Arizona Judge Tells Sheriff "Reveal Password Or Face Contempt" 624
An anonymous reader writes "Four days ago, deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona conducted a raid against the county government building hosting computers for a law enforcement database. After threatening to arrest county employees who would stop them, the officers proceeded to secure the room and promptly changed passwords on many of the servers. In a hearing on Friday, a Superior Court judge threatened to hold members of the Sheriff's Office in contempt if they did not reveal the passwords by next Wednesday. Following this, the Sheriff's Office claimed to be conducting an investigation against other Superior Court judges. Courts have asked for passwords before, but never under conditions like this."
Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense. He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, forgot link:
http://www.arpaio.com/index.php [arpaio.com]
There's a reason this asshole has such a critical website over him. I firmly believe he's a sociopath.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
I firmly believe he's a sociopath.
All he does is treat criminals as if they are sub-human and their dignity is his personal property. Besides, there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population people convicted of a crime aren't human beings, so clearly it's not sociopathic.
/sarcasm
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
"It might be" -- well, there should be statistics. Does he have lower return rates on his prisoners, or is it just wishful thinking on his constituents' part?
he hasn't decreased crime (Score:5, Informative)
It's wishful thinking. The East Valley Tribune won a pulitzer for an expose [74.125.155.132] of Sheriff Joe's tactics that concluded, among other things, that his focus on illegal immigration has actually stolen the focus away from violent crimes.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
It's wishful thinking. The recidivism under "Sheriff Joe" isn't substantially lower then under the previous Sheriff. Plus, you have the fact that he's focusing so much on arresting illegal immigrants, that it's actually affecting how well they are working against other crimes.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Funny)
So, what you're proposing is, because Nicolas Cage made multiple movies, Joe Arpaio's methodologies on running a correctional facility are a failure?
Sir, you make a compelling case. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
According to www.arpaio.com, Arpaio himself commissioned a study by a college to determine his return statistics (using tax payer money of course) and the college determined that the rates for repeat offenders were no different from the average.
Also keep in mind, that "tent city" thing he's got set up doesn't just house convicted criminals, it also houses people who are waiting for their court date to appear, and were unable to make bond.
Besides, I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment. If it were just punishment you were after, why not shoot everybody in the leg for crimes up to rape or murder, and shoot everybody at or above that level.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation? Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I have to start with the fact that Margaret Singers 'Studies' on cults and thought control have been pretty thoroughly debunked. I'm not a rabid non-believer, but Phillip Zimbardo has a lot more empirical research supporting his (much more limited) thesis of how people are influenced, and her work has, at best, not stood the test of time.
So, the mere fact that there are forms of rehabilitation with good track records does a pretty good job of distinguishing it from Margaret Singer's 'Thought Control' Thesis. Her theories don't play out in the real world.
Moreover, however intuitively obvious it might be, the track record of 'just punishment' as a method for preventing crime is abysmal. It's hard to separate the lousy record in general from the fact that the average 'just punishment' for a crime averages in melanin and income too - it seems to be 'just' to give high income white people shorter sentences than low income black people, even for identical crimes - if I was being *really* sophist I would say the lower recidivism rate of people with shorter sentences proves that harsh sentencing has a negative effect on recidivism, but I'll be good and say it's a compounding factor that makes it difficult to estimate the effects.
However you *can* judge the effects in a given area of changes in the law, and there's no correlation with longer sentencing and lower crime rate -or- lower recidivism. There just isn't - end of story.
Like other right-wing myths like 'welfare queens', 'No one would confess to a crime they didn't commit', and 'torturing terrorists will get good intelligence', just ain't so.
Just to stop the inevitable accusations of pulling data from 'pansy liberal textbooks' my 'pansy liberal professor' in "Criminal Justice" was a large, muscular black man that has helped run maximum security prisons in the Mid-West. He could kick 'my arse', 'your arse', and 'both our arses, together'.
Just sayin' - Pug
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prison about rehabilitation? Hahahahahaa!!!! Not hardly. Prison (not to be confused with Jail, which is different) is about keeping the baddies away from the rest of society so we can be safe. It's about punishment. Rehabilitation is a myth. The number that are rehabilitated is so small that it would probably be the same number if you didn't put ANYONE in prison. The proof that it is about punishment and keeping people away from society is the sentencing guidelines for different crimes, such as selling drugs, rape, child porn, etc.
