Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

lulzsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 210 posts

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#121

Post by foenix »

Alex3917 wrote: post #116
kragen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation? Your comment seems to imply that the police are responsible for causing the Mexican drug war, but I believe that if the Arizona police were to resign en masse and move to other states, it would probably make the situation worse, not better; the drug cartels would expand to fill the power vacuum, and they are less accountable than the police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War Honestly, having the mexican drug violence spill over into the border states is probably the best thing that could ever happen to this country.

> Honestly, having the mexican drug violence spill over into the border states is probably the best thing that could ever happen to this country.

I understand your point, but would tend to disagree until AZ gets a new governor. I vainly hope that the international drug war is ended in the next decade.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#122

Post by true_religion »

clintjhill wrote: post #7

Exposing home addresses and wife is uncool. Leave the home and family out of it.

I disagree.

If the police are protected under a clause of "just following orders", then the home addresses shouldn't be shown. Neither should individual policemen be called out. Rather the system is at fault, and the law makers behind it.

If the police are morally at fault, then this extends past their work-life sphere. If you kill and abuse at work and that is considered immoral, you are not simply allowed to go home and claim sanctuary.

In the view of Lulzsec, there are two sides---we the people, and they the State. Revealing the information of the officers to the people is analogous to the FBI keeping records of the names and known addresses of who they consider criminals.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#123

Post by mcphilip »

kragen wrote: post #113
patrickaljord wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the first time a torrent containing breached information has been released. No one has ever been sued for downloading the torrent, not even with the wikileaks cable. Parent's post reads a tad alarmist and dramatic in my opinion but maybe that's just me.

People who download illegal torrents might be profiled and the information used against them later.

Bingo. Brinqs to mind Columbia University advising some of its students not to discuss the wikileaks cables since it could hurt their employment prospects.

http://oudaily.com/news/2010/dec/06/our-view-dont-talk-about...

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#124

Post by patrickaljord »

sliverstorm wrote: post #110
patrickaljord wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the first time a torrent containing breached information has been released. No one has ever been sued for downloading the torrent, not even with the wikileaks cable. Parent's post reads a tad alarmist and dramatic in my opinion but maybe that's just me.

Allow folks their small foibles and paranoia. You'll get along better with everyone that way :)

They sure have the rights to their small foibles and paranoia just like I have the rights to call them on that.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#125

Post by abbasmehdi »

sukuriant wrote: post #115
abbasmehdi wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you responded to (me) clearly stated that personal information should have not been released.

You said family's names. I argue that their names, addresses and phone numbers shouldn't have been released. The fact that some of them have wives with name X is just another piece of personal info that shouldn't have been released, but it certainly isn't all of it.

No apostrophe on "family" sir (you change meaning by taking that liberty), though I should have placed a comma or a slash between family and names. Unless personally involved in any wrongdoing, I don't think it makes any meaningful difference to have the officer's names.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#126

Post by kragen »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #39
potatolicious wrote: post #30

Earlier 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…

No, you are personally responsible for your actions even when they aren't "the most heinous of acts". Being sworn to uphold an unjust law means that you have no good alternatives available to you: you can break your word (and perhaps lose your income) or you can perpetrate injustice. In that situation you must choose which is the greater wrong.

But the unjust law doesn't need to rise to the level of genocide or war crime before it becomes a greater wrong than breaking your word. I think murdering a single innocent person is worse than breaking your word, for example. How many unjustified deportations does it take? I don't know.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#127

Post by kragen »

sukuriant wrote: post #72
blendergasket wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or shoot people lying prostrate on the ground in the back and kill them.

They're not allowed to do that, in my knowledge.

Your knowledge has not yet encompassed the Oscar Grant case.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#128

Post by kragen »

daeken wrote: post #105
redthrowaway wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, it's known that gangs structure things such that any one member knows only a subset of the plans, misinformation is spread to separate parts of the organization so that leaks can be identified, etc. But this seems like it'd make communication overhead pretty significant. Does anyone have any resources on how gangs are actually structured, how well their communication works, etc? This seems pretty interesting to m…

Assange's objective with WikiLeaks was exactly to impose this communication overhead on organizations like the Arizona Department of Public Safety. It will be interesting to see what happens. Assange argued that this would be good for society as a whole. I hope he turns out to be right about that.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#129

Post by clintjhill »

true_religion wrote: post #122
clintjhill wrote: post #7

Exposing home addresses and wife is uncool. Leave the home and family out of it.

I disagree. If the police are protected under a clause of "just following orders", then the home addresses shouldn't be shown. Neither should individual policemen be called out. Rather the system is at fault, and the law makers behind it. If the police are morally at fault, then this extends past their work-life sphere. If you kill and abuse at work and that is considered immoral , you are not simply allowed to go ho…

The morality argument is interesting. However killing and abusing is hyperbole in this context.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#130

Post by getsat »

hackly wrote: post #92
getsat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you attack someone, you make them a martyr. If you attack their wife and kids, you send a message.

Though I would never condone such a strategy (nor do I think getsat was stating his beliefs), there is some truth in it. A man is brought to think twice before engaging in any activity when they know that their family's safety is on the line. This has been (and continues to be) one of the means employed by tyrannical states to strike fear in the hearts of dissidents. You may be brave enough to sacrifice yourself, but…

You're correct, those aren't my beliefs. Merely an observation.

> one of the means employed by tyrannical states

On the other hand, we're starting to see the opposite happen. People in positions of power who abuse their authority (e.g., police) are starting to be targeted by regular people whose lives they interfere with.

Have a Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/MySpace/whatever account? Your personal information, friends, family, work history, etc. are available to the people you bully. Your actions have social consequences whether they're totally legal or not.

"I'm just doing my job" doesn't cut it when your job affects other people in a negative way.

Post reply on HN