Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Retaliates, Leaks Texas Police Emails
An anonymous reader sends word that hacking group Anonymous has breached servers and accounts belonging to "dozens" of Texas police departments, leaking emails, documents and personal information. They say the attacks are in retaliation for "the arrests of dozens of alleged Anonymous suspects," and were done in solidarity with "the 'Anonymous 16' PayPal LOIC defendants, accused LulzSec member Jake Davis 'Topiary,' protesters arrested during #OpBart actions, Bradley Manning, Stephen Watt, and other hackers and leakers worldwide." Predictably, some of the leaked emails paint an unflattering picture of internal operations at the police departments.
Not for racism, bigotry, their general unprofessionalism, etc. I mean, that's kind of a given for local-level Texas cops. No, they should be for the epic level of stupidity they showed in actually *writing all that down* and *sending it in emails*.
Anyone *that* stupid probably shouldn't be trusted to operate the fry machine at McDonalds, much less be in charge of investigating crimes.
I've had some pretty dumb friends over the years who ended up becoming cops (we're talking 2+2=5 dumb), but even they knew better than to BROADCAST their incompetence for the record. I just wonder how some of these departments are supposed to collect DNA evidence when half their force thinks DNA is a rap group from the 80's. Not that every Texas cop can be Sam Deeds from Lonestar, but geez.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Since when does Anonymous not just act because it can? Does it really need a reason?
I8-D
Here's a hint: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.
Part of the reason the police are so effective is they have no problem breaking the law to see their goals met. Is it illegal to retaliate against the police in this way? Certainly. Is it immoral? In my opinion, not by a long shot. This isn't restricted to "cyber-crime" either. If a cop murders someone unjustly and gets away with no punishment (like usual), do I shed a tear if his victim's family takes his life in revenge? Of course not.
The concept of justice transcends law.
I would like to vote against crime, as I hate it too, although I don't fancy entering your country to do it. Voting in my country is a complete waste of time because the Lords and Elite do not, and can not represent my wishes.
Your police have a nasty habit of shooting "fat black bitches" and anyone else that they feel needs the "criminal cure". Are you going to stick up for them?
Who polices the police? Anon have stepped up to the plate and they should be welcomed as no one else is brave enough to do it.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
I heard you say the word crime a lot. But technically, what Google does is a crime in China. In the US, media tried to show that Google's Canadian Pharmacy advertisements, which was a crime in the US, make Google look evil. But if you have half a notion about health care, there is a greater argument that it is actually ethical.
What makes something unethical simply because it is a crime? Any idiotic idea can become a crime, like blasphemy laws in Iran. So saying your against crime has to have an underlying ethic of which laws you support, and which you yourself would break under certain circumstances.
Let's stick to ethics, and leave crime to politicians. We can argue the ethics, but really, crime is not crime. Saying otherwise, you validate every law ever made everywhere.
I8-D
Or any politician whatsoever. And it's not limited to USA.
I wasn't quite clear enough, but that's exactly my point. Obama (and the Democratic congress) has been indistinguishable from Bush and the Republican congress. People vote for either of the electable choices and get the same result; the system is completely broken. It shocks me that anyone suggests participating in American electoral politics as a way of making a dent in anything.
Not sure if this is intended to be funny.
If not, I take it you are no supporter of Mohandas Gandhi.
"Crime is not OK" is a terribly naive statement. Often it is the law itself that "is not OK."
When voting doesn't work, those who "want to change society" have three choices:
1) submission to tyrants;
2) civil disobedience;
3) armed insurrection.
Which of those you find more "OK" is up to you. But breaking a law may often be more honorable than submitting to tyranny.
So Bradley Manning is mistreated by the federal government. The BART protesters are badly treated (and the cell phone thing was probably illegal). Topiary was arrested in Britain. Can give a coherent ideological explanation why therefore one goes after police departments in Texas? These emails are full (unsurprisingly) of evidence of racism and corruption. So it isn't like having these out in the open is a bad thing. But let's not pretend this makes almost any sense as retaliation for previous actions against LulzSec or other individuals.
People who are really intelligent know to evaluate based on content, not form. Grammar nazi's, by contrast, are just autistics who've managed to find a dictionary.
So their, put *that* in you're pipe and smoke it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
if you want to change society, you do live in a democracy and are supposed to change it by voting.
Gotcha. *votes for Obama* *stands by helplessly as wages fall while the government demonstrates its only competence to be launching cruise missiles*
And right there is your problem. Someone says that if you want to change society, vote and your thought is the only office that makes a difference is that of President. When, in fact, you can cause greater change by changing who your Township supervisors are, or your state legislator, or your Congressman. Changing things does not happen in 4 years or 8 years, it takes a long time.
As an example, in England, William Wilberforce began working towards the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery in 1787, Parliament did not outlaw the slave trade until 1807. Slavery was not abolished until 1834, just days before his death. Changing things takes time and commitment, not just showing up at the ballot box every four years.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It shocks me that anyone suggests participating in American electoral politics as a way of making a dent in anything.
It is a way of making a dent, but a system which is badly broken can't be fixed in a single election. Just voting isn't enough for that either - you really need to get into the parties and reform them, or build alternatives to them. Which would take decades.
Note though: there is no alternative to doing that. Even if you had a revolution suddenly - at best you'd get a better election system and maybe all lobbyists thrown in jail, but you'd still need to build working democratic structures, you'd still need to find halfway decent representatives.