Not that sentencing guidelines are rational though - drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that sentencing guidelines are rational though - drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.
Well, then it clearly isn't about keeping them away from society, either. So what is it really about? Clearly, with the ever increasing numbers (and percentages of population), it isn't working in either case. I have no idea what could replace it, but something needs to be done.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
In some countries like Norway, rehabilitation actually works [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You're a moron. Or an American."
He was describing the reality of the situation, not advocating a position. From what I've seen his post is accurate. If you would look past your anti-Americanism for a moment you would see that.
"Try taking a look at some actual civilized countries, like those in Europe"
It's a mixed bag. I would not want the USA to emulate Serbia or Romania, but hey, to each his own.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope it's not torture, in fact it's business as usual for some of the soldiers stationed in Iraq.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
That's funny because I'm sitting in my tent in Afghanistan at this very moment, and it's equipped with an air conditioning unit just like all the other tents. I've been to some of the smallest, shittiest FOBs in this country and haven't yet seen one where the commander is so inhumane as to require his soldiers to sleep in a bare tent in 115+ degree weather. The other day the power went out when it was 100 degrees out and within a matter of minutes the heat inside was un-fucking-bearable.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
In the first gulf war we slept and lived in tents without airconditioning in the middle of summer (think Marines). The Air Force, not 2 miles away, had all air conditioned tents.
I'm glad to hear you're treated better than we were. It was effing miserable.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
Some would argue he has already gotten several people killed. And Charles Agster [wikipedia.org] was not some kid caught riding in a stolen car or with a bag of dope. Ambria Spencer's daughter certainly didn't commit any crimes. Richard Post really was caught with dope but he wasn't killed. Instead, the guards broke his neck turning him into a quadriplegic, and then they went on to laugh about it.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the best way to judge any society is to see how they treat their jail prison population.
See, no justice system is infallible. Just look at the number of death row inmates who have been cleared after spending decades behind bars. Are the people who say "we should treat them like shit so they don't want to come back" really willing to put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to spend say six months doing hard time for a crime they didn't commit? How about a year? Five? Ten? Twenty?
We shouldn't treat inmates as if they're pond scum and that we, as a society, would be better off if they were on the compost heap instead of in prison. Sure, quite a lot of the people we throw behind bars end up committing some kind of crime while behind bars, be it doing drugs, breaking the prison rules, violence etc., but what are you supposed to do, if you're the innocent guy? Just let someone shank you? Rape you? Beat you up? Or are you going to try to fight back?
We may not like the people behind bars, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat them as human beings.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prison rape is an especially sickening concept.
The idea we can't stop crime in prison is idiotic. If people are even intimidating other people in prison, said intimidates should have their ability to interact with other prisoners revoked until they've learned their damn lesson.(1)
Hey, assholes, we put you in prison because you can't follow the law, you think running around threatening people, aka, committing felony assault, is going to fly?
Apparently, the answer is yes, and we've decided the prisoners 'deserve' whatever happens to them, and for some reason have failed to grasp what that actually means is we are allowing violent convicted criminals to continue to have fun. Forget a damn TV, how about we deny them the pleasure of raping someone? We don't even let innocent people rape people!
1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
It can be put more succinctly:
Some societies knowingly sentence their criminals to be gang-raped.
Others don't.
rj
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here we have at Tucker what is called the "hoe squad" and it is what it sounds like. You get your ass up at dawn and hoe and weed
Sorry, but that is definitely not what "Hoe Squad" sounds like at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that our immigration laws are largely set up by xenophobes a lot like you. They make it nearly impossible to legally immigrate, so what do you expect? When you have unjust laws, you shouldn't expect people to respect them. This same kind of thing happened during the prohibition era too. But do people really learn? Not really.
One thing that the anti-immigrant crowd do miss is that a lot of them are holding jobs using assumed SSNs, and taxes are withheld. They don't bother to file to get
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.
