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."

67 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. Summary doesn't make it clear... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense. He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

    1. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, forgot link:

      http://www.arpaio.com/index.php

      There's a reason this asshole has such a critical website over him. I firmly believe he's a sociopath.

    2. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mordors9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speaking as a Brit living in Arizona, I can assure you he is NOT popular across all the state.

      His constituents in Phoenix, however, think the sun shines out of his arse.

      This also explains a lot about Phoenix in general.

    6. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Informative

      People waiting for trial are not 'criminals'. He has had over half a dozen deaths in custody this year along for people who were not convicted of a crime. County jails should be equivalent in comfort, food and atmosphere to a Motel 6 till you are convicted, imho.

    8. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This probably has something to do with the fact that he actually has his people enforcing the law, and doesn't waste money coddling criminals. Given the amount of ridiculous benefits we see in most prisons in the US that make prison a "no-brainer" for large numbers of people (see here: people actually trying to get themselves thrown in jail), I'd say I like the idea of making prison as unpalatable a concept as possible.

      He gets a certain cash amount from the Feds per prisoner to keep them in his 'jails', a bunch of tent cities, population over 4,000. He spends the absolute minimum on these and runs them in a manner consistent with German concentration camps (without the poison gas showers; he doesn't want to kill his prisoners, he wants the money from it), thus creating a cash surplus he uses to make sure his department has enough weapons to take over a Third World country. You can get thrown into one of his 'jails' by having a couple outstanding parking tickets, or defaulting on your child support payments.

      As a resident of Arizona, he makes me ashamed to live here.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    9. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree with that sentiment, but Arpaio is accountable for witholding insulin for diabetics, turning paraplegics into quadraplegics, killing at least two mentally handicapped prisoners with multiple taserings, spit bagging, and excessive restraints.

      There's a very distinct and wide line between the barbarism he displays and not pandering to inmates that you're proposing (and I agree with).

    10. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by EsJay · · Score: 4, Informative
    12. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speaking as a Brit living in Arizona, I can assure you he is NOT popular across all the state.

      His constituents in Phoenix, however, think the sun shines out of his arse.

      This also explains a lot about Phoenix in general.

      I dont think he's popular in Britian either, not after trying to extradite law abiding british citizens and threaten to humiliate them

    13. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mog007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to www.arpaio.com, Arpaio himself commissioned a study by a college to determine his return statistics (using tax payer money of course) and the college determined that the rates for repeat offenders were no different from the average.

      Also keep in mind, that "tent city" thing he's got set up doesn't just house convicted criminals, it also houses people who are waiting for their court date to appear, and were unable to make bond.

      Besides, I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment. If it were just punishment you were after, why not shoot everybody in the leg for crimes up to rape or murder, and shoot everybody at or above that level.

    14. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?!
    15. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Informative

      People should not die in custody and especially should not while awaiting trial. ---- note the period

      The US has more deaths in custody than almost any other first-world country but Britain is damn close because of the number of heroin-related deaths there. Deaths in custody after the introduction of the taser in both countries rose as deaths related to overdose, homicide by police officer, cardiac-arrest and many others increased substantially. The taser is over-used and mis-used and police are killing people because of it. Don't be an apologist for murderers, it makes you look like a monster.

    16. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    17. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by walt-sjc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    19. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I recall Jim Crow laws being popular in some states too.

    21. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not that sentencing guidelines are rational though - drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.

      Well, then it clearly isn't about keeping them away from society, either. So what is it really about? Clearly, with the ever increasing numbers (and percentages of population), it isn't working in either case. I have no idea what could replace it, but something needs to be done.

    22. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    23. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by slashqwerty · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      Some would argue he has already gotten several people killed. And Charles Agster was not some kid caught riding in a stolen car or with a bag of dope. Ambria Spencer's daughter certainly didn't commit any crimes. Richard Post really was caught with dope but he wasn't killed. Instead, the guards broke his neck turning him into a quadriplegic, and then they went on to laugh about it.

