So... do you think it's possible LulzSec is based in China or Russia? That's the only way I can imagine them doing this that doesn't involve being clinically insane.
LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
61–70 of 210 posts
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#62Based on the type of documents released and the fact that they only released a few email accounts & passwords you can tell that this was not a very sophisticated attack. Probably a brute force attack against the mail server, or passwords gleaned from individual officers rooted home computers.
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#63Is anyone else seeing pirate bay sans any CSS? Is somebody counter-attacking TPB?
With 700 tweets already, it's probably getting massively DDoS'd.
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#64"...describe the use of informants to infiltrate various gangs, cartels, motorcycle clubs, Nazi groups, and protest movements." FWIW, this probably means some people are going to die.
Until somebody shows me the names and covers of undercover agents, this means "acknowledging the fact that there are undercover agents".
I never said the informants would be killed. If a gang reads that they've got an informant in their midst, they'll find someone and punish them – right or wrong. I'm not saying LulzSec is wrong to publish it; I'm just pointing out that it won't be lulz for those particular people who catch the short end of that particular stick.
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#65This may be the first time the public gets really riled up by hackers in (almost) the same way they do about murders and robberies. I can imagine a police appeal for information resulting in literally thousands of names of hacker-types being given over.
[deleted]
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until somebody shows me the names and covers of undercover agents, this means "acknowledging the fact that there are undercover agents".
I never said the informants would be killed. If a gang reads that they've got an informant in their midst, they'll find someone and punish them – right or wrong. I'm not saying LulzSec is wrong to publish it; I'm just pointing out that it won't be lulz for those particular people who catch the short end of that particular stick.
I haven't seen the document yet, but unless they went any more specific than, "we have informants in xyz gangs" then there's no danger. The gangs know there's informants in them, and have been for years.
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if the victims were planning to ethnically cleanse said neighborhood that would in fact shade the issue differently Noble isn't the word I would use by a longshot..in fact I think lulzsec is pretty stupid. but I'm also not going to go out of my way to defend a corrupt institution that happens to have the law on their side
The victims are planning nothing of the sort. The voters of Arizona and their elected representatives are the ones responsible for the laws that the officers in question have to enforce.
The enforcers of the law are just as responsible for their own actions as the law makers are for theirs.
Separately, I personally would have redacted some of that data.
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if the victims were planning to ethnically cleanse said neighborhood that would in fact shade the issue differently Noble isn't the word I would use by a longshot..in fact I think lulzsec is pretty stupid. but I'm also not going to go out of my way to defend a corrupt institution that happens to have the law on their side
The victims are planning nothing of the sort. The voters of Arizona and their elected representatives are the ones responsible for the laws that the officers in question have to enforce.
I absolutely agree that they hold more responsibility. However, my point was that this is one criminal organization targeting another morally corrupt organization. I don't find the analogy that InclinedPlane gave to be appropriate
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job." Your responsibility to humanity ( particularly as an officer of the law) trumps your right to be fed. Also, the world at large has upheld, many times over, that "following orders" is not a sufficient defense. "But I have a mortgage" - the new and improved Nuremberg Defense (with apologies to Thank You For Smoking). Hell, the people who relied on the Nu…
You're wrong on this (or at very least looking at the issue without nuance). More often than not "just following orders" IS a sufficient defense. Only in the most heinous of acts is it considered insufficient (if that weren't the case there'd be no reason to define what is and is not a "war crime") Deporting someone, even if you feel it's unjustified, is a far cry from a War Crime. That's the cogent point. The danger…
Personal responsibility applies even to police officers.
If they cannot square their actions with their morals, then they are in the wrong job.
Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents
#70Racial profiling sucks! It's demeaning, belittling, and alienating. If the cops acted within the law, then what are they afraid of? More transparency = a more democratic state, right? (I don't think their family names should have been listed here though). You can't applaud Wiki leaks for igniting the overthrow of autocratic Middle Eastern governments, and hypocritically argue against similar actions when it's your ow…
I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic.
"If the cops acted within the law, then what are they afraid of?"
That sounds like the exact same statements we usually say with regard to what the government would say to us when we want our emails to remain private, etc. "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you want it kept private?"
You cannot hold both positions here. You cannot. I'm sorry.
In this instance, what LulzSec has released stands in the way of privacy and of freedom, and it is unforgivable.