• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hackers post cops’ personal data to avenge Occupy movement

No one is going to a Cop's house to harass them. Phone calls and letters maybe, but those can be dealt with easily enough. If a released criminal wanted to do something to a Cop and his family while they were at home he wouldn't need Anonymous to get the address.

This is just a message meant to tell the Cops that what they do is not in secret.
 
...so it's completely okay with you to go after a police officer in their home, while they're off duty, because you disagree with how they've done their job? That's basically what you're saying here.

If the government does not respect your privacy and personal info then why should the same courtesy be extended to the government?
 
Ikari is a hard core anti-government type, who'd be the first one to dial 911 if he heard his bushes rustle in the dead of night.

He isn't a liberal.So if he heard a rustle in the bushes then only thing he would call the cops for is a dead intruder in the bushes.
 
If the government does not respect your privacy and personal info then why should the same courtesy be extended to the government?

A cop isn't "the government." If he did his job poorly, there is a right and a wrong way to handle it.
 
He isn't a liberal.So if he heard a rustle in the bushes then only thing he would call the cops for is a dead intruder in the bushes.

So you're armed at all times, huh James? Or are you a liberal?
 
A cop isn't "the government." If he did his job poorly, there is a right and a wrong way to handle it.

People that carry out the law are indeed government.
 
People that carry out the law are indeed government.

Okay. A cop isn't the person who presented, drafted, sponsored, voted, or signed legislation into effect. He enforces the laws that the representives we elected voted into existence. He isn't the one who decided we should have the Patriot Act or any other "invasion of privacy" law that currently exists. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most cops don't go into the job thinking they get to defend the government's invasion into our privacy.

This semantics game is ridiculous. You're arguing for the punishment of cops because you don't like what your elected officials did.
 
Okay. A cop isn't the person who presented, drafted, sponsored, voted, or signed legislation into effect. He enforces the laws that the representives we elected voted into existence. He isn't the one who decided we should have the Patriot Act or any other "invasion of privacy" law that currently exists. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most cops don't go into the job thinking they get to defend the government's invasion into our privacy.

This semantics game is ridiculous. You're arguing for the punishment of cops because you don't like what your elected officials did.

It isn't semantics. They carry out the law without protest that violates the privacy of individuals. They are just as guilty as the party that voted it into existence.
 
It isn't semantics. They carry out the law without protest that violates the privacy of individuals. They are just as guilty as the party that voted it into existence.

Then we're guilty for voting for the people that voted for the bill, based on your logic.

At the end of the day, this puts the lives of police officers at risk. Most police officers chose that profession because they want to do good. Most police officers are a helpful force in their communities. Putting them at risk over some stupid concept of "an eye for an eye" is...bitter and stupid, honestly.
 
Then we're guilty for voting for the people that voted for the bill, based on your logic.

Many people are indeed. I however can say without question I didn't vote for one of those assholes that voted yes.

At the end of the day, this puts the lives of police officers at risk. Most police officers chose that profession because they want to do good. Most police officers are a helpful force in their communities. Putting them at risk over some stupid concept of "an eye for an eye" is...bitter and stupid, honestly.

It is not eye for an eye. It is this principle that I told you about before...

How is it that the law permits the state to lawfully engage in actions which, if undertaken by individuals, would land them in jail?

If it is lawful for them to violate our privacy we should have lawful authority to violate theirs. It is an argument of equality, not an argument of revenge. If they want their rights I expect them to maintain the importance of such a thing.

Let me say this though, if you vote for those people again, you have offered yourself up in compliance with the actions taken by those individuals. It is up to you to live with it, not I and I do think you are just as guilty for doing it.
 
Last edited:
Then we're guilty for voting for the people that voted for the bill, based on your logic.

At the end of the day, this puts the lives of police officers at risk. Most police officers chose that profession because they want to do good. Most police officers are a helpful force in their communities. Putting them at risk over some stupid concept of "an eye for an eye" is...bitter and stupid, honestly.

It doesn't put anyone's life at risk. If someone commits a violent action, they go to jail, that includes if it's against police or their families. For all we know people will just write angry letters to those cops, and there's nothing legal stopping them from doing so. A cop's right to privacy is no less or more than mine. Their addresses are public record, as are their names and badge numbers.

And anyway, some cops behaved abhorrently at the OWS protests. If they don't want to receive angry letters then maybe they should think about their ethics. You can't get away with jack booting people in the information age.

If the government can monitor me, then I can monitor them. All is fair in love and war. :shrug:
 
People that carry out the law are indeed government.

They aren't government at home. Lame excuse for making it personal.
 
It doesn't put anyone's life at risk. If someone commits a violent action, they go to jail, that includes if it's against police or their families. For all we know people will just write angry letters to those cops, and there's nothing legal stopping them from doing so. A cop's right to privacy is no less or more than mine. Their addresses are public record, as are their names and badge numbers.

What's your real name and address? Post it here please. I want to send you an angry letter.
 
They aren't government at home. Lame excuse for making it personal.

Is the politician government at home? No. Are they still a Representative of government with an importance to the role and should be treated as such? Yes. Is the same true for cops? Yes.
 
A cop isn't "the government." If he did his job poorly, there is a right and a wrong way to handle it.

cops are government entities.
 
What's your real name and address? Post it here please. I want to send you an angry letter.

Talk about lame attempts to make it personal. She is a private citizen of this country not involved in law or government at all.
 
Okay. A cop isn't the person who presented, drafted, sponsored, voted, or signed legislation into effect. He enforces the laws that the representives we elected voted into existence. He isn't the one who decided we should have the Patriot Act or any other "invasion of privacy" law that currently exists. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most cops don't go into the job thinking they get to defend the government's invasion into our privacy.

This semantics game is ridiculous.

A cop is someone who is willing to enforce the laws that the people in office drafted, sponsored, voted, or signed legislation into effect and a cop is someone who willingly chooses to enforce the patriot act.


You're arguing for the punishment of cops because you don't like what your elected officials did.

If it is not punishment for the government to spy on you and violate your privacy then it is not punishment for private citizens to post the names and addresses of police officers.
 
Talk about lame attempts to make it personal.

Exactly! You get it!

She is a private citizen of this country not involved in law or government at all.

But my point is made.

Everyone has the right to a private life, even those involved in governing. If someone has a problem with how this cop does his job, there's a right way and a wrong way to handle it.
 
Back
Top Bottom