

LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents - kwantam
http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/chinga_la_migra_1.txt

======
ChuckMcM
I will say this for these folks, they seem to have gone 'all in.'

One of the interesting thing about politics is how hard it is to change
things. To get a bill passed or an amendment added you need to get other
politicians on your side, you need a compelling plan, and then you need lots
of follow through. Controversy is to politics like energy is to chemical
reactions. The more controversy you have around it increases the 'energy'
level, more politicians are willing to commit to a vote because some of their
constituents are telling the 'you gotta do something about ...'

The actions of these guys and wikileaks and anonymous are feeding a lot of
energy into this system. I listened to a presentation by the East-West
Institute [1] which was attempting to harness stuff like this to make 'cyber
terrorism' a national issue.

Groups like this take the energy that is out there and channel it into "policy
workshops" which are really nothing more than telling the politicians that if
they follow their recommendations it will address this growing need. They feed
off this stuff. Nobody listens to you if they don't think there are any issues
that need addressing (the old "Everything is fine! Why change anything?"
dilemma).

The truly fascinating thing about this is there was a great analysis on
terrorist groups and whether or not they ever achieved their stated goals [2].
Basically terrorists who don't have a special interest group or political
action committee (PAC) in place to harness the energy created by the terrorist
acts for durable change are unsuccessful at making any change. Instead the
energy they produce, the ability for the political system to make changes, is
harnessed by others to make the changes that _these other people_ want to make
instead.

Its a weird thing but when you look at how it has been done by PACs and SIGs
it can be really enlightening. Its like security theater at the airport,
everyone (even the people who do it), know that it does nothing to actually
make people safer on planes. However what it does do is give another person
their own mini-military unit (DHS) and a way to influence things.

This happens on the small scale too, some horrible thing will happen due to
some highly random event or events, and it causes great public sympathy and
outcry. Someone comes along and taps that energy, promises it will "never
happen again" if you do what they say, and they aren't really lying, the odds
of that thing happening again could be extremely remote.

To use a current example, people who are proposing their gear by installed in
nuclear plants so that the next time a 9.0 quake + 40' tsunami hits the plant
will be safe. Since the likelyhood of another 9.x quake + Tsunami happening
again in our or even our grandchildren's lifetime is effectively 0 they could
do anything and claim victory. Sell special "Tsunami resistant latex paint"
which if you coat a building with this the water will go around instead. Its a
crazy claim but someone will buy into "this will make the bad thing not happen
again" and guess what? It doesn't happen again because the chance of it
happening is so close to zero.

Lulz here is dumping huge amounts of energy into the system. I don't see any
'good' guys lobbying effectively for tapping that to make for better network
security or IT systems. I _do_ see people like the DHS saying the need a
budget appropriation of 50M$ to staff up a new department of expert counter-
hackers to mitigate this new threat.

When people with money say "We have to do something!" there will always be
people who stand up and offer to do something in exchange for their money.

[1] <http://www.ewi.info/>

[2] <http://english.safe-democracy.org/causes/>

~~~
Alex3917
"Basically terrorists who don't have a special interest group or political
action committee (PAC) in place to harness the energy created by the terrorist
acts for durable change are unsuccessful at making any change."

The guy who wired the lead 9/11 hijacker 100k, presumably to pay for the 9/11
attacks, had breakfast with the Bush administration the morning of 9/11. If
that isn't access then what is?

~~~
3pt14159
Do you have a reliable source for that?

~~~
Alex3917
It was reported in basically every major newspaper. The Times of India
discovered a wire transfer of 100k from the head of Pakistani intelligence
(Mahmood Ahmed) to the lead hijacker (Mohamed Atta) shortly before 9/11, and
then papers like the NYT/WSJ confirmed the findings with unnamed senior US
officials. The US then pressured Pakistan to get Mahmud Ahmed to step down
from the ISI, which he did. (Despite being covered in virtually every major
newspaper worldwide, none of this was even mentioned by the 9/11 commission
report.) If you Google it there are dozens of writeups analyzing the evidence,
here is one below chosen mostly at random, along with his Wikipedia article:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed#Removal_from_ISI>

[http://kkak.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/death-of-bin-laden-
may-...](http://kkak.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/death-of-bin-laden-may-distract-
from-a-more-disturbing-story-is-the-official-story-unraveling-.html)

The kicker is that Ahmed had breakfast with almost all of the senior Bush
administration the day before, the day of, and the two days after 9/11. He
actually watched the attacks on TV with Porter Goss and Bob Graham.