I know exactly what they mean. I also have a working understanding of the term "universal human dignity." If you want to put a man away for comitting a crime, then do it. But to break a man, to force him to eat moldy food and to sexually humiliate him, let alone reward the state for doing it, is an altogether different thing. Absolute power over others corrupts absolutely; you let cops do awful things to people in jail, and I guarantee that eventually that's how they'll treat people on the outside, too. In this most recent case, they simply invaded a government building and staged a coup -- the police's attitude toward their responsibility as upholders of public trust has been destroyed by their chief's blatant disregard for the law in deference to his political prerogatives and his belief that his role in society is to be an arbiter of violence.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it about the words "cruel and unusual punishments" that is so hard for you to fathom?
Prisons aren't about punishments or retribution or degradation. They're about removing criminals from the society they threaten, and rehabilitating them if possible.
How we treat our inmates reflects more on us than on them. If we have no qualms about doing things to inmates for the express purpose of stripping them of their dignity and humanity, it is because we have already lost ours.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.
It sounds like the sheriff must have broken a law here. But I don't see you, retiredtwice, saying that this sheriff, who has probably done something -Illegal-, should be charged and held as a prisoner until his trial. I'd say it's illegal to raid a law abiding office, to kidnap personnel (i.e. force them to act against their will), to torment law abiding, to commandeer property not your own, and to modify government computers without authorization. Why are you not up in arms about these illegal activities? I can tell you why: because it doesn't matter to *YOU* what crimes someone commits when *YOU* think that someone promotes *YOUR* own distorted ideological agenda. You need to take a look in the mirror. Your morals are corrupt, retiredtwice.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
By turning a blind eye to illegal immigration you are fostering an evironment which allows employers to continue to have unsafe working conditions and pay below-market wages. If these people were not present in the US, these employers would either have to move to Mexico and employ local people or pay US citizens real wages.
Why do you think prices at fast food restaurants have pretty much been frozen for 30 years? Because their labor costs have not increased.
Why is it that we have 10, 15 or even 20% unemployment in areas of the US with high populations of undocumented workers? Because it is cheaper to pay these people than legal workers, even when the employers are fined. If we had stronger employment verification laws, like E-Verify, we just might have significantly less unemployment among US citizens and legal workers. Instead, we are continuing to create an environment where we are importing cheap labor to be abused. Then, as we continue to see from the current administration, we are going to give them all an amnesty so they can be a permanent underclass - that will vote for their amnesty sponsors.
This isn't a good way to run a country or a labor force. Having illegal, underpaid and abused workers available to displace legal workers just means we are going to be paying more in unemployment and welfare for the legal workers. While the illegals actually are out there working. Doesn't sound right or even like a sensible policy. The answer is not to make them legal in hopes they then will deserve (and get) higher wages and less abuse. The answer is to make it less attractive to stay and to stop importing these low-wage workers.
Who will do the work then? Well, when there is 20% unemployment plenty of people will line up for jobs. And in cases where the pay is too low and the abuse too much, maybe the employers will either relocate elsewhere or decide to improve conditions. Leaving the illegals in place does nothing except continue the existing practices indefinately. The amnesty in 1986 didn't change anything in this regard and the amnesty in 2009 will not change anything either. Except maybe providing a new crop of grateful Democrat voters.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as a Brit living in Arizona, I can assure you he is NOT popular across all the state.
His constituents in Phoenix, however, think the sun shines out of his arse.
This also explains a lot about Phoenix in general.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as a Brit living in Arizona, I can assure you he is NOT popular across all the state.
His constituents in Phoenix, however, think the sun shines out of his arse.
This also explains a lot about Phoenix in general.
I dont think he's popular in Britian either, not after trying to extradite law abiding british citizens and threaten to humiliate them [extradition.org.uk]
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not going to have any fun with the federal government. DHS is now headed by Janet Napolitano. For those that don't know she was the governor of Arizona (and a fairly popular one) until she was appointed to head DHS. She also hates Arpaio for his tactics and flaunting of the law. As such you can bet DHS is going to be on his ass about any and everything they can.
There is a lesson here about stepping on toes that might be connected to an ass you later have to kiss.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Insightful)
She also hates Arpaio for his tactics and flaunting of the law.
