Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security United States Your Rights Online Politics

LulzSec Posts First Secret Document Dump 835

Posted by timothy
from the lacks-charismatic-public-face dept.
Dangerous_Minds writes "LulzSec has been vowing to expose government secrets for the last few days. Now they have delivered. According to ZeroPaid, LulzSec has posted secret documents about Arizona Law Enforcement. The release has been posted to file-sharing website ThePirateBay. LulzSec says the release is because they are 'against SB1070 and the racial profiling anti-immigrant police state that is Arizona.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec Posts First Secret Document Dump

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:01PM (#36549158)
    Let's face it: they're "anti-Mexican".
  • Worthless and Stupid (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:21PM (#36549372)

    First of all, these documents are not classified at all. FTA: "The documents classified as “law enforcement sensitive”, “not for public distribution”, and “for official use only” " Big press for

    Secondly, this is a stupid target. Why isn't this group targeting openly oppressive governments? I know USA is evil and blah blah blah but compared to a number of other countries, the USA is nothing. Why not target Iran? There are plenty of people there trying to start a revolution but can't manage to make a dent in the oppressive regime.

  • by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:40PM (#36549580) Journal

    Yes [wikipedia.org]

  • by cavreader (1903280) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:45PM (#36549640)
    Read the damn law. They can not be stopped randomly and checked for immigration status. Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status. And yes this could be circumvented by individual police officers but that is true for a whole list of different types of charges. The people complaining about his law are automatically assuming the entire police force are racists and will ignore the law which is a rather insulting and unsupported accusation. Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?
  • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:46PM (#36549646)

    No, it's not. It claims to be anti-illegal-immigrant, but it's really just white supremacy. Even native-born citizens have been picked up and imprisoned for months because somebody suspected they were illegal. No proof required. There was a case where a guy was imprisoned in...either Arizona or New Mexico. For months. He was forced to work for $1/day to earn the money to purchase a copy of his birth certificate from the federal government to prove he was a legal citizen. (So much for "Innocent until proven guilty") Another case up here in Pennsylvania, a man (again, a legal citizen, not sure if he was native-born) was arrested and held by ICE for 3 days despite having his valid driver's license and social security card in his wallet at the time of his arrest...strictly because of his last name. It sounded like he might be foreign, so ICE ordered he be detained.

    I keep up with this stuff pretty closely, and never heard either one of these. Can't find anything that sounds even remotely similar on google. I suspect you're making things up.

    SB1070 still effectively legalizes police harassment of anybody who's skin is darker than a certain shade of brown.

    It doesn't do anything of the sort, of course.

    And they require that you carry identification with you. This is not a legal requirement anywhere else in America.

    The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:52PM (#36549716)

    This is truly a stupid thing you've written here. Do you honestly believe that most people who support illegal immigration wouldn't rather be supporting legal immigration? Do you know what comprehensive immigration reform is? It's first admitting that the existing system is wrong and then trying to fix it. That is what supporters of illegal immigration support. They by no means wish to keep it illegal.

  • by Urza9814 (883915) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:59PM (#36549794)

    The first one is from a published report, ("Jailed Without Justice", published by Amnesty International, page 20, very easy to find if you google it) which lists the original source as: "Testimony of Kara Hartzler, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigrantion, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Hearing on Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention and Removal Procedures, Second Session of the 110th Congress, 13 February 2008, serial Number 110-80, available at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th/40742.PDF [house.gov]"

    He worked at $1/day, a birth certificate costs $30, so that's at least a month assuming he was working full time every day. Not sure if he would have, I'm not all that familiar with the prison system. Also doesn't count time spent being transferred and such (which ICE does very frequently and without notice). I suppose I did make a slight mistake though in the time, as the original does only say "over a month". And yes, I suppose it would be state, not federal government that he purchased it from, the original doesn't specify.

    The second case is from the Summer 2011 issue of "Free For All" published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Article was "Pennsylvania's Secret Prisoners". