4 ms·

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

mikemoka 15y ago
I can't judge the whole thing (but it doesn't seem for the lulz), this action anyway has been certainly uncool, I guess they were lucky that their children weren't on file, otherwise they would have been probably involved too.
lallysingh 15y ago
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.
- krashidov 15y ago
  Lulzsec has had a history of defending WL (PBS hack for Bradley Manning), but I don't know if they are willing to give them this data as it might shine the spotlight away from Lulzsec.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  1) They clearly don't care about collateral damage, and 2) WL still isn't accepting submissions until DDB hands back their database.
  - lhnz 15y ago
    DDB? I've not heard of this.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      Daniel Domscheit-Berg. A quick intro to the submission issue can be found here: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-fires-back-at-defector-over-book-claims/ http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-f...
- Sundog 15y ago
  Probably because Wikileaks' owner is a bit of an egomaniacal douche
sliverstorm 15y ago
I think their new goal is to make as many enemies as is possible. It seems like they will not stop until every person on the planet wants them dead.
getsat 15y ago
If you attack someone, you make them a martyr. If you attack their wife and kids, you send a message.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Not a chance, on either count. Martyrs are not made simply by being attacked, and attacking wives and kids does nothing so romantic as "send a message". It tells the world you play dirty pool, and it makes you enemies- but not the steal-your-lunch-money kind.
- agilo 15y ago
  Though I would never condone such a strategy (nor do I think getsat was stating his beliefs), there is some truth in it. A man is brought to think twice before engaging in any activity when they know that their family's safety is on the line. This has been (and continues to be) one of the means employed by tyrannical states to strike fear in the hearts of dissidents. You may be brave enough to sacrifice yourself, but you'll never revolt if you knew we'd go after your family. That said, the statement, however, may not be completely relevant to this particular story.
  - getsat 15y ago
    You're correct, those aren't my beliefs. Merely an observation. > 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.
    - clintjhill 15y ago
      Let's not forget though - "I'm just doing my job" absolutely applies here. DPS did not create the laws. They enforce them. 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.
true_religion 15y ago
I disagree. 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.
- clintjhill 15y ago
  The morality argument is interesting. However killing and abusing is hyperbole in this context.
  - true_religion 15y ago
    Probably the killing part. Though the police might perpetrate illegal deaths, either through neglect while in custody or 'over enthusiasm' during raids, I don't think that its a systemic abuse. The documented racial profiling, however, is could be properly termed 'abusive'.
    - wnight 15y ago
      There's likely no policy of killing, but there is a policy of covering up inconvenient leaks, arresting photographers, etc, that gets used when there is a killing, or any other crime from drunk-driving to bribery. The police code of never admitting an officer committed a crime is itself a crime, and one of the worst.

I can't judge the whole thing (but it doesn't seem for the lulz), this action anyway has been certainly uncool, I guess they were lucky that their children weren't on file, otherwise they would have been probably involved too.

lallysingh 15y ago

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.

krashidov 15y ago
Lulzsec has had a history of defending WL (PBS hack for Bradley Manning), but I don't know if they are willing to give them this data as it might shine the spotlight away from Lulzsec.
redthrowaway 15y ago
1) They clearly don't care about collateral damage, and 2) WL still isn't accepting submissions until DDB hands back their database.
- lhnz 15y ago
  DDB? I've not heard of this.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Daniel Domscheit-Berg. A quick intro to the submission issue can be found here: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-fires-back-at-defector-over-book-claims/ http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/02/09/wikileaks-f...
Sundog 15y ago
Probably because Wikileaks' owner is a bit of an egomaniacal douche

sliverstorm 15y ago

I think their new goal is to make as many enemies as is possible. It seems like they will not stop until every person on the planet wants them dead.

getsat 15y ago

If you attack someone, you make them a martyr. If you attack their wife and kids, you send a message.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Not a chance, on either count. Martyrs are not made simply by being attacked, and attacking wives and kids does nothing so romantic as "send a message". It tells the world you play dirty pool, and it makes you enemies- but not the steal-your-lunch-money kind.
agilo 15y ago
Though I would never condone such a strategy (nor do I think getsat was stating his beliefs), there is some truth in it. A man is brought to think twice before engaging in any activity when they know that their family's safety is on the line. This has been (and continues to be) one of the means employed by tyrannical states to strike fear in the hearts of dissidents. You may be brave enough to sacrifice yourself, but you'll never revolt if you knew we'd go after your family. That said, the statement, however, may not be completely relevant to this particular story.
- getsat 15y ago
  You're correct, those aren't my beliefs. Merely an observation. > 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.
  - clintjhill 15y ago
    Let's not forget though - "I'm just doing my job" absolutely applies here. DPS did not create the laws. They enforce them. 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.

true_religion 15y ago

I disagree. 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.

clintjhill 15y ago
The morality argument is interesting. However killing and abusing is hyperbole in this context.
- true_religion 15y ago
  Probably the killing part. Though the police might perpetrate illegal deaths, either through neglect while in custody or 'over enthusiasm' during raids, I don't think that its a systemic abuse. The documented racial profiling, however, is could be properly termed 'abusive'.
  - wnight 15y ago
    There's likely no policy of killing, but there is a policy of covering up inconvenient leaks, arresting photographers, etc, that gets used when there is a killing, or any other crime from drunk-driving to bribery. The police code of never admitting an officer committed a crime is itself a crime, and one of the worst.