3 ms·

I never said the informants would be killed. If a gang reads that they've got an informant in their midst, they'll find someone and punish them – right or wron

I never said the informants would be killed. If a gang reads that they've got an informant in their midst, they'll find someone and punish them – right or wrong. I'm not saying LulzSec is wrong to publish it; I'm just pointing out that it won't be lulz for those particular people who catch the short end of that particular stick.

redthrowaway 15y ago
I haven't seen the document yet, but unless they went any more specific than, "we have informants in xyz gangs" then there's no danger. The gangs know there's informants in them, and have been for years.
- daeken 15y ago
  So, it's known that gangs structure things such that any one member knows only a subset of the plans, misinformation is spread to separate parts of the organization so that leaks can be identified, etc. But this seems like it'd make communication overhead pretty significant. Does anyone have any resources on how gangs are actually structured, how well their communication works, etc? This seems pretty interesting to me, as it may have applications for structuring legitimate organizations/groups.
  - kragen 15y ago
    Assange's objective with WikiLeaks was exactly to impose this communication overhead on organizations like the Arizona Department of Public Safety. It will be interesting to see what happens. Assange argued that this would be good for society as a whole. I hope he turns out to be right about that.
furyg3 15y ago
So we've got a situation where a) someone has joined a gang where the morals permit killing people, b) their leadership (rightly or wrongly) becomes paranoid for whatever reason, and c) they accidentally kill a one or more of their own gang members thinking they are informants. 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.
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  Its often called a 'public service' killing.

redthrowaway 15y ago

I haven't seen the document yet, but unless they went any more specific than, "we have informants in xyz gangs" then there's no danger. The gangs know there's informants in them, and have been for years.

daeken 15y ago
So, it's known that gangs structure things such that any one member knows only a subset of the plans, misinformation is spread to separate parts of the organization so that leaks can be identified, etc. But this seems like it'd make communication overhead pretty significant. Does anyone have any resources on how gangs are actually structured, how well their communication works, etc? This seems pretty interesting to me, as it may have applications for structuring legitimate organizations/groups.
- kragen 15y ago
  Assange's objective with WikiLeaks was exactly to impose this communication overhead on organizations like the Arizona Department of Public Safety. It will be interesting to see what happens. Assange argued that this would be good for society as a whole. I hope he turns out to be right about that.

furyg3 15y ago

So we've got a situation where a) someone has joined a gang where the morals permit killing people, b) their leadership (rightly or wrongly) becomes paranoid for whatever reason, and c) they accidentally kill a one or more of their own gang members thinking they are informants. 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.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
Its often called a 'public service' killing.