    24. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, what you're proposing is, because Nicolas Cage made multiple movies, Joe Arpaio's methodologies on running a correctional facility are a failure?

      Sir, you make a compelling case. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    25. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    26. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    27. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?
    28. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    29. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Nocterro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And parole is determined based on rehabilitation, not crime. So it serves two purposes.

      --
      [clever sig]
    30. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    31. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by shiftless · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's funny because I'm sitting in my tent in Afghanistan at this very moment, and it's equipped with an air conditioning unit just like all the other tents. I've been to some of the smallest, shittiest FOBs in this country and haven't yet seen one where the commander is so inhumane as to require his soldiers to sleep in a bare tent in 115+ degree weather. The other day the power went out when it was 100 degrees out and within a matter of minutes the heat inside was un-fucking-bearable.

    32. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by reynolds_john · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the first gulf war we slept and lived in tents without airconditioning in the middle of summer (think Marines). The Air Force, not 2 miles away, had all air conditioned tents.
      I'm glad to hear you're treated better than we were. It was effing miserable.

  2. Correct link for article discussing contempt claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The correct article is here.

    Amazing this is happening in the United States

  3. Arpaio by belmolis · · Score: 4, Informative

    This raid looks pretty outrageous. The court is probably the least politicized and most appropriate agency to take control until the situation can be resolved. The silver lining to this is that it is so outrageous that it may finally get that madman Arpaio removed from office.

    1. Re:Arpaio by ring-eldest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. bad move by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The actions of the sheriff's office demonstrate quite clearly that they are not willing to abide by the law and therefore seem to have decided the case already against themselves.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  5. Physical Security by destuxor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Do they really need the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes they do have an IT guy. Appears he built the system. No I don't believe he does need the password. But he is reported to have told the judge it would be "convenient" to have it but that he didn't really need it.

    Hendershott Could End Up in Jail Next Week in Showdown Over Password

  7. That's why the US isn't a democracy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that there are various check on the majority. 50.0001% of people can't vote to oppress the other 49.9999%. Things like constitutional law can only be changed by a very lengthy process (66% of both congressional bodies, 75% of all states have to approve it).

    So while the majority may agree with what he's doing, or at least the parts of what he's doing they are aware of, that doesn't make it right, or legal. He has, on many occasions, been sued successfully for various rights violations.

    It is something that needs to be fought, not something that people should just say "Well the majority elected him. Doesn't matter that they did, he is still accountable to the law. That's how the system is setup.

    1. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by bumburumbi · · Score: 5, Informative

      To some this IS cruel and unusual punishment. In 1997 a couple wanted by the authorities in Arizona successfully avoided extradition.

      "They demonstrated [to the district court] that the conditions in that [Maricopa County] prison were inhumane and degrading, and that an Icelandic decision to grant the extradition request would therefore conflict with their rights under Article 68 paragraph 1 of the [Icelandic] Constitution, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention, and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Supreme Court sustained the view that the legal requirements for extradition were not fulfilled[.]"

      (Interim report of the Icelandic Government to the European Committee Against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), 1999) http://eng.domsmalaraduneyti.is/reports/nr/126

  8. Re:You've seen maricopa before by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Informative

    In more convenient linked form: Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department

    What the hell is going on there? Do people actually support this BS?

    --
    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
  9. How did they get control of the servers? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But it also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.

    That explains why the sheriffs department wanted them, they didn't want incriminating evidence coming out. But if we walk away from our servers, they're not going to be able to get into them. If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later. If they arrested you for doing your job, then sue them later. Oddly, in this case you'd have the backing of the rest of the county board and the Superior Court. Seizing our computers wouldn't get them anything. I feel good about that but what happened in this case?

    If they're Windows servers it shouldn't be too hard to crack them, right? I haven't used Windows servers since Server 2003, you could crack those. Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Informative

      If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later.

