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.
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.
If the hackers are in Europe and are caught, they'll end up in the US justice system, for example see Gary McKinnon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
"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:
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.
30 seconds googling...
Hmm... I could go on.
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.
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.
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.
You begrudge someone the desire to not accidentally get caught up in something they could land in prison for?
And if they get caught in western europe they may as well have been caught in the US because of the strong extradition treaties in place.
Because the 39,000+ people already killed due to the laws the Arizona police are enforcing don't count.
Your comment seems to imply that the police are responsible for causing the Mexican drug war, but I believe that if the Arizona police were to resign en masse and move to other states, it would probably make the situation worse, not better; the drug cartels would expand to fill the power vacuum, and they are less accountable than the police.
Honestly, having the mexican drug violence spill over into the border states is probably the best thing that could ever happen to this country.
I understand your point, but would tend to disagree until AZ gets a new governor. I vainly hope that the international drug war is ended in the next decade.
The insane margins are not due to the fact that drugs are expensive to make, but that the product is illegal.
Prohibitions should taught us something. What we have now is Al Capone, but on a global scale.
Speaking of adding energy to systems -- drug laws put energy... er money... into the illegal drug system. Clearly, simply making everything available from your supermarket impulse buying rack is going too far, but simply regulating drugs the way cigarettes and alcohol (including taxing them) seems like a happy medium. I know that folks smuggle cigarettes into New York to avoid taxes, but the prison system isn't overrun with them and they aren't overthrowing central-american governments.
This is NOT script kiddies going at it, this is bio-stux....
See the following:
Watch these in this order:
http://vimeo.com/25118844 - brief overview great animation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS01Hmjv1pQ - ted talk on stux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOwMW6agpTI&feature=youtu.... detailed analysis of stuxnet
the last one is long and Bruce appears to be an arrogant prick, but it is clear - cyber war has been here for a while.
As I have mentioned, cyber war is here - and the legislation is lacking in its awareness - but becuase we have incompetant douches in charge of tech legislation, we will have physical war used as a metaphor to cyber warfare and thus have draconian influences from physical imprisonment being applied to digital situations.
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)
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.
If you leave your phone on the other side of the house a lot, just leave your keys with it.
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.
In this case, they feel justified to 'shoot' the enemy soldiers even if they didn't individually start the war.
While this law is all about exploiting racist tendencies in the electorate, at bottom it's a money-grab by the prison lobby.
If the police are protected under a clause of "just following orders", then the home addresses shouldn't be shown. Neither should individual policemen be called out. Rather the system is at fault, and the law makers behind it.
If the police are morally at fault, then this extends past their work-life sphere. If you kill and abuse at work and that is considered immoral, you are not simply allowed to go home and claim sanctuary.
In the view of Lulzsec, there are two sides---we the people, and they the State. Revealing the information of the officers to the people is analogous to the FBI keeping records of the names and known addresses of who they consider criminals.
The documented racial profiling, however, is could be properly termed 'abusive'.
The police code of never admitting an officer committed a crime is itself a crime, and one of the worst.
2) WL still isn't accepting submissions until DDB hands back their database.
That said, the statement, however, may not be completely relevant to this particular story.
> one of the means employed by tyrannical states
On the other hand, we're starting to see the opposite happen. People in positions of power who abuse their authority (e.g., police) are starting to be targeted by regular people whose lives they interfere with.
Have a Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/MySpace/whatever account? Your personal information, friends, family, work history, etc. are available to the people you bully. Your actions have social consequences whether they're totally legal or not.
"I'm just doing my job" doesn't cut it when your job affects other people in a negative way.
AZ is the state where a guy died doing his job in a photo radar vehicle. He was shot by a guy who felt the man in the vehicle was "the government". These families and homes are now targets.
Just because something is legal does not make it ethical.
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).
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.
That said, it seems to me (just from what I've read here, mind you) that there is people's private data in here, not just "police business data", for lack of a better term. Of course, that's to be expected with Lulzsec, considering their previous releases. If that's the case, then the line is certainly blurrier with respect to this data, but I don't believe that detracts from my point.
It's not entirely clear to me what exactly is in the contents of the leak (I'm didn't look at the leak myself) but it seems likely that the private information here is unlikely to be abused in any meaningful way; if that isn't the case then I really hope you can correct my misconception. On the other hand, the other information that has been leaked (not private information) seems to be fundamental information about the actions and decisions of our police force that is fundamental knowledge to anyone living in Arizona.
Again, I haven't looked at the document personally (I don't live anywhere near Arizona, so I don't have much say nor affected by their local politics) but it seems to me that if some of the documents that supposedly helped toppled middle eastern dictatorships included a few phone numbers or addresses that people wouldn't exactly be jumping on it as an immoral release.
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]
They did take the site offline; hopefully for a fix.
When a wreck happens because a particular intersection was missing stop signs, would you consider that one guy negligent?
Negligence is merely falling below the standard of the reasonably competent sign poster/programmer/doctor/ etc.
