4 ms·

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 d

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 15y ago
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.
- daeken 15y ago
  I'm not entirely sure that accepting "If the cops acted within the law, then what are they afraid of?" and fighting "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you want it kept private?" are mutually exclusive, for the same reason that many believes Wikileaks is in the right: these aren't private organizations, these are public workers on the people's dime. Secrecy in government and privacy for citizens are two completely different things. 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.
- abbasmehdi 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      The person you responded to (me) clearly stated that personal information should have not been released.
      - sukuriant 15y ago
        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 15y ago
        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 15y ago
        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]
- esrauch 15y ago
  I can see where you are coming from (this release included some private information about ongoing cases and families), but in generally I would prefer to err on the side of transparency in government over privacy. 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.

sukuriant 15y ago

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.

daeken 15y ago
I'm not entirely sure that accepting "If the cops acted within the law, then what are they afraid of?" and fighting "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you want it kept private?" are mutually exclusive, for the same reason that many believes Wikileaks is in the right: these aren't private organizations, these are public workers on the people's dime. Secrecy in government and privacy for citizens are two completely different things. 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.
abbasmehdi 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    The person you responded to (me) clearly stated that personal information should have not been released.
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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 15y ago
        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]
esrauch 15y ago
I can see where you are coming from (this release included some private information about ongoing cases and families), but in generally I would prefer to err on the side of transparency in government over privacy. 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.