Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sheriff's Online Database Leaks Info On Informants

Posted by Soulskill on from the second-verse-same-as-the-first dept.

Tootech writes with this snippet from NPR: "A Colorado sheriff's online database mistakenly revealed the identities of confidential drug informants and listed phone numbers, addresses and Social Security numbers of suspects, victims and others interviewed during criminal investigations, authorities said. The breach potentially affects some 200,000 people, and Mesa County sheriff's deputies have been sifting through the database to determine who, if anyone, is in jeopardy. ... The FBI and Google Inc. are trying to determine who accessed the database, the sheriff said. Their concern: That someone may have copied it and could post it, WikiLeaks-style, on the Internet. 'The truth is, once it's been out there and on the Internet and copied, you're never going to regain total control,' Hilkey said. Thousands of pages of confidential information were vulnerable from April until Nov. 24, when someone notified authorities after finding their name on the Internet. Officials said the database was accessed from within the United States, as well as outside the country, before it was removed from the server."

11 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Donutleaks strikes again! by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Donutleaks is committed to releasing classified documents !

    1. Re:Donutleaks strikes again! by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are terrorists!

      If you're referring to to the informants, IMO they are the terrorists. Most of the societal problems attributed to drugs are, in fact, caused by the laws against them.

      It's easier for a teenager to buy pot than it is for an adult. One slashdot wag's sig reads "thanks to the war on drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cough syrup."

      One would think that alcohol prohibition would have taught us that such laws are incredibly harmful.

      The only segment of society that benefits from anti-drug laws are the smugglers and dealers, which tell you who's funding the anti-drug lobby.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:Donutleaks strikes again! by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only segment of society that benefits from anti-drug laws are the smugglers and dealers, which tell you who's funding the anti-drug lobby.

      You forget pharmaceutical companies (hemp and marijuana would have a major impact on their bottom line for a lot of old standbys), so-called "rehab centers", and, let's not forget, our privately-owned prisons.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    3. Re:Donutleaks strikes again! by Asclepius99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And don't forget companies that sell alcohol. I mean, why would you let someone take away your government monopoly on legal substance abuse?

  2. What if by MrMarkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if they didn't put that database on a server facing the internet? Could that be a good idea? Or maybe they should just return all their computers since they can't be trusted to use them securely... Let the flames begin.

    --
    /M
    1. Re:What if by AltairDusk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd imagine the police in that county are going to have a very tough time getting information out of people now. Informants trust that the police will protect their identities, that trust has now been broken.

    2. Re:What if by GaryOlson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What if annual security training was mandatory for all the IT staff connected with law enforcement IT equipment -- just like weapons training is mandatory for all law enforcement officers. This includes the CIO [if they have one], the city manager, the systems architect [whichever poor IT technician is erroneously saddled with this responsibility], and all law enforcement officers who access this data. Failure to pass security training and any breach of security by any individual would initiate immediate administrative leave and/or an Internal Affairs or FBI investigation.

      Certain data is a lethal weapon and should be treated appropriately.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    3. Re:What if by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government is not out to get you

      It is if you're a pot smoker or Julian Assange.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  3. This isn't a leak. by El+Neepo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article makes this situation comparable to the current wikileaks situation, which it isn't.

    Some IT person left the data freely accessible on the internet and eventually a crawler found it. They're guessing it was a malicious person but in all odds it is not.

    This is just another IT mistake not an act of whistleblowing or terrorism or something else the government wants to make illegal.

  4. 200,000 CI's? by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Deputies have used the database since 1989 to collect and share intelligence gathered during the course of police work. It contains 200,000 names — Mesa County's population is about 150,000 — and includes investigative files from a local drug task force.

    Is it just me or does it seem odd to you that they have 200,000 confidential informants in a county with a population of 150,000? What the frack is going on in Mesa County?

  5. WikiLeaks-Style?! by miro2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their concern: That someone may have copied it and could post it, WikiLeaks-style, on the Internet.

    Let's hope they post it WikiLeaks-style. That would mean they spend months coordinating with journalists to redact names and other information that might put individuals' lives at risk. Then, they would only release a few select important parts of the material in a completely responsible manner.

    Of course, that is not what the editors and poster were trying to convey by 'WikiLeaks' style. Why insert this useless anti-free-speech FUD into the story?