I thought it was pretty much a sheriff's job to flaunt the law? Oh, unless you mean "flout"... (this isn't spelling or grammar, it's semantics -- you may want to extend your sig).
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall Jim Crow laws being popular in some states too.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
People waiting for trial are not 'criminals'. He has had over half a dozen deaths in custody this year along for people who were not convicted of a crime. County jails should be equivalent in comfort, food and atmosphere to a Motel 6 till you are convicted, imho.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
People should not die in custody and especially should not while awaiting trial. ---- note the period
The US has more deaths in custody than almost any other first-world country but Britain is damn close because of the number of heroin-related deaths there. Deaths in custody after the introduction of the taser in both countries rose as deaths related to overdose, homicide by police officer, cardiac-arrest and many others increased substantially. The taser is over-used and mis-used and police are killing people because of it. Don't be an apologist for murderers, it makes you look like a monster.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Informative)
He gets a certain cash amount from the Feds per prisoner to keep them in his 'jails', a bunch of tent cities, population over 4,000. He spends the absolute minimum on these and runs them in a manner consistent with German concentration camps (without the poison gas showers; he doesn't want to kill his prisoners, he wants the money from it), thus creating a cash surplus he uses to make sure his department has enough weapons to take over a Third World country. You can get thrown into one of his 'jails' by having a couple outstanding parking tickets, or defaulting on your child support payments.
As a resident of Arizona, he makes me ashamed to live here.
Re:California isn't any better. (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard a very interesting story Friday about how the Correctional Officers Union (or whatever it's called), a while ago, lobbied for things like "three strikes" laws. As result of their passage, the prison population has skyrocketed, many of them for non-violent offenses. A skyrocketing prison population heralded a huge increase in the number of correctional officers required to keep things in order. 10% of these officers make more than $100K per year (70% of the state's correctional budget of $10 billion goes toward salaries).
The union now boasts more than 45,000 members, and wields significant influence in the political arena. The sad part is that only 5% of the budget is available for rehabilitation, and consequentially, the recidivism rate has also skyrocketed. The California prison system has become a self-sustaining money pit, with much of funds going into the pockets of union members. Under the current system, there's no way out.
Re:California isn't any better. (Score:4, Insightful)
Great example of conflict of interest... add in that somewhere around half our prisons are now run by for-profit corporations that get paid about $25k per warm body BY THE STATE (out of YOUR TAX DOLLARS) and it's clear that it's in their best interests if as many people are criminals and prison-bound as possible. To maximize profits, lobby for laws that everyone will break!!
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between not "coddling" prisoners and abuse, not to mention the fact that the jail houses not only people convicted of crimes but those awaiting trial, who have not been convicted of anything and should not give up any rights except to the extent necessary to keep them from leaving the jurisdiction. In any case, although he is Mr. Law-and-Order when it comes to immigration, as this case shows he is power hungry and doesn't abide by the law unless it suits him. If you've got a civil dispute with another branch of government, you don't resolve it by sending armed thugs to take control by force.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why the US isn't a democracy (Score:5, Informative)
It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that there are various check on the majority. 50.0001% of people can't vote to oppress the other 49.9999%. Things like constitutional law can only be changed by a very lengthy process (66% of both congressional bodies, 75% of all states have to approve it).
So while the majority may agree with what he's doing, or at least the parts of what he's doing they are aware of, that doesn't make it right, or legal. He has, on many occasions, been sued successfully for various rights violations.
It is something that needs to be fought, not something that people should just say "Well the majority elected him. Doesn't matter that they did, he is still accountable to the law. That's how the system is setup.
Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to change the country, the simplest way to do so is to change what the populace wants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every sheriff's office and police department in the US has, at one point or another, been successfully sued for "rights violations" at some point. Making a blanket statement like that means nothing.
