Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Judge Tells Sheriff "Reveal Password Or Face Contempt"
An anonymous reader writes "Four days ago, deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona conducted a raid against the county government building hosting computers for a law enforcement database. After threatening to arrest county employees who would stop them, the officers proceeded to secure the room and promptly changed passwords on many of the servers. In a hearing on Friday, a Superior Court judge threatened to hold members of the Sheriff's Office in contempt if they did not reveal the passwords by next Wednesday. Following this, the Sheriff's Office claimed to be conducting an investigation against other Superior Court judges. Courts have asked for passwords before, but never under conditions like this."
I firmly believe he's a sociopath.
All he does is treat criminals as if they are sub-human and their dignity is his personal property. Besides, there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population people convicted of a crime aren't human beings, so clearly it's not sociopathic.
/sarcasm
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I don't know how Arizona is, but if it's anything like here in California, Sheriff is an elected office, and the easiest way to stop him is to vote him out. Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency actually agrees with his policies. It's hard to go against the majority in a democracy: bad majorities have created ugly things such as slavery in the past.
Qxe4
Rule #3 of the 10 Immutable Laws of Security: if a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
Story should serve as a good reminder to everyone out there that in the end, no amount of encryption, biometrics, or obscurity will protect your network when a hacker brings a gun. Physical security trumps all.
He is also extremely popular with his constituents, who fully support the way he operates his office. The US Justice Department now has him as a target (since the Obama Administration came to power) due to his enforcement of Immigration laws. In Arizona he polls 11 points higher than Obama so he is popular statewide.
He's not going to have any fun with the federal government. DHS is now headed by Janet Napolitano. For those that don't know she was the governor of Arizona (and a fairly popular one) until she was appointed to head DHS. She also hates Arpaio for his tactics and flaunting of the law. As such you can bet DHS is going to be on his ass about any and everything they can.
There is a lesson here about stepping on toes that might be connected to an ass you later have to kiss.
...and the Sheriff's Office has been a joke for almost all of them. Sheriff Joe's predecessor utterly botched an investigation into a high-profile mass murder at a local Buddhist Temple, so voters here were looking for change at any price.
I'm pro-law and order, but law and order means, well, law AND order, not Sheriff Joe's thuggery. He's cost the county millions in unnecessary lawsuits for brutality in his jails, his law enforcement tactics exist solely to grab headlines and intimidate his opponents and he's ruined inter-agency cooperation in Central Arizona for at least the near future.
The sooner we elect someone else, the better off we'll be.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Your words are true, but in your attempt to find the precise point where the majority is big enough to push a minority around, you have missed my point. He was elected, and he's been there a while. Thus, while it may be possible to get rid of him in particular, or file numerous lawsuits, in all likelihood someone else will be voted in who is similar or worse, because the populace WANTS that.
If you want to change the country, the simplest way to do so is to change what the populace wants.
Qxe4
There's a difference between not "coddling" prisoners and abuse, not to mention the fact that the jail houses not only people convicted of crimes but those awaiting trial, who have not been convicted of anything and should not give up any rights except to the extent necessary to keep them from leaving the jurisdiction. In any case, although he is Mr. Law-and-Order when it comes to immigration, as this case shows he is power hungry and doesn't abide by the law unless it suits him. If you've got a civil dispute with another branch of government, you don't resolve it by sending armed thugs to take control by force.
This just screams coverup.
Sherrif Joe is afraid of the information on those servers ... why? It would be nice to know, wouldn't it? Streisand Effect, anyone?
The county should turn it all over to the FBI for forensic investigation after this. I don't care who you are, unauthorized access to a computer system is a felony in most states and a federal offense, too.
Not from you. Nothing you've said is inconsistent with what I said. The prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment in the US Constitution plays a larger role than its three words might suggest. And by the way, the clause doesn't have to mention the word "prison" to be relevant. Due process rights, for example, play an important role in determining what prison officials can and cannot do. And the people who have those rights reserved to the people include prisoners.
Here in Memphis the feds (under that notorious civil liberties champion John Ashcroft) took control of our jails after reported civil rights violations. The federal government is the appropriate agency to step in by means of the USDOJ, and should likewise step in on behalf of the people incarcerated under that maniac's supervision. It would disgust me if we treated prisoners of war the way that "law man" has been treating his charges.
Dostoyevsky said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners. I sure as hell don't want this man standing as a representative of our civilization.
Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation? Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant of his policies.
No.
Sad to say, but my experience has taught me that many people are fully capable of supporting human rights violations so long as they're happening to "the other", and not them. Whether that other is criminals / suspects, immigrants (legal or not), or simply another race doesn't matter; it means that they are on a slightly higher footing in society due to Sheriff Joe's actions. And that makes them feel good.
And in a county where a sheriff is elected, it results in laws and the enforcement thereof skewed toward that irrational majority.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Oh please! you can give criminals hard time without abusing them. I'll give an example from my home state as proof. Here we have at Tucker what is called the "hoe squad" and it is what it sounds like. You get your ass up at dawn and hoe and weed and grow your own food so that the state (us) doesn't have to pay for it. It is hard work, but they don't abuse the prisoners, feed them rotten food, etc like that sicko does.
I was laughing my ass of a few months back when I happened to land on Cops! spinning the dial and saw the Arkansas State police chasing a guy with one wheel gone and fire shooting out of the car towards the Tenn line. I turned to my GF and said "I bet he don't want to go to the hoe squad!" and sure enough, he stops when he crosses the border and the Ark State Police give him the usual "what are you crazy! Are you trying to get yourself and others killed?" and he says "I did crime In Tenn and I'll confess! I just wasn't gonna stop til I made it here because I ain't gonna go back to the damned hoe squad!"
So you see you CAN give prisoners hard time without abuse. That Arpaio is simply sadistic and seems to me from interviews gets off on power and the abuse thereof. Our prisoners work their asses off (in fact I passed a local work crew from the county jail coming home cleaning the statues in the court square) but they are given decent food (which they grow themselves), decent medical care, and decent treatment. And for all those "you can't be too nasty!" types? they are gonna get out some day, and you kick and beat a dog long enough they will turn mean as scratch and tear you up. Do you expect humans who have been ritually abused and degraded and starved to act ANY different? Remember that this asshole treats ALL prisoners like that, from hot checks and kids busted with pot to serial rapists. The guy is just a vicious sick fuck, and as we have seen time after time after time that "bullies with badges" just keeping pushing the limit until they go to far and get somebody killed. And the odds are he won't kill some hardened rapist, but some kid caught riding in a stolen car or with a bag of dope. Would you really be fine with that?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Prison about rehabilitation? Hahahahahaa!!!! Not hardly. Prison (not to be confused with Jail, which is different) is about keeping the baddies away from the rest of society so we can be safe. It's about punishment. Rehabilitation is a myth. The number that are rehabilitated is so small that it would probably be the same number if you didn't put ANYONE in prison. The proof that it is about punishment and keeping people away from society is the sentencing guidelines for different crimes, such as selling drugs, rape, child porn, etc.
Not that sentencing guidelines are rational though - drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.
I heard a very interesting story Friday about how the Correctional Officers Union (or whatever it's called), a while ago, lobbied for things like "three strikes" laws. As result of their passage, the prison population has skyrocketed, many of them for non-violent offenses. A skyrocketing prison population heralded a huge increase in the number of correctional officers required to keep things in order. 10% of these officers make more than $100K per year (70% of the state's correctional budget of $10 billion goes toward salaries).
The union now boasts more than 45,000 members, and wields significant influence in the political arena. The sad part is that only 5% of the budget is available for rehabilitation, and consequentially, the recidivism rate has also skyrocketed. The California prison system has become a self-sustaining money pit, with much of funds going into the pockets of union members. Under the current system, there's no way out.
What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.
I know exactly what they mean. I also have a working understanding of the term "universal human dignity." If you want to put a man away for comitting a crime, then do it. But to break a man, to force him to eat moldy food and to sexually humiliate him, let alone reward the state for doing it, is an altogether different thing. Absolute power over others corrupts absolutely; you let cops do awful things to people in jail, and I guarantee that eventually that's how they'll treat people on the outside, too. In this most recent case, they simply invaded a government building and staged a coup -- the police's attitude toward their responsibility as upholders of public trust has been destroyed by their chief's blatant disregard for the law in deference to his political prerogatives and his belief that his role in society is to be an arbiter of violence.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
What is it about the words "cruel and unusual punishments" that is so hard for you to fathom?
Prisons aren't about punishments or retribution or degradation. They're about removing criminals from the society they threaten, and rehabilitating them if possible.
How we treat our inmates reflects more on us than on them. If we have no qualms about doing things to inmates for the express purpose of stripping them of their dignity and humanity, it is because we have already lost ours.
I recall Jim Crow laws being popular in some states too.
If you lived in his area of jurisdiction, you'd understand.
Then how does he keep getting re-elected? I have heard many accusations against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that he has committed election fraud. That means that the majority of people who live in his jurisdiction who are both eligible to vote and care enough to vote support Joe Arpaio.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.
It sounds like the sheriff must have broken a law here. But I don't see you, retiredtwice, saying that this sheriff, who has probably done something -Illegal-, should be charged and held as a prisoner until his trial. I'd say it's illegal to raid a law abiding office, to kidnap personnel (i.e. force them to act against their will), to torment law abiding, to commandeer property not your own, and to modify government computers without authorization. Why are you not up in arms about these illegal activities? I can tell you why: because it doesn't matter to *YOU* what crimes someone commits when *YOU* think that someone promotes *YOUR* own distorted ideological agenda. You need to take a look in the mirror. Your morals are corrupt, retiredtwice.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Actually, the best way to judge any society is to see how they treat their jail prison population.
See, no justice system is infallible. Just look at the number of death row inmates who have been cleared after spending decades behind bars. Are the people who say "we should treat them like shit so they don't want to come back" really willing to put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to spend say six months doing hard time for a crime they didn't commit? How about a year? Five? Ten? Twenty?
We shouldn't treat inmates as if they're pond scum and that we, as a society, would be better off if they were on the compost heap instead of in prison. Sure, quite a lot of the people we throw behind bars end up committing some kind of crime while behind bars, be it doing drugs, breaking the prison rules, violence etc., but what are you supposed to do, if you're the innocent guy? Just let someone shank you? Rape you? Beat you up? Or are you going to try to fight back?
We may not like the people behind bars, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat them as human beings.
There is a large elder and republican base in Arizona that make up the majority of the voters. This demographic does not like law breakers, drug users, and illegal immigrants. Sheriff Joe Arpaio runs some of the "toughest" jails in the US and he is "hard on crime". The voters like that and could care less about what other people are complaining about.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Nope it's not torture, in fact it's business as usual for some of the soldiers stationed in Iraq.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Prison rape is an especially sickening concept.
The idea we can't stop crime in prison is idiotic. If people are even intimidating other people in prison, said intimidates should have their ability to interact with other prisoners revoked until they've learned their damn lesson.(1)
Hey, assholes, we put you in prison because you can't follow the law, you think running around threatening people, aka, committing felony assault, is going to fly?
Apparently, the answer is yes, and we've decided the prisoners 'deserve' whatever happens to them, and for some reason have failed to grasp what that actually means is we are allowing violent convicted criminals to continue to have fun. Forget a damn TV, how about we deny them the pleasure of raping someone? We don't even let innocent people rape people!
1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I'm American and pro-immigration. However, I only support legal methods of immigration. When you have illegal immigrants in your country, they tend not to assimilate. In fact, they balkanize. We already have regions of Texas and California near the border that isn't American anymore. Culturally, that part of the soil has been eroded away to Mexico and as such, they have complete disregard to our state and federal laws. I suppose calling this region a "no mans land" would be a better description.
This is what happens when you don't enforce your borders and immigration laws.
Life is not for the lazy.
And parole is determined based on rehabilitation, not crime. So it serves two purposes.
[clever sig]
By turning a blind eye to illegal immigration you are fostering an evironment which allows employers to continue to have unsafe working conditions and pay below-market wages. If these people were not present in the US, these employers would either have to move to Mexico and employ local people or pay US citizens real wages.
Why do you think prices at fast food restaurants have pretty much been frozen for 30 years? Because their labor costs have not increased.
Why is it that we have 10, 15 or even 20% unemployment in areas of the US with high populations of undocumented workers? Because it is cheaper to pay these people than legal workers, even when the employers are fined. If we had stronger employment verification laws, like E-Verify, we just might have significantly less unemployment among US citizens and legal workers. Instead, we are continuing to create an environment where we are importing cheap labor to be abused. Then, as we continue to see from the current administration, we are going to give them all an amnesty so they can be a permanent underclass - that will vote for their amnesty sponsors.
This isn't a good way to run a country or a labor force. Having illegal, underpaid and abused workers available to displace legal workers just means we are going to be paying more in unemployment and welfare for the legal workers. While the illegals actually are out there working. Doesn't sound right or even like a sensible policy. The answer is not to make them legal in hopes they then will deserve (and get) higher wages and less abuse. The answer is to make it less attractive to stay and to stop importing these low-wage workers.
Who will do the work then? Well, when there is 20% unemployment plenty of people will line up for jobs. And in cases where the pay is too low and the abuse too much, maybe the employers will either relocate elsewhere or decide to improve conditions. Leaving the illegals in place does nothing except continue the existing practices indefinately. The amnesty in 1986 didn't change anything in this regard and the amnesty in 2009 will not change anything either. Except maybe providing a new crop of grateful Democrat voters.
And they used "guns" to do threaten public employees. That they ARE public employees makes no difference. They obviously didn't have a warrant from a judge and they threatened law abiding employees in a different department.
Like it or not "law enforcement" is JUST A JOB!!!!! They are no different than any other public employee when dealing with matters like this... BOFH is going to have fun with them.... but if they were smart they'd walk away from their jobs Monday and file civil rights and workplace violence suits against their employers. Not to mention criminal charges with the state police/FBI for hijacking a computer system. Tampering with a public computer system alone ought to get the police 10-20 years!!!
like somebody on the newspaper site pointed out, another court was still in process about the contents of the computers seized and these police just went and took them. This computer room also hosts several other systems intermixed, that the police don't have jurisdiction, nor the county's authority, to access. The agreement was reached only 3 years ago, so the specific head of the police department agreed to those terms.. not somebody else.
Best of all though he was seeking emails of other county officials in other departments as evidence.... and he just walked in and took it, from a third party, without warrant.... whatever evidence is in those emails is now strictly off limits for his investigations as he committed contempt of court by violating an ongoing court case and by hijacking the admins by force. Whoever had any incriminations will get to walk from here on!!!! Man needs impeached for sheer legal incompetence.