~~~
e40
The first link's reference is a dead link.

The second link doesn't really have references that are credible.

I'll repeat: anything reliable?

~~~
Alex3917
The first link isn't dead, it just has an extra quote at the end of the URL:

[http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-10-09/india...](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-10-09/india/27243646_1_isi-
link-evidence-india)

There are also footnotes here sourcing all of the claims to major newspapers:

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html>

I haven't actually gone to the library and looked up the paper editions or the
original broadcasts, but I have no reason to believe that they don't exist.
E.g.

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now
tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to
accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta." Source:
Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI,
ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.

You might even be able to find this on archive.org, otherwise you'd have to go
to a library I guess. I think that Loose Change: Final Cut also sources the
claims, but I haven't seen it in a couple years so I can't remember.

edit: Even the sites purporting to debunk the claim don't deny the articles
exist, they're just challenging the existence/validity of the anonymous senior
official(s).

edit2: Loose Change link showing the government redacted a question about the
ISI from the official transcripts of a press conference even though it was
asked on video:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8IqZwl3l-o#t=1m14s>

~~~
e40
_The first link isn't dead, it just has an extra quote at the end of the URL_

It was dead because it was non-functioning. OK, so the fixed link is good and
doesn't backup your assertion:

 _The guy who wired the lead 9/11 hijacker 100k, presumably to pay for the
9/11 attacks, had breakfast with the Bush administration the morning of 9/11._

That's what people here are asking for a "reliable source" for. And _Loose
Change_ would not be considered a reliable source.

------
blhack
They can't go back now.

Before this, mostly what they were doing was small time. DOSing a website, or
leaking some emails is annoying, this could potentially get people killed.

This is max level from what I'm reading so far (others' reports, I'm not
touching that torrent). Homeland security info, info on ongoing
investigations, etc. etc.

This might actually make lulz more dangerous. They have nothing to lose now.
Before this, I'm sure in the back of the heads of whoever was doing whatever,
was the thought of getting caught, and that they might go to jail for a couple
of years. It doesn't matter anymore, because nothing that they can do now can
make things worse for them. If [when] they get caught, they're going to prison
for the rest of their lives or worse.

Basically: consequences will never be the same.

~~~
patrickaljord
> (others' reports, I'm not touching that torrent)

This is ridiculous, thousands of people are downloading that right now and the
details will be on the news anyway.

> If [when] they get caught, they're going to prison for the rest of their
> lives or worse.

Only if they're from the US. In most of western Europe, maximum is 20 to 30
years and only for murders or specific crimes. For that they'd probably just
get a few years.

~~~
kragen
> In most of western Europe, maximum is 20 to 30 years

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Oury_Jalloh>

"In 2007, two officers were charged with causing bodily harm with fatal
consequences and with involuntary manslaughter, respectively, but were
acquitted in December 2008 for want of evidence."

In Western Europe, the cops can still get away with killing you if they don't
believe that the penal system will properly punish you. In the UK, they kill
more than one person per month:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Deaths_in_Custody>

~~~
ugh
Those deaths in custody seem to be mostly suicides. The case of Oury Jalloh is
truly horrific but it is only one case.

I cannot see any trend or evidence for systematic executions in the data you
presented. There may well be a few cases, I don’t know, but to suggest that
this is common seems absolutely laughable and ridiculous, given the data you
presented.

~~~
chrisjsmith
They are recorded as suicides and the doctor and coroner are police appointed
ones. There is a huge amount of corruption here in the UK but it's not often
talked about because the people involved are very powerful (most of them are
also Masons who serve others in their group rather than the public first).

~~~
donall
I enjoy being critical of the government as much as the next man, but I think
a comment like the one you just made really deserves a [citation needed]. I'm
not saying I don't believe you (there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by
UK security forces in the past, particularly abroad), just that I'd be
interested to see your sources.

~~~
chrisjsmith
Most of the deaths are due to negligence on the part of the police. The
concern is that this is intentional negligence which is never properly
investigated. The IPCC rarely rule against the police however the legal system
are less biased, if it gets that far.

30 seconds googling...

