3 ms·

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]
      • abbasmehdi 15y ago
        I don't think they've figured out what their job is. I tend to favor people over authorities because I've seen what happens when public servants become "we know what's good for you" rulers.