5 ms·

AnonymousIRC leaks hundreds of docs from Arizona law enforcement (3rd time)

43 points by gasull 15y ago

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> we want a world free from police, prisons and politicians altogether. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
- shii 15y ago
  Somalia has tons of police, prisons, and politicians in every faction state. The TFG, Puntland, Somaliland, and whatever else dipshit Somali govts out there all have some resemblance of law, no matter how poor. Don't spread the glib ignorant idea that Somalia is some sort of anarchist heaven. That just makes you sound like another silly westerner. It's a former state carved into several other competing states with their own separate order.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Oh, I'm aware it's not a heaven. And history seems to prove that any anarchist system eventually turns into a bunch of little competing fiefdoms .
    - randallsquared 15y ago
      Oh, I'm aware it's not a heaven. Or, you know, anarchy. Current lack of a permanent winner does not imply that no one is playing the game. I'm not sure that anarchism can be as stable as government, but I think it's certainly possible. In any case, history doesn't appear to show that there's any system which is stable in the long term -- the Roman Republic didn't remain one. Considering only longevity and stability, monarchy may be the standout government type.
      - almightygod 15y ago
        I'm not sure that anarchism can be as stable as government, but I think it's certainly possible your free to think anything you want, but with no empirical data or any substantial evidence to support your opinion...why share them here?
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        Somalia is ruled by warlords. This is hardly a secret, if you want proof just google it. It is by definition not an anarchy.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        randallsquared 15y ago
        I was replying to the comment about historical evidence by pointing out that we don't have conclusive evidence either way, so it's an open question. There have certainly been some historical areas arguably without government, to various degrees [1], but the longest of them (~330 years) didn't last much longer than the oldest constitutional republic (which I believe is the US) has so far, while other forms have lasted for a thousand years or more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_com...
      - HoLyVieR 15y ago
        I'm not sure that anarchism can be as stable as government I'm not sure you get the original concept concept of anarchy. Anarchy is a society mode where there is no designed leader that has power over everyone and where law is substituted by social standard that people follow (no written rule). It's basically NOT having a government.
        randallsquared 15y ago
        I'm an anarchist myself. However, it seems to me that there are more different possible anarchies than I can enumerate, and quibbling over details seems somewhat premature. :)
    - shii 15y ago
      Right, except Somalia was never an anarchist system since Siad Barre bounced in 91. During the collapse of his regime, all the different tribes left fought to quickly gain control over major cities and regions. The only places I can think of that fit the term anarchist were a few big cities like Xamar and Bosaaso where there was quite literally no rule except by roving tribal gangs with AKs and checkpoints everywhere. Each gang controlled by larger war lords that eventually consolidated their own "-land" with tribal friends and family. Right now I can go to Hergeisa (actually I can't but that's for totally other reasons) and get my passport notarized and stamped by govt officials, go through customs, and get a notarized letter for my travel. Somalia has government in the sense of different states have governments that view themselves as independent from the rest. They collect taxes, have an armed security force, and generally do all the normal things a state would do anywhere else in the world. The only difference is that the only officially recognized govt by the world is the TFG in Mogadishu, which actually has less control and actual governance than your average HOA in Podunk, Kansas. Couple this with high corruption, lack of effective governance in large swaths of the country, constant war for power everywhere, pirates with cameras shining on them on the high seas, complete enmity between the major states, and constant meddling by too many outsiders to count and you have the reason why there is no central government that rules over Somalia proper till now, more than 20 years after Barre's fall.
    - AndyNemmity 15y ago
      Spain is the only place that had a real anarchist system, and that certainly proved nothing of the sort. I guess adding "seems to prove" means you can make up anything you want, and you're protected. A las barricadas!
      - pavel_lishin 15y ago
        Can you point me to some place I can read about it? I don't know much about Spain, so I'm not even sure where to start googling.
        michaelchisari 15y ago
        Run, don't walk, to your nearest bookstore or library and get "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. It's his memoirs of fighting in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM (which weren't exactly anarchists, but libertarian Marxists). Even if you end up completely, 100% in total disagreement with everything the Spanish partisans built, represented and fought for, you will still have read an extraordinary book by an absolutely fantastic writer.
  - gasull 15y ago
    The TFG has really no control over the country, not even in the capital. So Somalia, or at least the TFG, is pretty much an anarchist state (or non-state). On the other hand, Somalia is doing poorly compared to developed nations, but better than a lot of countries with (corrupt) Government and police in Africa. At least in Somalia/TFG they aren't powerful enough to do any harm. E.g. they have the fastest and cheaper cell phone and Internet providers in Africa.
    - idonthack 15y ago