      Huh. It's safest just to let Sheriff Joe arrest you and fight it in court. Juan Mendoza Farias thought that too.

  10. I've lived in Maricopa County for over 20 years, by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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."
  11. CJIS - Criminal Justice Information System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Disclaimer - I work as the IT manager for a major university police department.

    Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Security Policy - the governing policy from the Department of Justice for managing criminal justice systems. The policy is law enforcement sensitive and not public.

    The Sheriffs office is arguing that that the law requires this server, which has NCIC (National Crime Information Center) access, to only be managed by a criminal justice agency. There are entire previsions in CJIS that allow for delegation of CJIS management to noncriminal justice agencies including municipal governments and contractors. The only provision states that responsibility for management of security and network control remains with the criminal justice agency - meaning the blame for not following the CJIS security policy lies with the law enforcement agency.

    Unless Arizona has different laws regarding NCIC access this looks like a power grab to me...

  12. Coverup by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Mods, please be responsible. by Moryath · · Score: 4, Funny

    How the hell does a post whose entire content is "fuck you, [name]" get modded "insightful"?

    1. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by BollocksToThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      After checking the definition of 'insight', I decided you were off your rocker.

      After considering the full meaning of "most of [the] people here", I changed my mind again. When dealing with the majority of Slashdot, useful definitions for words have pretty much no place in the proceedings :)

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    2. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because Joe Arpaio is a power-tripping constitution-ignoring murderously negligent nutjob ?

      The man is batshit insane, not unlike what you would get if the Bush family pursued ferocious inbreeding for the next ten generations. Then you take that mentally stunted child, give him a government job and a gun, and let him loose upon the world.

      This is a man who gets his goons to physically threaten press reporters, when they get too close to his dirty secrets, and when he's done intimidating these law-abiding journalists, he saddles their offices with "punitive" over-reaching FOIA requests. He's perfectly happy to do the same thing to judges and state officials he dislikes. He's like a gangster with federal employee ID.

    3. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by LandDolphin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

      A) They're FOIA requests (not FAIO).

      B) He sends them against elected Phoenix officials, like the mayor, whose email he requests for political reasons. He does NOT send FOIA requests to journalists as is incorrectly claimed by GP.

      C) That said, Joe does appear to lean on journalists, but he does that with search warrants and deputies. Slashdot has covered this in the past and there is much information to be found on Wikipedia concerning the incidents of note.

      Basically, he's an incompetent Sheriff who hasn't been voted out because too many people are too enamored with his "tough on crime" stance to notice that he's completely incompetent and not making the people of Arizona any safer. They'll try to defend him by claiming that the opposition is in favor of illegal immigration or some other utterly political nonsense, while ignoring the fact that his incompetence has cost Arizona taxpayers something like $100 million.

      (That's a very rough estimate using the sources on Wikipedia, but it's about the right order of magnitude, especially when you count what we pay for legal liability insurance and Arizona's insanely high deductibles).

  14. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by masshuu · · Score: 5, Funny

    +----------+
    |  PLEASE  |
    |  DO NOT  |
    | FEED THE |
    |  TROLLS  |
    +----------+
        |  |
        |  |
      .\|.||/..

    the sign is there for a reason.
    Feeding trolls and flamebaits can lead to excessive burns and karma loss

    --
    O.o
  15. FWIW by tyler_larson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sheriff Joe has been in an ever-escalating power-war with the rest of the government in the various cities, counties, and state of Arizona. In the past few weeks, the plot has slightly thickened as there has recently been some evidence of, and outcry regarding, misconduct on the part of the Sheriff's office in regards to personal use of state funds. I won't bore you with the details, but the reaction of the Sheriff's office hasn't been one that, shall we say, increases public safety.

    I can't even imagine why the Sheriff's office would want to seize the records relating to law enforcement within the state, but I'm sure he has a Very Good Reason.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
  16. Re:Let me fix that for you by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. Re:California isn't any better. by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:On behalf of arizona... by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a great expose on Sheriff Joe in a recent New Yorker that argues quite the opposite; his obsession with his own self-aggrandizement has eclipsed attacks on real crime in favor of a sensational (and indulgently predatory) approach to law enforcement.

  19. On behalf of everyone else... by Estragib · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [The system] also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.

    Just as the Sheriff's Office is concerned about civilians' access to records, county management is concerned the Sheriff's Office now has access to information from other county agencies it is investigating, such as the Superior Court. State appellate courts have rebuffed Arpaio's attempts to obtain privileged court e-mails, which would be accessible through the system.

    I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know. Maybe he knew someone was going to remove that data and he needs it to expose corruption higher up.

    I don't know anything about this Joe Arpaio, never heard of him, so it may be obvious this is not the case. But just exclaiming "Fuck you" didn't help me find out either.

  20. he hasn't decreased crime by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's wishful thinking. The East Valley Tribune won a pulitzer for an expose of Sheriff Joe's tactics that concluded, among other things, that his focus on illegal immigration has actually stolen the focus away from violent crimes.

  21. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!!!

  22. Re:On behalf of arizona... by siliconincdotnet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come to New Orleans. The only difference between the criminals and the police is a uniform.

    --
    Insert witty .sig here
  23. Arizona Fascism by GarretSidzaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Joe arpaio has gang of sherrifs who go down into the barrio and round up any "mexican-looking" persons, detain them, and try to deport them. this is done simply by checking the color of their skin.

    i have spent a nite in arpaio's jail (wrongfully arrested) and eating the substandard "ladmo" bags with green bologna.

    i have seen lives crushed and destroyed. i have heard journalists who were kidnapped from their homes at 4 am by men driving a car with sonora license plates. This was because they uncovered joe's illegal real estate investments

    arpaio is a murderer, a torturer, rascist, and a fascist. he should be in PRISON

  24. Re:On behalf of arizona... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't be afraid of the Phoenix Police. Be afraid of the imposters.

    In Phoenix, you stand a good change of being the victim of a home invasion staged by Mexican Army Regulars...

    Or Mexicans in Phoenix police drag, fulfilling their contracts...

    Or Phoenix Police whose chief and the Phoenix mayor just can't take much criticism.

    Try and discredit the reports based on the sources I use. Not working. The incidents did happen. Police officers were calling into local radio shows and confirming the reports.

    It seems most home invasions in Phoenix are carried out by those who attack drop houses the 'coyotes' use to stage illegal immigrants on their way to other cities. Taking some hostage and making a quick buck is the motive. Posing as police works very well until the real police show up. then, hope the bad guys run out of bullets, which they often do.

    Our mayor, Phil Gordon, is death against enforcing immigration law, as is our former Governor and now head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. It's so bad the Feds are demanding that local law enforcement accept a new policy that pretty much prevents them from enforcing the law. That's the 287(g) program that apparently is too successful.

    Sherrif Joe also has tangled with the local alternative paper, which published his and other officials home addresses and apparently violated grand jury statutes. It's only an arcane law when it is applied to you.

    Sherrif Joe has his view of law enforcement. It enrages many of the liberal intelligensia around here, who would rather we put the illegals up in the Phoenician and give them a chance.

    Me? I back Sherrif Joe, knowing full well he can get carried away. The alternative is to have everything not nailed down stolen by the illegals as they stream through here on their way to a better life.

    At least he doesn't PRETEND to be doing his job.

    You ought to live here. Then you would grasp a little more of the nuance. Much too easy to take things at face value. 4 years here has taught me that we have a serious illegal immigration problem. How to solve it is unfortunately simple - clean house, starting with the House of Reperesentatives. Our government has too many conflicts of interest, business sees illegals as cheap labor, Democrats see them as new voters, and regular citizens have no one on their side. But I'm not hopeful.

    Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.

    Bring it on.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  25. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.