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/18/ukcrime.prisonsandp...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/18/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation1)

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-
tomlinso...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/police-
def...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/police-defy-force-
with-masonic-lodge-715368.html)

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13297812>

Hmm... I could go on.

~~~
donall
I'm not doubting that the British police have a history of misconduct or that
people die in prisons (and I'm not trying to justify it either - it's
unequivocally wrong, in my opinion).

But your assertion that "they are recorded as suicides and the doctor and
coroner are police appointed ones" suggests that there is a significant cover-
up operation and that it heavily involves the Freemasons. I wasn't aware of
the number of police who are masons (the article you linked to was
interesting) but I don't see a verifiable connection between that and any
alleged cover-ups.

I'm not saying that there definitely aren't a significant number of cover-ups
involving masons, just that I'm not aware of any credible evidence that
suggests that it is the case. If you have some, I'd be interested in seeing
it.

~~~
chrisjsmith
I have personally known two masons and they have said on many an occasion that
they are obliged under their oath to do what their seniors request regardless
of the law and they will be protected from prosecution in the course (which
they found morally objectional). If you read up on masonic laws and history,
this is normal. They're almost like the scientologists without the religious
crazy stuff.

The same applies to "people's networks" such as the Oxford and Eton alumni
which is ingrained in politics and the legal system in the UK.

The outcome of this is intentionally botched inquests such as the David Kelly
one.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_%28weapons_expert%2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_%28weapons_expert%29#Hutton_Inquiry)

If you check the record of doctors and legal professionals involved, some of
them are Oxford grads at the same time Blair was and were chosen on government
recommendation. The others are professionally related to the Oxford alumni.

An independent enquiry with properly referenced sources rather than a
government puppet show would do well here.

------
kristofferR
There's certainly a bunch of interesting stuff in there, like how officers are
instructed to place iPhone in nickel or copper plated containers in order to
prevent remote wipes and a ton of information about gangs and smuggling.

There's also other cool technical stuff in there, like how they gather digital
evidence, information about hacker forums like ryan1918.com that have
information on FBI honeypots and a book on how to "crack leetspeak".

Unlike the other releases by LulzSec, this looks like it actually is an
useful, WikiLeaks-style release (except they haven't filtered out any private
or irrelevant information like Wikileaks tries to do)

~~~
Animus7
> like how officers are instructed to place iPhone in nickel or copper plated
> containers in order to prevent remote wipes

Idea: a self-destruct mode where if your phone can't call home to check for
remote wipe and kick an internal watchdog, it will prompt for local self-
destruct override. Failing that, automatic wipe.

~~~
sliverstorm
Better idea: add an RFID reader internally, and carry an RFID tag on your
keychain. When it can't read the tag for X minutes, then wipe.

If you leave your phone on the other side of the house a lot, just leave your
keys with it.

~~~
r00fus
Combined with a good backup policy (you can setup your iPhone to backup each
sync), this would be workable.

------
pkulak
Good target to retaliate against. I'm sure they considered going after the
people who drafted the legislation, or the voters who passed it, but passed on
that because... this was the server they happened to find that was easy to get
in to and they came up with their justification afterwards.

~~~
TomOfTTB
The problem is the Officers are actually the least guilty here. SB1070
actually requires officers check people's papers. Officers COULD do that
before SB1070 but they weren't. So the legislature passed 1070 in part to
force officers to do it more often.

The truth is Officers generally don't want to get involved in immigration
cases because it requires interaction with the Federal Government. That is a
local cop's least favorite activity.

~~~
mbateman
Yes, there have been many articles and letters written against this law by
Arizona police officers and their representatives. I don't understand why one
would target the Arizona police of all people. Probably not worth analyzing
LulzSec too deeply, though, there aren't any real answers or justifications
besides maybe psychological ones.

~~~
sliverstorm
There is an automatic hatred of the police shared by just about every
lawbreaker. Just or not, I believe they basically see the police as their
enemy, not the state.

~~~
true_religion
Lawbreakers feel that they are in a war against the state and the police are
the soldiers of the state.

In this case, they feel justified to 'shoot' the enemy soldiers even if they
didn't individually start the war.

------
clintjhill
Exposing home addresses and wife is uncool. Leave the home and family out of
it.

~~~
lallysingh
I don't know why they didn't just pass it over to WikiLeaks. They've been
through that problem already, and have a process in place to delete that sort
of stuff.

~~~
redthrowaway
1) They clearly don't care about collateral damage, and

2) WL still isn't accepting submissions until DDB hands back their database.