Arpaio is also very clear on making prison as UN-palatable an option as possible to criminals. If you subscribe to the theory that some portion of the population considers the possible consequences of their actions (in other words, is a rational actor [wikipedia.org]), then this should result in reduced initial crime rates from
Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not from you. Nothing you've said is inconsistent with what I said. The prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment in the US Constitution plays a larger role than its three words might suggest. And by the way, the clause doesn't have to mention the word "prison" to be relevant. Due process rights, for example, play an important role in determining what prison officials can and cannot do. And the people who have those rights reserved to the people include prisoners.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy (Score:5, Informative)
"They demonstrated [to the district court] that the conditions in that [Maricopa County] prison were inhumane and degrading, and that an Icelandic decision to grant the extradition request would therefore conflict with their rights under Article 68 paragraph 1 of the [Icelandic] Constitution, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention, and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Supreme Court sustained the view that the legal requirements for extradition were not fulfilled[.]"
(Interim report of the Icelandic Government to the European Committee Against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), 1999) http://eng.domsmalaraduneyti.is/reports/nr/126 [domsmalaraduneyti.is]
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Interesting)
According to his wikipedia page[1] it looks like he consistently gets reelected by double digit margins. It also looks like a group attempted to circulate a petition to have him recalled, and about 3/4ths of those that were asked refused to sign, with 65% expressing support for his behavior. At this point in a democracy, if you are really opposed to what is happening, your best option is to move.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio [wikipedia.org]
Re:Let me fix that for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant of his policies.
No.
Sad to say, but my experience has taught me that many people are fully capable of supporting human rights violations so long as they're happening to "the other", and not them. Whether that other is criminals / suspects, immigrants (legal or not), or simply another race doesn't matter; it means that they are on a slightly higher footing in society due to Sheriff Joe's actions. And that makes them feel good.
And in a county where a sheriff is elected, it results in laws and the enforcement thereof skewed toward that irrational majority.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
Note -- not prison, jail.
The people in his jail are waiting trial or serving time for misdemeanors. Hardly the civilization- devouring monsters of Sheriff Joe's imagination.
Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with that sentiment, but Arpaio is accountable for witholding insulin for diabetics, turning paraplegics into quadraplegics, killing at least two mentally handicapped prisoners with multiple taserings, spit bagging, and excessive restraints.
There's a very distinct and wide line between the barbarism he displays and not pandering to inmates that you're proposing (and I agree with).
Correct link for article discussing contempt claim (Score:5, Informative)
The correct article is here [azcentral.com].
Amazing this is happening in the United States
Arpaio (Score:5, Informative)
This raid looks pretty outrageous. The court is probably the least politicized and most appropriate agency to take control until the situation can be resolved. The silver lining to this is that it is so outrageous that it may finally get that madman Arpaio removed from office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't count on that. Ol' Joe's survived many attempts to remove him from office.
What I'm wondering is, will Hendershott be sentenced to one of Joe's tent cities, or will they give him one of the many vacant air conditioned cells in
Re:Arpaio (Score:5, Insightful)
Dostoyevsky said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners. I sure as hell don't want this man standing as a representative of our civilization.
bad move (Score:5, Interesting)
The actions of the sheriff's office demonstrate quite clearly that they are not willing to abide by the law and therefore seem to have decided the case already against themselves.
Do they really need the password? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't they have an IT guy who can root those? Sounds like they have physical access, should be pretty easy.
Re:Do they really need the password? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes they do have an IT guy. Appears he built the system. No I don't believe he does need the password. But he is reported to have told the judge it would be "convenient" to have it but that he didn't really need it.
Hendershott Could End Up in Jail Next Week in Showdown Over Password [phoenixnewtimes.com]
Physical Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule #3 of the 10 Immutable Laws of Security [microsoft.com]: if a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
Story should serve as a good reminder to everyone out there that in the end, no amount of encryption, biometrics, or obscurity will protect your network when a hacker brings a gun. Physical security trumps all.
And on that note... (Score:4, Funny)
... am I the only one thinking "block the doors, trip the halon"?
How did they get control of the servers? (Score:5, Interesting)
But it also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.
That explains why the sheriffs department wanted them, they didn't want incriminating evidence coming out. But if we walk away from our servers, they're not going to be able to get into them. If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later. If they arrested you for doing your job, then sue them later. Oddly, in this case you'd have the backing of the rest of the county board and the Superior Court. Seizing our computers wouldn't get them anything. I feel good about that but what happened in this case?
