• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hopefully they catch these hacker scumbags and toss them in prison.


Hackers post cops' personal data to avenge Occupy movement - Washington Times
Computer hackers are avenging the Occupy movement by exposing the personal information of police officers who evicted protesters and threatening family-values advocates who led a boycott of an American Muslim television show.
In three Internet postings last week, hackers from the loose online coalition called Anonymous published the email and physical addresses, phone numbers and, in some cases, salary details of thousands of law enforcement officers all over the country.
The hackers said they were retaliating for police violence during evictions of Occupy protest camps in cities around the country, but law enforcement advocates slammed the disclosures as dangerous.
“I hope the individuals behind these cyberattacks understand the consequences of what they are doing,” said John Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “There are very dangerous criminals out there who might seek retribution” against any of these police officers.
Another hacker calling himself ihazcAnNONz struck the website of the Florida Family Association. The group opposes gay marriage and has promoted a successful but highly controversial boycott of advertisers on the reality TV show “All-American Muslim.”
 
I take issue with them posting the home addresses of police officers. It only takes one crazy asswipe to get one of those addresses and make a stupid decision and all of a sudden we have capital murder charges...or a dead asswipe. It puts the officer, their families, and the idiots at risk...all for what? A "aha, gotcha" moment? To "stick it to the man"?

I don't condone every action the police take, whether it's related to OWS or day-to-day duties. Hell, I cannot stand most of the Arlington cops I've had the displeasure of interacting with while I lived there. But I take issue with people who (largely) work to do good in a high risk situation being even more unsafe because some arrogant, pussified assholes decided to post their private home addresses on the internet. In the process of "punishing the bad cops" involved in OWS, these Anonymous idiots are also risking the lives of cops who might not have had anything to do with the "horrific police action" they're trying to retaliate against.

And let's not forget that old addage: Two wrongs do not make a right.

There are means of handling an issue in which the behavior of a police officer is untoward. This is not an appropriate or responsible means of handling said behavior.
 
Ugh. Just because you may disagree with how the police handled the OWS movement doesn't give you the right to post their information like this. Chances are these cops dealt with some dangerous people and now their families could be put at risk.
 
The OWS evictions are not the only things these officers have done. This puts them and their families in uneccessary danger.

If caught, these people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
 
Hopefully they catch these hacker scumbags and toss them in prison.

For posting addresses? Is that even illegal? Government does well more than that to us for their own agencies. Think of the time and effort put forth for data mining and databasing our information. If anything, they should have included personal addresses to all politicians as well. They're well more at fault than the police.
 
I don't think we should measure this action on the danger level the release of the information causes. That brings about the idea that information that is not dangerous to release is fine to share and in the process ignores the issue about keeping private information private.
 
I don't think we should measure this action on the danger level the release of the information causes. That brings about the idea that information that is not dangerous to release is fine to share and in the process ignores the issue about keeping private information private.

We don't keep private information private. The government can get any of it. They can take phone records without warrant, they can watch us to their leisure, they apparently no longer need warrants for phone taps and such, no warrants for putting GPS on your car because it was outside. I would agree IF the government didn't take so much time and effort to collect all of OUR data. It's only fair that we have all of THEIR data in return.
 
This is why the anonymity of speech should also be protected.
 
We don't keep private information private. The government can get any of it. They can take phone records without warrant, they can watch us to their leisure, they apparently no longer need warrants for phone taps and such, no warrants for putting GPS on your car because it was outside. I would agree IF the government didn't take so much time and effort to collect all of OUR data. It's only fair that we have all of THEIR data in return.

I agree that now that they violated the principle its only fair we get to return the favor. The government bitching about it is hypocrisy at its finest.
 
Last edited:
Isn't their info a matter of public record anyway? Why should hackers have to crack a database to find out the names of public servants, and their badge numbers?

I don't think they did anything wrong.
 
About a year and a half ago in Arlington we had a situation in which an off-duty Houston cop shot and killed a young man who appeared to be going for a weapon. The boy had been caught in the act of doing something and refused to respond to the cop's requests. When the young man turned and stuck his hand in the front of his jeans the cop pulled his concealed weapon and shot.

The cop was hispanic, the kid was black. When Arlington PD decided not to press charges based on the evidence available, a large group of New Black Panthers and others supporting their claims began to protest APD, calling them racist and saying that they would have pressed charges if a white boy had been killed.

Over the next month or so, APD cops were harrassed daily. Protests were held at the city jail house and cops were threatened and assaulted trying to enter and leave the facility. The mayor and police chief thought that retaliation through the law (i.e. arresting and charging those who threatened or assaulted an officer) would only increase tensions, so they told their officers not to respond to the attacks. Despite the lack of action, tensions continued to rise. Officers were followed home from their assigned station houses, angry citizens showed up at the homes of officers making threats. Cops began to express concern about pulling over black drivers or confronting black citizens who were observed in the act of suspicious or illegal behavior. Cops began hiding their uniforms and dressing only at the station house. Some of them stopped staying in their own houses. It took almost a year for the tensions to subside.

Now, perhaps if the police chief and mayor had allowed for the arrest of citizens making threats/causing injury, a lot of those issues could have been avoided. But the fact remains that cops who had nothing at all to do with a city DA decision based on a shooting that didn't involve city cops were put at risk, threatened, and made to feel unsafe in the process of doing their jobs (and even when off duty). There was absolutely no justification for the actions of those citizens, just as Anonymous has no justification for "outing" the private homes of police officers in OWS cities. The potential consequences are more important than some arbitrary vendetta against governmental invasion of privacy, IMO.
 
Cops are part of the government and valid target if you are going after the government. Particularly because they are the front line arm of the government in exercising its force over the People. Cops know this before they take the job.
 