      "anarchist" does not indicate the simple lack of a stable government, it indicates a subscription to one of the many political/social theories/philosophies in the category known as "anarchism". somalia is very obviously not an anarchist society, for that would require the majority of the population to be philosophically anarchist and organized in an anarchist manner. it is a collection of statist factions, each attempting to impose a state.
      - gasull 15y ago
        It's pretty much an anarcho-capitalist society.
        idonthack 15y ago
        most anarchists think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron at best, and cryptofeudalism at worst. even those that disagree must acknowledge it is a point of much debate. personally, i believe that capitalism is inherently statist. a state is simply an entity with a large amount of land capital.
        gasull 15y ago
        > most anarchists think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron at best, and cryptofeudalism at worst Just because most anarchists dislike anarcho-capitalism, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as an ideology. Look at the Wikipedia article. > personally, i believe that capitalism is inherently statist Maybe its name it's unfortunate. Some people call it free-market anarchism, but that includes other kinds like mutualism, agorism, etc. > a state is simply an entity with a large amount of land capital. Land and capital are not the same thing. You can have any of them independently of the other. Are you aware of geolibertarianism? Also you're blending together capitalism (and its crony state) as a system with capitalism as a free market ideology. And I hope you don't confuse free market with taxing the poor and subsidizing the rich as crony governments do. Last but not least, please read about panarchism. All flavors of anarchism can coexist with each other, because they aren't really that different.
- baltcode 15y ago
  I hear Stalin was pretty advanced in keeping his people 'secure'. That's just just hyperbole, you can do better than that.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    [OT] One of the things which struck me when I reread Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago a few years ago was how several prisoners were convicted of terrorism and the apparent use of terrorism charges as a catchall for a variety of behaviors which were contrary to the interests of the ruling political circle.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Anarchists are a natural offset to those who wish themselves unfettered power. May they both never get what they want.
- bh42222 15y ago
  I hear Somalia is nice this time of year. Well, you could make a decent argument that in a direct democracy like Switzerland the politicians are largely figureheads similar to the queen of England. In other words, that's almost like being free of politicians, but Switzerland certainly has no shortage of police. But then again, they also don't have nearly as many non-violent drug offender in prison as the US does.
skeltoac 15y ago
Wrong target, Anon. Law enforcement personnel, while a natural ally to every form of official corruption, do not have the power to improve the immigration situation. At most they could refuse to uphold the law by ignoring any suspicion of illegal status. Maybe they should do this, but not because they fear Anon; because they know it's right.
- dolvlo 15y ago
  Law enforcement can absolutely refuse to uphold laws that are unjust. In fact, many northern law enforcement officials refused to return slaves that escaped from the south. Everyone involved is partly responsible
- danilocampos 15y ago
  I'm not so sure. If we can take as given the notion that power leads inevitably to corruption, and that corruption currently exists, it strikes me that the most straightforward way to minimize the potential for ongoing corruption is to compromise the secrecy it requires. Further, if we agree that law enforcement may serve as an agent of corruption, its large surface area makes it an interesting target. If the arm of the corrupt is bound by watchful eyes, the damage that arm can do is minimized. Further, if the corrupt are using law enforcement in the advancement of their own dubious agenda, there may be useful evidence laying around. To bring this back to something more concrete: Arizona politicians are using bullshit fear to advance an agenda and immigration laws are a lever they're trying to pull. Who can guess how law enforcement activities are implicated in such a strategy? It seems a reasonable tree to shake. This is not to say that I necessary endorse – or condemn – the actions described here. I'm pretty conflicted. But if you're going to batman this kind of thing, you could do a lot worse than starting with law enforcement. There's no direct route to the end boss of corrupt power. You'd need to build a Rube Goldberg machine – and this strikes me as decent cog in such a device.
- civilian 15y ago
  I don't believe it either. Because of the vast amount of laws on the book and places that police can patrol or investigate, there is a lot of potential for selectively applying the law. Selectively applying the law allows them to introduce bias and change the immigration situation, or any situation! A good example is the drug-busts of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Federal law enforcement ran the busts, but they got help from California state troopers & city police, even though the Californian policeman should be upholding California law and the 10th Amendment. They were choosing to misapply the law. I hoped they would have defended the dispensaries-- and at the least, I was hoping that they would be a neutral force.
ginoocchialini 15y ago
Isn't it ironic that anonymous hacks a police website and exposes police officers' personal information, all the while basing this on an ideology that information should be unhindered and free. But throughout all of this anonymous remains just that, those in anonymous get to hide their own information, their own details, while exposing those of others. Are anon's some how more entitled to privacy than the civil servants that protect us possibly with their lives. Anonymous has strayed from their righteous path, operation freedom and their crusade against scientology were admirable, or at least slightly virtuous, but now they are becoming petty. Standing for freedom is one thing, but what of these individuals freedom to privacy, is that meaningless?

43 points by gasull 15y ago

pavel_lishin 15y ago

> we want a world free from police, prisons and politicians altogether. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

shii 15y ago
Somalia has tons of police, prisons, and politicians in every faction state. The TFG, Puntland, Somaliland, and whatever else dipshit Somali govts out there all have some resemblance of law, no matter how poor. Don't spread the glib ignorant idea that Somalia is some sort of anarchist heaven. That just makes you sound like another silly westerner. It's a former state carved into several other competing states with their own separate order.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Oh, I'm aware it's not a heaven. And history seems to prove that any anarchist system eventually turns into a bunch of little competing fiefdoms .
  - randallsquared 15y ago
    Oh, I'm aware it's not a heaven. Or, you know, anarchy. Current lack of a permanent winner does not imply that no one is playing the game. I'm not sure that anarchism can be as stable as government, but I think it's certainly possible. In any case, history doesn't appear to show that there's any system which is stable in the long term -- the Roman Republic didn't remain one. Considering only longevity and stability, monarchy may be the standout government type.
    - almightygod 15y ago
      I'm not sure that anarchism can be as stable as government, but I think it's certainly possible your free to think anything you want, but with no empirical data or any substantial evidence to support your opinion...why share them here?
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        Somalia is ruled by warlords. This is hardly a secret, if you want proof just google it. It is by definition not an anarchy.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - randallsquared 15y ago
        I was replying to the comment about historical evidence by pointing out that we don't have conclusive evidence either way, so it's an open question. There have certainly been some historical areas arguably without government, to various degrees [1], but the longest of them (~330 years) didn't last much longer than the oldest constitutional republic (which I believe is the US) has so far, while other forms have lasted for a thousand years or more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_communities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Lists_of_ungoverned_com...
    - HoLyVieR 15y ago
      I'm not sure that anarchism can be as stable as government I'm not sure you get the original concept concept of anarchy. Anarchy is a society mode where there is no designed leader that has power over everyone and where law is substituted by social standard that people follow (no written rule). It's basically NOT having a government.
      - randallsquared 15y ago
        I'm an anarchist myself. However, it seems to me that there are more different possible anarchies than I can enumerate, and quibbling over details seems somewhat premature. :)
  - shii 15y ago
    Right, except Somalia was never an anarchist system since Siad Barre bounced in 91. During the collapse of his regime, all the different tribes left fought to quickly gain control over major cities and regions. The only places I can think of that fit the term anarchist were a few big cities like Xamar and Bosaaso where there was quite literally no rule except by roving tribal gangs with AKs and checkpoints everywhere. Each gang controlled by larger war lords that eventually consolidated their own "-land" with tribal friends and family. Right now I can go to Hergeisa (actually I can't but that's for totally other reasons) and get my passport notarized and stamped by govt officials, go through customs, and get a notarized letter for my travel. Somalia has government in the sense of different states have governments that view themselves as independent from the rest. They collect taxes, have an armed security force, and generally do all the normal things a state would do anywhere else in the world. The only difference is that the only officially recognized govt by the world is the TFG in Mogadishu, which actually has less control and actual governance than your average HOA in Podunk, Kansas. Couple this with high corruption, lack of effective governance in large swaths of the country, constant war for power everywhere, pirates with cameras shining on them on the high seas, complete enmity between the major states, and constant meddling by too many outsiders to count and you have the reason why there is no central government that rules over Somalia proper till now, more than 20 years after Barre's fall.
  - AndyNemmity 15y ago
    Spain is the only place that had a real anarchist system, and that certainly proved nothing of the sort. I guess adding "seems to prove" means you can make up anything you want, and you're protected. A las barricadas!
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      Can you point me to some place I can read about it? I don't know much about Spain, so I'm not even sure where to start googling.
      - michaelchisari 15y ago
        Run, don't walk, to your nearest bookstore or library and get "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell. It's his memoirs of fighting in the Spanish Civil War with the POUM (which weren't exactly anarchists, but libertarian Marxists). Even if you end up completely, 100% in total disagreement with everything the Spanish partisans built, represented and fought for, you will still have read an extraordinary book by an absolutely fantastic writer.
- gasull 15y ago
  The TFG has really no control over the country, not even in the capital. So Somalia, or at least the TFG, is pretty much an anarchist state (or non-state). On the other hand, Somalia is doing poorly compared to developed nations, but better than a lot of countries with (corrupt) Government and police in Africa. At least in Somalia/TFG they aren't powerful enough to do any harm. E.g. they have the fastest and cheaper cell phone and Internet providers in Africa.
  - idonthack 15y ago
    "anarchist" does not indicate the simple lack of a stable government, it indicates a subscription to one of the many political/social theories/philosophies in the category known as "anarchism". somalia is very obviously not an anarchist society, for that would require the majority of the population to be philosophically anarchist and organized in an anarchist manner. it is a collection of statist factions, each attempting to impose a state.
    - gasull 15y ago
      It's pretty much an anarcho-capitalist society.
      - idonthack 15y ago
        most anarchists think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron at best, and cryptofeudalism at worst. even those that disagree must acknowledge it is a point of much debate. personally, i believe that capitalism is inherently statist. a state is simply an entity with a large amount of land capital.
        gasull 15y ago
        > most anarchists think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron at best, and cryptofeudalism at worst Just because most anarchists dislike anarcho-capitalism, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as an ideology. Look at the Wikipedia article. > personally, i believe that capitalism is inherently statist Maybe its name it's unfortunate. Some people call it free-market anarchism, but that includes other kinds like mutualism, agorism, etc. > a state is simply an entity with a large amount of land capital. Land and capital are not the same thing. You can have any of them independently of the other. Are you aware of geolibertarianism? Also you're blending together capitalism (and its crony state) as a system with capitalism as a free market ideology. And I hope you don't confuse free market with taxing the poor and subsidizing the rich as crony governments do. Last but not least, please read about panarchism. All flavors of anarchism can coexist with each other, because they aren't really that different.
baltcode 15y ago
I hear Stalin was pretty advanced in keeping his people 'secure'. That's just just hyperbole, you can do better than that.
- brudgers 15y ago
  [OT] One of the things which struck me when I reread Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago a few years ago was how several prisoners were convicted of terrorism and the apparent use of terrorism charges as a catchall for a variety of behaviors which were contrary to the interests of the ruling political circle.
burgerbrain 15y ago
Anarchists are a natural offset to those who wish themselves unfettered power. May they both never get what they want.
bh42222 15y ago
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year. Well, you could make a decent argument that in a direct democracy like Switzerland the politicians are largely figureheads similar to the queen of England. In other words, that's almost like being free of politicians, but Switzerland certainly has no shortage of police. But then again, they also don't have nearly as many non-violent drug offender in prison as the US does.