If they're Windows servers it shouldn't be too hard to crack them, right? I haven't used Windows servers since Server 2003, you could crack those. Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.
Actually both 2003 and 2008 have the ability to be exceedingly hard. 2008 moreso than 2003. But in my experience the vast majority servers are very very rarely configured to make it hard.
With a vanilla set up, they are relatively easy **with physical access**.
Re:How did they get control of the servers? (Score:5, Informative)
Huh. It's safest just to let Sheriff Joe arrest you and fight it in court. Juan Mendoza Farias thought that too [phoenixnewtimes.com].
I've lived in Maricopa County for over 20 years, (Score:5, Insightful)
...and the Sheriff's Office has been a joke for almost all of them. Sheriff Joe's predecessor utterly botched an investigation into a high-profile mass murder at a local Buddhist Temple, so voters here were looking for change at any price.
I'm pro-law and order, but law and order means, well, law AND order, not Sheriff Joe's thuggery. He's cost the county millions in unnecessary lawsuits for brutality in his jails, his law enforcement tactics exist solely to grab headlines and intimidate his opponents and he's ruined inter-agency cooperation in Central Arizona for at least the near future.
The sooner we elect someone else, the better off we'll be.
CJIS - Criminal Justice Information System (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer - I work as the IT manager for a major university police department.
Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Security Policy - the governing policy from the Department of Justice for managing criminal justice systems. The policy is law enforcement sensitive and not public.
The Sheriffs office is arguing that that the law requires this server, which has NCIC (National Crime Information Center) access, to only be managed by a criminal justice agency. There are entire previsions in CJIS that allow for delegation of CJIS management to noncriminal justice agencies including municipal governments and contractors. The only provision states that responsibility for management of security and network control remains with the criminal justice agency - meaning the blame for not following the CJIS security policy lies with the law enforcement agency.
Unless Arizona has different laws regarding NCIC access this looks like a power grab to me...
Coverup (Score:5, Insightful)
This just screams coverup.
Sherrif Joe is afraid of the information on those servers ... why? It would be nice to know, wouldn't it? Streisand Effect, anyone?
The county should turn it all over to the FBI for forensic investigation after this. I don't care who you are, unauthorized access to a computer system is a felony in most states and a federal offense, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Given Joe's history, I'm very interested in what's on those servers. This is a guy who thinks ANY press is good press. Even when he had to pay 30-something percent of an 800k judgement due to abuse out of his own pocket. The guy's got corruption all over the place, and he's still in office.
but... (Score:3, Funny)
Sheriff Joe is an old man, can't they just check the post it note under the keyboard? Boom, Problem Solved.
FWIW (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't even imagine why the Sheriff's office would want to seize the records relating to law enforcement within the state, but I'm sure he has a Very Good Reason.
HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE (Score:3, Interesting)
In a perfect world... (Score:3, Insightful)
Arizona Fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
Joe arpaio has gang of sherrifs who go down into the barrio and round up any "mexican-looking" persons, detain them, and try to deport them. this is done simply by checking the color of their skin.
i have spent a nite in arpaio's jail (wrongfully arrested) and eating the substandard "ladmo" bags with green bologna.
i have seen lives crushed and destroyed. i have heard journalists who were kidnapped from their homes at 4 am by men driving a car with sonora license plates. This was because they uncovered joe's illegal real estate investments
arpaio is a murderer, a torturer, rascist, and a fascist. he should be in PRISON
Re:You've seen maricopa before (Score:5, Informative)
In more convenient linked form: Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department [slashdot.org]
What the hell is going on there? Do people actually support this BS?
Mods, please be responsible. (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell does a post whose entire content is "fuck you, [name]" get modded "insightful"?
Re:Mods, please be responsible. (Score:4, Informative)
Because Joe Arpaio is a power-tripping constitution-ignoring murderously negligent nutjob ?
The man is batshit insane, not unlike what you would get if the Bush family pursued ferocious inbreeding for the next ten generations. Then you take that mentally stunted child, give him a government job and a gun, and let him loose upon the world.