Cops are part of the government and valid target if you are going after the government. Particularly because they are the front line arm of the government in exercising its force over the People. Cops know this before they take the job.

...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.
 
Cops are part of the government and valid target if you are going after the government. Particularly because they are the front line arm of the government in exercising its force over the People. Cops know this before they take the job.

That maybe true, but if the cops have kids, those kids didn't sign up for that. Posting this stuff could put them at risk.
 
...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.

Certainly would depend on the situation. In a general revolt, yes. In fact, you're most certainly going to want to do that near the beginning if you're really looking to revolt. Essentially, to figure if it's "OK" or not (by whatever metric I guess you want to label as "OK"), you have to look at the individual circumstances.
 
That maybe true, but if the cops have kids, those kids didn't sign up for that. Posting this stuff could put them at risk.

If the cops are public authorities and we have access to their private info anyway, then the cops knew this when they signed up. So did politicians.

Maybe it's their responsibility to get better home security, instead of more privacy for authority?

What makes you think home invasions will happen? I would just send them a letter.
 
Certainly would depend on the situation. In a general revolt, yes. In fact, you're most certainly going to want to do that near the beginning if you're really looking to revolt. Essentially, to figure if it's "OK" or not (by whatever metric I guess you want to label as "OK"), you have to look at the individual circumstances.

....the events of OWS in no way justify putting the lives of officers and their families at risk in some form of "revolt". At this stage, a revolt is an idealistic, idiotic idea. Sometimes I really think you enjoy the crazy.
 
That maybe true, but if the cops have kids, those kids didn't sign up for that. Posting this stuff could put them at risk.

True, but in general if you're looking to target government, then government officials and buildings become valid. Timothy McVeigh got a bunch of kids because the government put a daycare in one of its government buildings. Was it good? Well actually that whole event wasn't good or defensibly; I'm not saying he was right here. Cops have kids, posting this could jeopardize them if people were actually taking the information for violent means; but that hasn't seemed to be the case yet, it's mostly limited to harassment.

But how come there is so much outrage on this? Government itself does this to us all the time, and does use the information for violence and to violate our rights. People defend it. But if it's against the government, all of a sudden we should be outraged? Sorry, I am unsympathetic. Perhaps if the government treated us better, I would be more sympathetic to their plight; but they don't so I am not. They will reap what the sow, and this is just the start of that.
 
Ah, the old question again..

The cops aren't coming to my house and threatening me because I called Officer Joe a pig for harrassing me at 3am for "driving without a front plate". But posting the home addresses of cops online and linking them to OWS (whether they were their or not) gives free reign for the crazies (which obviously exist, based on this thread) to do just that...go to their houses and threaten them because of the actions of their "brethren".

You can wax poetic about what the state does vs. what we do, but the intention here is to allow harm/harrassment to befall police officers, whether they did anything "wrong" or not.

Having my private address on file is not the same as posting it publically online with a "this citizen done screwed up" tag, imploring people to come after me.
 
Having my private address on file is not the same as posting it publically online with a "this citizen done screwed up" tag, imploring people to come after me.

That you know of. And if you're good enough and obey your master well enough, it likely will never become a visible problem to you. However, that's not true for everyone. Before the last RNC convention, the pre-arrested people they thought would be trouble makers. Just because you may not have seen negative repercussions does not mean that negative repercussions do not exist. They certainly do.
 
True, but in general if you're looking to target government, then government officials and buildings become valid. Timothy McVeigh got a bunch of kids because the government put a daycare in one of its government buildings. Was it good? Well actually that whole event wasn't good or defensibly; I'm not saying he was right here. Cops have kids, posting this could jeopardize them if people were actually taking the information for violent means; but that hasn't seemed to be the case yet, it's mostly limited to harassment.

Even though I think it would be the wrong thing attacking the cops while on duty, I do understand your point that they put themselves in that danger while on duty. Just to me, posting their home information goes beyond a reasonable response.

But how come there is so much outrage on this? Government itself does this to us all the time, and does use the information for violence and to violate our rights. People defend it. But if it's against the government, all of a sudden we should be outraged? Sorry, I am unsympathetic. Perhaps if the government treated us better, I would be more sympathetic to their plight; but they don't so I am not. They will reap what the sow, and this is just the start of that.

I agree that the government has too much information on us, but people, generally, don't like public information published of the people that are suppose to protect us.
 
The cops aren't coming to my house and threatening me because I called Officer Joe a pig for harrassing me at 3am for "driving without a front plate". But posting the home addresses of cops online and linking them to OWS (whether they were their or not) gives free reign for the crazies (which obviously exist, based on this thread) to do just that...go to their houses and threaten them because of the actions of their "brethren".

You can wax poetic about what the state does vs. what we do, but the intention here is to allow harm/harrassment to befall police officers, whether they did anything "wrong" or not.

Having my private address on file is not the same as posting it publically online with a "this citizen done screwed up" tag, imploring people to come after me.

It doesn't matter. The question and its logic behind it rings true.

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

Why does the government have the authority to violate our privacy but we do not have the right to violate theirs? The results of such actions are secondary. Still, there is no warrant behind the idea they do not wish harm on us with their actions as of late. If they wish to partake in such actions, they should expect and accept it in return.
 
For posting addresses? Is that even illegal? Government does well more than that to us for their own agencies. Think of the time and effort put forth for data mining and databasing our information. If anything, they should have included personal addresses to all politicians as well. They're well more at fault than the police.

I guess you are right.Those that spy on the people should not have any of their personal information guarded.
 
I agree that the government has too much information on us, but people, generally, don't like public information published of the people that are suppose to protect us.

While I certainly understand that, the government is not here to protect us. And that's something I believe people need to relearn pronto.
 
...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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom