes for gun dealers, saying the codes could be used to create registries of gun buyers. promoted.
Gun owners, as a group, are fiercely protective of their personal information. Many have good reason. Their ranks include police officers, judges, victims of domestic violence and others who face threats of serious harm.
The firearms industry began collecting data approximately 17 months before the 2000 election in response to a series of economic, legal, and political threats.
Within three years, the NSSF’s database included at least 5.5 million people, filled with bond information and adding names on voter rolls and hunting licenses. This information was at the heart of what the NSSF called its voter education program, which also included sending letters, postcards, and subsequent emails to persuade gun buyers to vote for the gun industry’s preferred political candidates. .
Because privacy laws protect the names of firearm buyers from public view, the data obtained by the NSSF gives us the unique ability to identify and contact large numbers of firearm owners and shooting sports enthusiasts. Ta. NSSF credits its programs with helping elect George W. Bush and Donald Trump to the White House.
In April 2016, a contractor for NSSF’s voter education project sent a large amount of money to Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm credited with playing a key role in President Trump’s narrow victory that year, according to internal Cambridge emails and documents. Delivered data cache. The company later went out of business amid a global scandal over its handling of sensitive consumer data.
State regulators know health insurance directories are filled with misinformation. They have done little to fix it.
The data provided to Cambridge included 20 years of gun owner warranty information and a separate database of customers of Cabela’s, a sporting goods retailer with about 70 stores in the United States and Canada.
Cambridge combined NSSF data with a wide range of sensitive information obtained from commercial data brokers. It included people’s income, debts, religion, where prescriptions were filled, the ages of their children, and what they bought for their children. For women, intimate factors such as whether the underwear and other clothing they purchased were plus size or petite were revealed.
This information was used to create psychological profiles of gun owners and assign scores to behavioral traits such as neuroticism and agreeableness. Because the NSSF supports President Trump and pro-gun candidates for Congress, the University of Cambridge could use the profiles to tailor the NSSF’s political message to voters based on their personalities. Ta.