This is a man who gets his goons to physically threaten press reporters, when they get too close to his dirty secrets, and when he's done intimidating these law-abiding journalists, he saddles their offices with "punitive" over-reaching FOIA requests. He's perfectly happy to do the same thing to judges and state officials he dislikes. He's like a gangster with federal employee ID.
Re:Mods, please be responsible. (Score:4, Insightful)
How does Arpaio saddle journalists with FAIO requests? Such requests are made to the government. Journalists are not the government.
Re:Mods, please be responsible. (Score:4, Informative)
A) They're FOIA requests (not FAIO).
B) He sends them against elected Phoenix officials, like the mayor, whose email he requests for political reasons. He does NOT send FOIA requests to journalists as is incorrectly claimed by GP.
C) That said, Joe does appear to lean on journalists, but he does that with search warrants and deputies. Slashdot has covered this in the past and there is much information to be found on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] concerning the incidents of note.
Basically, he's an incompetent Sheriff who hasn't been voted out because too many people are too enamored with his "tough on crime" stance to notice that he's completely incompetent and not making the people of Arizona any safer. They'll try to defend him by claiming that the opposition is in favor of illegal immigration or some other utterly political nonsense, while ignoring the fact that his incompetence has cost Arizona taxpayers something like $100 million.
(That's a very rough estimate using the sources on Wikipedia, but it's about the right order of magnitude, especially when you count what we pay for legal liability insurance and Arizona's insanely high deductibles).
Re:Mods, please be responsible. (Score:4, Funny)
After checking the definition of 'insight', I decided you were off your rocker.
After considering the full meaning of "most of [the] people here", I changed my mind again. When dealing with the majority of Slashdot, useful definitions for words have pretty much no place in the proceedings :)
Re:Mods, please be responsible. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you lived in his area of jurisdiction, you'd understand.
Then how does he keep getting re-elected? I have heard many accusations against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that he has committed election fraud. That means that the majority of people who live in his jurisdiction who are both eligible to vote and care enough to vote support Joe Arpaio.
Re:Mods, please be responsible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that's pretty much the sad truth of it. He has a rabid fanbase who absolutely love him because he mistreats his prisoners. Note, of course, that he runs a jail, not a prison. The distinction being that many of the people he's mistreating have not yet been convicted of any crime. Some, in fact, may not have even been charged with anything yet.
On behalf of everyone else... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know. Maybe he knew someone was going to remove that data and he needs it to expose corruption higher up.
I don't know anything about this Joe Arpaio, never heard of him, so it may be obvious this is not the case. But just exclaiming "Fuck you" didn't help me find out either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The proper course of action is to obtain a warrant from a court. The article indicates that the state courts have refused him access. Either the state court system itself is corrupt, which is possible but not that likely, or he's wrong. In any case, corruption in the justice system usually involves federal offenses as well as state ones (since, e.g., they are violating somebody's civil rights), so if the state courts don't work, he could try a federal court.
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:5, Informative)
There's a great expose [newyorker.com] on Sheriff Joe in a recent New Yorker that argues quite the opposite; his obsession with his own self-aggrandizement has eclipsed attacks on real crime in favor of a sensational (and indulgently predatory) approach to law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't be afraid of the Phoenix Police. Be afraid of the imposters [azcentral.com].
In Phoenix, you stand a good change of being the victim of a home invasion staged by Mexican Army Regulars [wordpress.com]...
Or Mexicans in Phoenix police drag [stratfor.com], fulfilling their contracts...
Or Phoenix Police whose chief and the Phoenix mayor just can't take much criticism [infowars.com].
Try and discredit the reports based on the sources I use. Not working. The incidents did happen. Police officers were calling into local radio shows and confirming the reports.
It seems most home invasions in Phoenix are carried out by those who attack drop houses the 'coyotes' use to stage illegal immigrants on their way to other cities. Taking some hostage and making a quick buck is the motive. Posing as police works very well until the real police show up. then, hope the bad guys run out of bullets, which they often do.
Our mayor, Phil Gordon, is death against enforcing immigration law, as is our former Governor and now head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. It's so bad the Feds are demanding that local law enforcement accept a new policy that pretty much prevents [azfamily.com] them from enforcing the law. That's the 287(g) program that apparently is too successful.