~~~
lhnz
DDB? I've not heard of this.

~~~
redthrowaway
Daniel Domscheit-Berg. A quick intro to the submission issue can be found
here:
[http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-f...](http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-
fires-back-at-defector-over-book-claims/)

------
abbasmehdi
Racial profiling sucks! It's demeaning, belittling, and alienating. If the
cops acted within the law, then what are they afraid of? More transparency = a
more democratic state, right? (I don't think their family names should have
been listed here though). You can't applaud Wiki leaks for igniting the
overthrow of autocratic Middle Eastern governments, and hypocritically argue
against similar actions when it's your own country in question.

The US is turning into a police state slowly. I recently saw on HN how a woman
was arrested for taping them on her own property. Sounds less like the land of
the free, and more like a place where the citizens serve the authorities (my
country of birth, Pakistan, citizens, especially the innocent ones, pee their
pants when they see cops - something very wrong about that).

~~~
sukuriant
I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic. "If the cops acted within
the law, then what are they afraid of?"

That sounds like the exact same statements we usually say with regard to what
the government would say to us when we want our emails to remain private, etc.
"If you've got nothing to hide, why do you want it kept private?"

You cannot hold both positions here. You cannot. I'm sorry.

In this instance, what LulzSec has released stands in the way of privacy and
of freedom, and it is unforgivable.

~~~
abbasmehdi
The police is to serve citizens not the other way around. It's okay for your
employer to go through your company issued computer, but not of for the
employee to go through the boss' machine. You seem to have lost perspective as
to which group serves whom.

~~~
sukuriant
That is a fair statement, as is Daeken's. I think half of what I was thinking
of when I wrote that was also related to those police officer's private data
(name, address, phone number, wife's name...). These things need not be
shared, and the person I responded to, and their tone, seemed to suggest that
this information should be released.

~~~
abbasmehdi
The person you responded to (me) clearly stated that personal information
should have _not_ been released.

~~~
sukuriant
You said family's names. I argue that their names, addresses and phone numbers
shouldn't have been released. The fact that some of them have wives with name
X is just another piece of personal info that shouldn't have been released,
but it certainly isn't all of it.

~~~
abbasmehdi
No apostrophe on "family" sir (you change meaning by taking that liberty),
though I should have placed a comma or a slash between family and names.
Unless personally involved in any wrongdoing, I don't think it makes any
meaningful difference to have the officer's names.

~~~
sukuriant
When I refer to collection of names assigned to a person that aren't given to
them by their parents, I generally call that the last name. Apologies, 'family
name' never struck me as a term for that word, so my mind automatically
translated it. Yay being a United States-ian.

And having the officer's given names ~probably~ isn't meaningful, I suppose I
can give you. Not dangerous, just creepy (perhaps part of the intended
result?) ... though, also likely on public record. That said, I agree that
even their "family name" shouldn't have been mentioned unless they were
personally involved in wrongdoing. Technically, that's not LulzSec's job, but
I wouldn't have counted a more noble vigilante quite as intensely in the
wrong, here.

[edit: fixed some of my stupidity in response]

~~~
abbasmehdi
I don't think they've figured out what their job is. I tend to favor people
over authorities because I've seen what happens when public _servants_ become
"we know what's good for you" rulers.

------
sunchild
Setting aside the release of this information, why was anyone able to get
ahold of it? That's where the responsibility (and breach of public trust)
starts.

~~~
blhack
Some of my friends work for Phoenix DPS. According to them, their "IT
Department" (in quotes because according to them they don't really have an IT
dept.) is...horrifyingly incompetent. Like really, really bad.

~~~
sunchild
Like "negligent" bad?

~~~
jordan0day
It might depend on your definition of negligent. Imagine building out a city,
streets, alleyways, highways, etc. The imagine paying one guy to put up all
the street signs, paint the lanes on the roads and highways, tow broken down
cars, and handle street cleaning duties.

When a wreck happens because a particular intersection was missing stop signs,
would you consider that one guy negligent?

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
Yup. Him or her and his/her employer. That is according to the law.

