I find it interesting that Bolete and Dean2 first replied very positively in 2011 and identified as satisfied customers. Madball also responded in 2011 with appreciation for feedback and promises of improved service as a result.
The current posters have a mix of issues, but several including Bolete and Dean2 have addressed legitimate and specific privacy concerns relating to store policy as experienced by them and confirmed by Madball. The current Madball is not nearly as appreciative of the honest experience feedback, and even goes so far as to attack a reporter’s character and request that they not return. Madball makes assurances that private personal information is not copied or retained, but requires that we accept this on faith, and trust that there is no possibility of staff malintent or even simple incompetence.
Madball defends the company policy of gathering un-required information by claiming that invoices are destroyed soon after, but does not claim that information is not first collected or stored electronically. We regularly hear of breaches of computer security by hackers, and data theft by employees, and sale of data, and improper disposal of hard-drives, as well as the inherent insecurity of ‘cloud’ or remote storage. Whenever a business goes into receivership or new ownership, the databases become the property of the receiver or new owner to do with as they please. There is always the probability of unwarranted demands for all records by the CFO. There are many credible reports that even the Government of Canada Registry of Firearms has been hacked on several occasions, and also that the contents have been stolen by those having access but not authorized to copy or retain it.
All of the previous concerns are the reason that the Amendments to the Firearms Act ending the LGR, removed any requirement to obtain or retain any personal or private buyer information, or maintain any ‘Ledger’ for the CFO, and also for the passage of the Provincial Privacy Act..
A seller is free to make personal or company policy only so far as it does not conflict with the requirements of the Privacy Act, which the MilArm company policy seems to do, (see post #122 for link and extract). A buyer similarly is free to decline to supply any information that is ‘not required’ by law, and to make their purchases elsewhere, which it seems many previously satisfied customers like Bolete and Dean2 are doing.
If the CPC lose the fall election, we may soon see changes to the Firearms Act that will probably require sellers to keep this information (back-door registry), but until that happens, it is not currently required. I provide personal information on a strictly ‘need to know’ basis, and
I never let my PAL leave my hand, the seller is free to inspect it but not to record ANY information, (and I pay with cash).
Good Luck, YMMV.
|