Sherrif Joe also has tangled with the local alternative paper [phoenixnewtimes.com], which published [phoenixnewtimes.com] his and other officials home addresses and apparently violated [democratic...ground.com] grand jury statutes. It's only an arcane law when it is applied to you.
Sherrif Joe has his view of law enforcement. It enrages many of the liberal intelligensia around here, who would rather we put the illegals up in the Phoenician and give them a chance.
Me? I back Sherrif Joe, knowing full well he can get carried away. The alternative is to have everything not nailed down stolen by the illegals as they stream through here on their way to a better life.
At least he doesn't PRETEND [wordpress.com] to be doing his job.
You ought to live here. Then you would grasp a little more of the nuance. Much too easy to take things at face value. 4 years here has taught me that we have a serious illegal immigration problem. How to solve it is unfortunately simple - clean house, starting with the House of Reperesentatives. Our government has too many conflicts of interest, business sees illegals as cheap labor, Democrats see them as new voters, and regular citizens have no one on their side. But I'm not hopeful.
Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.
Bring it on.
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:4, Interesting)
What do all the lawsuits against Sheriff Joe for civil rights abuses, deaths while in custody, constitutional rights violations and the like have to do with illegal immigration? There's what, 1500-odd cases against him filed so far in Maricopa County courts at the moment?
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:5, Funny)
Come to New Orleans. The only difference between the criminals and the police is a uniform.
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is racist about trying to keep people from coming and staying in the country illegally?
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:5, Insightful)
And they used "guns" to do threaten public employees. That they ARE public employees makes no difference. They obviously didn't have a warrant from a judge and they threatened law abiding employees in a different department.
Like it or not "law enforcement" is JUST A JOB!!!!! They are no different than any other public employee when dealing with matters like this... BOFH is going to have fun with them.... but if they were smart they'd walk away from their jobs Monday and file civil rights and workplace violence suits against their employers. Not to mention criminal charges with the state police/FBI for hijacking a computer system. Tampering with a public computer system alone ought to get the police 10-20 years!!!
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:5, Insightful)
like somebody on the newspaper site pointed out, another court was still in process about the contents of the computers seized and these police just went and took them. This computer room also hosts several other systems intermixed, that the police don't have jurisdiction, nor the county's authority, to access. The agreement was reached only 3 years ago, so the specific head of the police department agreed to those terms.. not somebody else.
Best of all though he was seeking emails of other county officials in other departments as evidence.... and he just walked in and took it, from a third party, without warrant.... whatever evidence is in those emails is now strictly off limits for his investigations as he committed contempt of court by violating an ongoing court case and by hijacking the admins by force. Whoever had any incriminations will get to walk from here on!!!! Man needs impeached for sheer legal incompetence.
Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score:4, Informative)
No, you don't EVEN wanna live in Maricopa County. Get too many parking tickets, you'll spend time in Tent City awaiting trial. Get caught tossing a cigarette or styrofoam coffee cup out the window onto a county road, spend some time in Tent City awaiting trial. Be a day late making your insurance payment for your car, the insurance company notifies the DoT computers of the lapse in coverage, the DoT notifies your county sheriff, and a deputy comes out to pull the plates off your car while it's in your driveway, and in Maricopa County, you can go to Tent City to await appearing before a judge.
Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, (Score:5, Funny)
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
the sign is there for a reason.
Feeding trolls and flamebaits can lead to excessive burns and karma loss
Re:bizare turn of events (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, tracked it down. The column you quote is by the late Alan Stang. He was a right-wing extremist, not a lawyer, not an expert on law or government. He's not a reliable source.
Re:bizare turn of events (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd like to see a sadistic murderer sociopath who has no respect for the Constitution or our nation to be the Secretary of Homeland Security? Really?
Then again, you also seem to hate the Constitution pretty strongly, since you have ignored the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2), which states:
Sure, the WordPress site you link says differently. It's nonetheless wrong - perhaps you should learn not to take your legal advice from blogs created by people who hate law? As the judge in the case you are referring to, Castaneda v. U.S., states [uscourts.gov]:
In short, your post is bad and you should feel bad.