Ugh, the personal data and "snitch list" seem particularly bad to release. It does raise the question as to why this stuff is on remotely accessible servers, but still, it seems like this is just a freebie handout to identity thieves and perhaps worse for the snitch list?
"We have no sympathy for any of the officers or informants who may be endangered by the release of their personal information. For too long they have been using and abusing our personal information, spying on us, arresting us, beating us, and thinking that they can get away with oppressing us in secrecy. Well it's retribution time: we want them to experience just a taste of the kind of misery and suffering they inflict upon us on an everyday basis. Let this serve as a warning to would-be snitches and pigs that your leaders can no longer protect you: give up and turn on your masters now before it's too late."
You must remember, despite what the police would like you to believe most "snitches" are not little old ladies reporting violent crimes.
Edit: Yeah, just read through about half of these. Most of them are along the vein of "My neighbours keeps to themselves, therefore they do drugs". Fuck these people.
I did get a chuckle out of "jessica bruno - knows who set fire to land excavator equipment" though. The thought of setting a bulldozer on fire absurdly amusing to me for some reason ;)
"Yeah, just read through about half of these. Most of them are along the vein of "My neighbours keeps to themselves, therefore they do drugs". Fuck these people"
If anyone wonders why I flag stories like this, here's a good example.
I just calls em as I sees em. In a country where it is impossible to be innocent, those individuals who use the law against their neighbours for their own gain are the worst sort of people.
Example:
"A couple of years ago it was known among a few Fox community
residents that Ronnie Callahan, who now owns the Fox store, was
hauling in large amounts of pseudofedrine from Mexico.He has log
trucks and cattle trucks and doesn't look like a dope
dealer/trafficker, just looks and talks like a good ole boy. He was
supplying meth cookers, don't know if he was cooking the stuff
himself. No idea if he is doing this anymore, but is involved in all
kinds of underhanded dealings. He constantly harasses, in very subtle
ways, one of his neighbors...builds fences to block off land that
isn't his. In the past no law enforcement would do anything about it
when she filed complaints. He is worth watching at least.
(The info about the pseudofedrine came from the brother of a young
man who was on meth real bad and told where it was coming from.)"
It should be pretty obvious who submitted that report... and why. Emphasis my own, in case it is not.
I was assuming it's because it made me resort to the dreadful horrors of profanity, but that's a good question. Why does this quotation demonstrate why these stories should be flagged?
Law enforcement officers get passes all the time for life-affecting (and even ruining) behavior, with stepping over the line being just a few bad apples or a problem of perception that is routinely flagged as "followed policy," but once civilians get even close to the line it's a first-order travesty.
If civilians have to endure "you can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride" harassment from LEOs, they can get a little sketched-out once in a while. Populist actions like this are pretty much the only checks remaining on LEO behavior.
"Be careful, the mail archive contains dozens of .exe virus files. Verified by SecurityEssentials. If you accidentally run them then you'll infect yourself. (This implies many of the officers are using infected computers, since these exes are in their email.)"
This is a really bad generalization. We don't know how old most of these hackers really even are. But let's just say, for sake of discussion, they were all kids. That doesn't necessarily mean they are more talented or know more. They are more focused, perhaps? The US government has fallen behind in cyber security. That doesn't mean the people they employ aren't as good as these hackers. In fact, the government probably holds them back.
"We hope that not only will
dropping this info demonstrate the inherently corrupt nature of law enforcement
using their own words, as well as result in possibly humiliation, firings, and
possible charges against several officers, but that it will also disrupt and
sabotage their ability to communicate and terrorize communities.
We are doing this in solidarity with Topiary and the Anonymous PayPal LOIC
defendants as well as all other political prisoners who are facing the gun of
the crooked court system. We stand in support of all those who struggle against
the injustices of the state and capitalism using whatever tactics are most
effective, even if that means breaking their laws in order to expose their
corruption. You may bust a few of us, but we greatly outnumber you, and you can
never stop us from continuing to destroy your systems and leak your data."
Most people are going to says lulzsec is doing something illegal and immoral here. Consider a different example:
A bank robber robs a bank, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, then proceeds to hand out the money to anyone who wants it. Who are you more mad at? The bank robber who figured out a way to steal the money, or the bank who has no clue how the money was stolen?
I was with them until the snitch list. These aren't exactly people abusing power (AFAIK). If there was one particular person among the snitch list that was interesting, they should've just cited that one. Releasing the entire list can seriously endanger some innocent people.
Overall I still like that they're trying to wrest power from those who abuse it, but I think it hurts their stance to cause collateral damage like that.
the reason snitches talk is because they ran out of ways to avoid prosecution, so i feel the innocent would be the minority in that group, as the police wouldn't have anything on them to compel cooperation.
Regardless of why snitches talk, it's a basic assumption that their collaboration will be rewarded by the protection against retaliation by those they inform on.
If those snitches are helping the investigation of violent crimes, it's really, really irresponsible to release their identities.
I have to say this is the first time I've seen someone argue that confidential informants receive special protection from Law Enforcement outside of the Witness Protection Program, which is a federal thing and quite specific (and limited) in its application. Do you have a reference for this "basic assumption?"
It's only fair that you protect your sources. As a law enforcement agent, would you be comfortable if you recklessly exposed your sources to harm? If, for no other reason, you protect your informants so they continue to inform you.
I'd say that's an assumption (or agreement) some of the time, but I'd wager just as soon that the "protection" offered is always post-hoc: someone gets busted and drops dime, getting them protection from prosecution in their instant case.
Except it says "Report a Crime" before, which would imply it's not people avoiding prosecution, but people knowing of a crime and then contacting the authorities. For example a family member of a criminal or friend.
Approximately half of these are people reporting the where-abouts of people with outstanding warrants. I agree that those should not have been released.
The other half appear to be neighbours slandering neighbours out of personal grudges.
The "banks" mistakes and failures do not justify the crimes committed by the "robbers". If you forgot to lock your car one day, it would be acceptable for me to steal said car if my intent was to teach you to always lock your doors?
You're connecting the two examples too much. While releasing this information may well have malicious intent, robbing a bank to give away money (as this information was hacked -to leak-) isn't exactly malicious. Leaking information that can be a warning or making an example of, now that can be. Intent depends on intent, and the intent of the example bank robbers was to hand out free cash. (and banks are insured...)