So you might as well start now: vote in the primaries, vote in local elections, stand for political positions or support decent people who do.
Yes, because when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. And when they do get there, they're actually pretty likely to arrest the victim. I've seen this personally more than once. Then there are these little techniques they use... you're upset, they lure you outside "c'mon, let's just step outside" and as soon as you're out your door, you're arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, don't fall for that one. Well, there is a silver lining. They're usually not quite as corrupt as our politicians and judges, and individual cops do a lot less harm than individual politicians and judges.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yeah, I'm kinda wondering: if those three emails were the worst they found (true, the first two are kinda bad), then the picture painted is really not all that bad. The email you quoted seemed to be a police officer doing his job properly more or less properly (a police officer running a criminal background check for personal reasons would be corruption).
True, there are a lot of emails to go through, but I rather strongly suspect Anon put the very worst at the beginning (makes sense as a tactic), and if that is the worst they have, then, well, try again Anon.
And that's all assuming none of the evidence is faked, because it's not like email isn't the absolute easiest evidence to falsify (and yes, Anon would do that.) But hey, don't let me interrupt the /. police hating parade.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
People who are really intelligent know to evaluate based on content, not form. Grammar nazi's, by contrast, are just autistics who've managed to find a dictionary.
If you can't spell or read, demonstrating your ignorance to others does you no favors. That doesn't mean you're unintelligent, but it's difficult to evaluate content when the form is wrong. Imagine someone you just met ejecting spittle in your face during a conversation because they haven't yet learned how to speak. Sure, maybe their message is fine, but you'd probably rather talk to someone else.
1) submission to tyrants;
2) civil disobedience;
3) armed insurrection.
As someone outside the US I'm highly jealous that you lot have option 3. It's a really bad option but it's better to have it then be under the jackboot of a government that knows only they have the guns.
For the lulz, and probably Texas was the biggest system they could get into quickly. There is little need to ask why they do things. It's a mob mentality.
-lulz
-low hanging fruit
-opportunity
-someone probably got a speeding ticket in texas once
-random
Pick one or more things on or off the list above, and there's your reason.
I don't get it. The gizmodo article does a good job to show how some of the e-mails paint a really bad picture of certain police officials. But then it includes this as an example of a "request for the Texan chiefs to investigate an officer's affair with a married woman", and comments that this is "tax dollars at work"...
From: Doug Lauersdorf
Sent: Thu 9/16/2010 10:06 AM
To: Bob Wieners; Luke Loeser
Subject: Complainant
Chiefs:
I conducted a preliminary inquiry into information received from Detective Price who received a call from Mr. Clements wanting us to know that one of our officers on midnight shift was having an affair with his wife. He also complained that the officer had run his criminal history. I asked KC to contact DPS to research their database to ascertain any person(s) that had ran his information to obtain information from any of the following: CCH, TDL, NCIC, TCIC, SETCIC, etc. The search revealed that the only person with the Friendswood Police Department that had run him was Elaine who had ran the information at KCÃââs direction at my request. This matter is mute until the time comes when he initiates the complaint process and provides us with the officerÃââs name.
Sergeant Douglas E. Lauersdorf
Ok, Gizmodo. You were spot on with the other e-mails, but this does not at all fit into your story. For starters, it is not a request, but rather a report. Second, the investigation was on the improper use of police computer files, not the marital affair.
See, use of police databases for personal reasons is a major no-no. And suspicions of such conduct is almost always looked into.
In this particular instance, the effort was suspended because they did not know which particular officer was being accused. Had they known, they could have looked specifically at his search history (for say, misspelled names of the complainant).
Anyway, the racist and other unprofessional e-mails should cause heads to roll. But in this last case I see nothing improper. Except that it is "moot", not "mute", Sgt Lauersdorf. :)
Well, then I guess you just have to live with the world that other people are willing to put in the effort to create. BTW, William Wilberforce died just after his efforts were fully successful and he had already changed the world for the better by getting the slave trade outlawed years earlier. The thing is, if you are working for change because it benefits you, you are no better than the people who "bought and paid for" the politicians. On the other hand, if you are working to make the world a better place, what does it matter if you live long enough to actually experience the new world you worked to help create?
There is no other solution. Either you are willing to work as hard and long as it takes to make the change, or you have to live with the world created by those who are.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
In most cases, it's one of the last two options. In short, it means that you're an asshat or an idiot. Either way, it's not worth my time to work out which.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Or maybe it's unchanged; here's an org chart:
https://imageserv10.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/246/11-22-2010_UTILITY_PACKET.pdf
Here's an announcement:
http://www.guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000036630
Names look legit.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
No, it is not "you are willing to work as hard and long as it takes to make the change, or you have to live with the world created by those who are." it is "you are willing to live with the world that is the random result of the collision of millions of mutually contradictory ideas and objectives". You are under some wacky illusion that anything we actually do as individuals counts in the big picture. It does not, unless random chance makes it so.
The very popular and utterly laughable delusion of "control of one's own destiny" or its even more grandiose variant "working for societal change" is what lies at the difference of the world-views here.
Case in point: Wilberforce lost. Slavery never actually left, it merely got "updated". In the past the slaves had iron collars on, today they have invisible, electronic ones and believe themselves "free", which strengthens their slavery by orders of magnitude since slaves who think they are "free" never try to break their chains. Instead they work 6 jobs in order to enrich their masters more diligently. But everything important in their lives is controlled by someone else, just like in the old days.