Negligence is merely falling below the standard of the reasonably competent
sign poster/programmer/doctor/ etc.

~~~
jordan0day
That's my point -- a single reasonably competent sign poster couldn't be
expected to handle the duties for an entire city. The responsibilities placed
upon the sign poster in my example went way above and beyond anything
reasonable.

I'm not trying to defend the IT folks who do a terrible job of security for
municipal/state governments, but in my experience there's a lot more work to
be done than resources provided to do it.

------
alex_martin
This may be the first time the public gets really riled up by hackers in
(almost) the same way they do about murders and robberies. I can imagine a
police appeal for information resulting in literally thousands of names of
hacker-types being given over.

------
kragen
I think it's worthwhile remembering where direct attacks on the authorities
led to last time around. It started World War I, ended economic globalization
for decades, and delegitimized anarchism to the point where it was essentially
exterminated worldwide. In the US, new "conspiracy" laws were enacted which
allow you to be prosecuted for talking to someone about how you could
hypothetically commit a crime if they later go off and execute one of the
steps in your plan.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed#Timeline...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed#Timeline_of_historical_actions)

I hope the kind of violent rhetoric they're spewing doesn't end up provoking
similar violence this time around.

------
PaintBucket
Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a
living." Think about it for a little while.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to
uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your
issue is with the Legislators not the cops.

(This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

~~~
splat
I don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't
agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest
doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human
being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that
the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with
your legislator." "I was just following orders" is never an excuse for your
actions.

~~~
watty
If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job. Laws don't just
magically appear, right? By the time they pass as a law the cop is just doing
their job. We didn't do our job as voters and the correct action now is to
"take it up with your legislator".

~~~
potatolicious
> _"If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job."_

Your responsibility to humanity ( _particularly_ as an officer of the law)
trumps your right to be fed.

Also, the world at large has upheld, many times over, that "following orders"
is not a sufficient defense.

"But I have a mortgage" - the new and improved Nuremberg Defense (with
apologies to Thank You For Smoking). Hell, the people who relied on the
Nuremberg defense would've been _shot_ for violating said orders. Being fired
is peanuts in comparison.

~~~
TomOfTTB
You're wrong on this (or at very least looking at the issue without nuance).
More often than not "just following orders" IS a sufficient defense. Only in
the most heinous of acts is it considered insufficient (if that weren't the
case there'd be no reason to define what is and is not a "war crime")

Deporting someone, even if you feel it's unjustified, is a far cry from a War
Crime.

That's the cogent point. The danger in an officer choosing to enforce the law
as he or she sees fit is so great that they aren't excused in doing so unless
the act is an atrocity. Because once an officer is selectively enforcing the
law they actually become the one making the law.

Since officers of the law aren't elected that's unacceptable.

~~~
kragen
No, you are personally responsible for your actions even when they aren't "the
most heinous of acts". Being sworn to uphold an unjust law means that you have
no good alternatives available to you: you can break your word (and perhaps
lose your income) or you can perpetrate injustice. In that situation you must
choose which is the greater wrong.

But the unjust law doesn't need to rise to the level of genocide or war crime
before it becomes a greater wrong than breaking your word. I think murdering a
single innocent person is worse than breaking your word, for example. How many
unjustified deportations does it take? I don't know.

------
sunchild
"...describe the use of informants to infiltrate various gangs, cartels,
motorcycle clubs, Nazi groups, and protest movements."

FWIW, this probably means some people are going to die.

~~~
redthrowaway
Until somebody shows me the names and covers of undercover agents, this means
"acknowledging the fact that there are undercover agents".

~~~
sunchild
I never said the informants would be killed. If a gang reads that they've got
an informant in their midst, they'll find someone and punish them – right or
wrong. I'm not saying LulzSec is wrong to publish it; I'm just pointing out
that it won't be lulz for those particular people who catch the short end of
that particular stick.

~~~
furyg3
So we've got a situation where a) someone has joined a gang where the morals
permit killing people, b) their leadership (rightly or wrongly) becomes
paranoid for whatever reason, and c) they accidentally kill a one or more of
their own gang members thinking they are informants.

So... that's clearly murder and those who committed it should be brought
before the legal system... but it's not exactly the most tragic thing I can
conceive of.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its often called a 'public service' killing.

------
Houston
To those who actually downloaded the torrent:

Did any of you happen to watch the 4-second-long video clip of what appears to
be 4 men being gunned down by helicopter? Any theories on why it's there?

~~~
woodall
Old video from Iraq of a gunship returning fire. These are passed along A LOT
from police office to office. Nothing news breaking.

~~~
Houston
Just seems kind of tasteless, I guess.