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.
exts = [".txt",".doc",".docx",".xls",".xlsx",".ppt",".pptx"]
startpath = os.environ['HOMEDRIVE']
def find(none, directory, filenames):
for file in filenames:
for ext in exts:
fullfile = os.path.join(directory,file)
pass # access denied
Of course you can always py2exe this, write it in C/C++ (/C#). Hacking is easy, it just takes time and dedication.
That's exactly what I did! You can do the same through cmd, but most machines do not have permissions for that.
I hope the kind of violent rhetoric they're spewing doesn't end up provoking similar violence this time around.
(This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")
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.
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.
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.
Eichmann was responsible for over-seeing the trains that sent Jews to concentration camps. He tried, to no avail, to employ the "just following orders" defense. If anyone is interested, definitely check out Hannah's book.
If they cannot square their actions with their morals, then they are in the wrong job.
Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.
Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.
Not all cops are crooked - but the Blue Code of Silence puts the culpability for the crooked cops' crimes squarely on the police force as a whole. If the police forces of the US even showed some inclination of willingness to police the actions of their own, then we wouldn't have most of these problems.
Here in Seattle we've had an unprovoked shooting of a homeless man, to which the officer involved was allowed to resign gracefully, despite all parties agreeing that the was no provocation nor justification. Another officer body-slammed an innocent man (without warning, provocation, or identifying himself) into a wall so hard he is now in a vegetative state. This man remains on the force. Similarly, another officer was caught on store surveillance taking his rage out on a teenager in a convenience store, stomping on his face, after a failed drug bust next door. That officer remains on the force also.
Not all cops do these things, but they are all guilty of covering up these acts and ensuring that, even if they do get out to the public, that no real consequences occur for the officers involved.
I will have zero trust for any police force until they have proven their ability and willingness to police themselves.
> "Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite"
Huh, could've sworn I typed in "news.ycombinator.com" not "reddit.com/r/mensrights"
However if most of them are crooked, it is pretty safe to informally say "screw them all" (as opposed to linking to scientific studies and then proclaiming that "screw 59.45% of them" or something like that).
And btw, those that are engaged in cover-up of abuses of fellow cops are crooked just the ones engaging in abuse.
I realize most of Arizona isn't that bad, but the police are still ther to serve and protect. can't we just send a bunch of taquitos and a bag of weed to whoever wrote up that bill or something?
Ever been to court when it was your word against a police officer? Who would you imagine the court, jury or your peers will believe?
Speaking as a supporter of democracy in the Arizonan context.
Noble isn't the word I would use by a longshot..in fact I think lulzsec is pretty stupid. but I'm also not going to go out of my way to defend a corrupt institution that happens to have the law on their side
Separately, I personally would have redacted some of that data.
FWIW, this probably means some people are going to die.
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.
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  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 . 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.
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?
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.
The second link doesn't really have references that are credible.
I'll repeat: anything reliable?
There are also footnotes here sourcing all of the claims to major newspapers:
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:
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.
This makes some sense because, as they say, and I'm paraphrasing here, you can paint shit gold but it's still the same shit. If a century of playing by their rules has brought us no closer to resolving the corruption then its not far-fetched to say that the playing field is skewed by it's very nature.
Disclaimer: I don't advocate this approach but I agree with the general assessment of the situation. Personally, I think that it would be more effective to go Gandhi on their asses.
I understand how some people are frustrated by what seems like an unchangeable system (not saying that you are, just an example) when in fact it is quite changeable. If you have the time and energy to learn how to 'politic' changing the system becomes a question of scale much like if you understand how compilers are built changing GCC becomes a question of scale. New system call interface for an embedded architecture? Pretty straight forward. Changing operator precedence and making integers 37 bits long? A harder thing (still doable, its just code, but the scale is larger because you touch more of the code in the compiler).
So to put your comment in 'tech' terms and continuing my gcc analogy, you posit that the goal isn't to change the compiler since that is too hard, rather delete every copy of the source code everywhere and every executable so that folks will have write a new gcc/binutils from scratch. That way the new compiler and binutils will be better than what we have today.
What we're seeing is the consequence of letting docs you want to keep a secret out. Lulz is just fishing and reporting what they caught.
To the people who want to revoke more of our liberties for what is basically lousy security: I wish you good luck.
And Joe Sixpack will gladly turn over any liberties he has.
Just like with TSA. Joe Sixpack obviously couldn't care less. He doesn't care that it is costing him insane amounts of money, he doesn't care that security doesn't really work. He doesn't care about body scanners. Hell I bet that if TSA went and mandated that a random passengers need provide anal relief to TSA agents - JSP would not really care. Because he is a true patriot(tm).
All you need to do is to perform a Jedi mind trick: "You feel safer now."
How many terrorist attacks on airplanes have there been since 9/11? Are measures getting stricter or looser?
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?
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.
I knew there'd be at least one.
I wouldn't doubt that there is a certain amount of "Oh hi America you think you run the world - well you're no different than us, here's why.."
If it gives my opinion any justification, I am American and I do live in Europe.
It would be like targeting hacker news because reddit made you mad.
Now that they are publishing all these peoples information, law enforcers, encouraging other people to do the some in other countries,.. they are going to far. That's not "lulz" anymore.