skeltoac 15y ago

Wrong target, Anon. Law enforcement personnel, while a natural ally to every form of official corruption, do not have the power to improve the immigration situation. At most they could refuse to uphold the law by ignoring any suspicion of illegal status. Maybe they should do this, but not because they fear Anon; because they know it's right.

dolvlo 15y ago
Law enforcement can absolutely refuse to uphold laws that are unjust. In fact, many northern law enforcement officials refused to return slaves that escaped from the south. Everyone involved is partly responsible
danilocampos 15y ago
I'm not so sure. If we can take as given the notion that power leads inevitably to corruption, and that corruption currently exists, it strikes me that the most straightforward way to minimize the potential for ongoing corruption is to compromise the secrecy it requires. Further, if we agree that law enforcement may serve as an agent of corruption, its large surface area makes it an interesting target. If the arm of the corrupt is bound by watchful eyes, the damage that arm can do is minimized. Further, if the corrupt are using law enforcement in the advancement of their own dubious agenda, there may be useful evidence laying around. To bring this back to something more concrete: Arizona politicians are using bullshit fear to advance an agenda and immigration laws are a lever they're trying to pull. Who can guess how law enforcement activities are implicated in such a strategy? It seems a reasonable tree to shake. This is not to say that I necessary endorse – or condemn – the actions described here. I'm pretty conflicted. But if you're going to batman this kind of thing, you could do a lot worse than starting with law enforcement. There's no direct route to the end boss of corrupt power. You'd need to build a Rube Goldberg machine – and this strikes me as decent cog in such a device.
civilian 15y ago
I don't believe it either. Because of the vast amount of laws on the book and places that police can patrol or investigate, there is a lot of potential for selectively applying the law. Selectively applying the law allows them to introduce bias and change the immigration situation, or any situation! A good example is the drug-busts of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Federal law enforcement ran the busts, but they got help from California state troopers & city police, even though the Californian policeman should be upholding California law and the 10th Amendment. They were choosing to misapply the law. I hoped they would have defended the dispensaries-- and at the least, I was hoping that they would be a neutral force.

ginoocchialini 15y ago

Isn't it ironic that anonymous hacks a police website and exposes police officers' personal information, all the while basing this on an ideology that information should be unhindered and free. But throughout all of this anonymous remains just that, those in anonymous get to hide their own information, their own details, while exposing those of others. Are anon's some how more entitled to privacy than the civil servants that protect us possibly with their lives. Anonymous has strayed from their righteous path, operation freedom and their crusade against scientology were admirable, or at least slightly virtuous, but now they are becoming petty. Standing for freedom is one thing, but what of these individuals freedom to privacy, is that meaningless?