~~~
woodall
I agree. Same could be said about passing on pictures of over weight people at
Wal-Mart or ugly people with memes typed on them. Different strokes for
different folks.

~~~
Houston
While I understand what you're saying, I think the professional setting in
which that material is being passed around warrants a discussion on whether or
not it should be passed around at all.

I might be making a mountain out of a molehill, but I can't help the fact it
irked me that a video clip that shows the death of 4 men - most likely passed
around as something "cool" and something to be glorified - is being passed
around by law enforcement.

~~~
mattdeboard
Lots of cops are former Marines, soldiers, etc. Im guessing you've never hung
around with guys like this? I was a Marine for ten years; stuff like this gets
shared and no one's giggling about it. You are definitely making a mountain
out of a molehill. I say that based on personal experience.

~~~
Houston
What's the point in sharing it in this setting?

~~~
madmanslitany
I could speculate on any number of reasons. A large number of my relatives
work in defense contracting and you see the same videos passed around there as
well. I admit that I feel slightly unnerved by the videos sometimes, but if
you're an engineer working on gunships or a former soldier for whom this was a
part of daily life for a while, I don't think there's anything really
blameworthy in finding videos from the war interesting on some level.

------
JonnieCache
I hope lulzsec enjoy communal dining and sleeping with the lights on.

------
armored
Based on the type of documents released and the fact that they only released a
few email accounts & passwords you can tell that this was not a very
sophisticated attack. Probably a brute force attack against the mail server,
or passwords gleaned from individual officers rooted home computers.

~~~
haakon
That only makes it worse; most organization would succumb to a sophisticated
attack, but a police dept. should be resistant against simple attacks at
least.

------
natural219
password: 12345

I knew there'd be at least one.

~~~
brs
In fact, all the passwords included seem pretty weak. As the group tweeted a
few days ago, "I argue that the simplest hack embarrasses the target more and
thus wins"

------
scythe
So... do you think it's possible LulzSec is based in China or Russia? That's
the only way I can imagine them doing this that doesn't involve being
clinically insane.

~~~
JonnieCache
Being teenagers.

------
blhack
Is anyone else seeing pirate bay sans any CSS? Is somebody counter-attacking
TPB?

~~~
Skalman
<http://static.thepiratebay.org> seems to be down for me too, thus eliminating
all/most CSS, JS and images. I've got no clue whether it's an attack or not.

------
beedogs
Anything that embarrasses Joe Arapio, in any way at all, is good news to me.

~~~
blhack
Arizona DPS and the Maricopa Country Sheriff's Office are two completely
separate departments that basically don't interact with one another.

It would be like targeting hacker news because reddit made you mad.

~~~
astrodust
Or invading another country because...oh wait, that happened.

------
vailripper
It's only a matter of time until the government starts reigning in the
internet even more than they already have - and we have idiots like LulzSec to
largely thank for it.

~~~
jordan0day
I don't know... I believe a government (or corporate) reigned-in internet was
on its way already. LulzSec may be accelerating that process, but it's
completely naive to think that it wasn't coming anyway.

------
BasDirks
Other than the comments accompanying the recent defacing of SS's blog, has the
underground spoken out yet on lulzsec?

------
tpr1m
Forced transparency in government... thanks LulzSec!

------
tlear
This one makes me think they are most likely a chinese or russian group, I do
not think anyone that FBI has decent chance of getting would be this dumb

------
sigzero
Showing yet again just how "stupid" they are...

~~~
gitarr
Yes, just "script kiddies" with automated tools.

------
jvandenbroeck
Let's hope they catch them soon.

~~~
abbasmehdi
Catch whom? The smokescreen creators or those exposing them?

~~~
watty
He's referring to the kids cracking anything and everything for the "lulz".
There is no greater good and it's far from funny. If caught they will be
behind bars for a very long time.

~~~
ineedtosleep
Specifically with this attack, I don't think they're doing for lulz anymore.

------
crizCraig
Poll: Do you agree with LulzSec's tactics?
[http://www.wepolls.com/r/848734/Do-you-agree-with-the-
tactic...](http://www.wepolls.com/r/848734/Do-you-agree-with-the-tactics-of-
the-hacker-group-LulzSec-in-releasing-Arizona-Law-Enforcement-private-
documents-in-opposition-of-SB1070)

~~~
Zadoc
As long as no one gets hurt.

------
racketeer
wikileaks is gonna be jealous

------
moondistance
I wish you hadn't linked to a file containing passwords and other personal
information - I was not expecting that and would not have opened it if I had
known.

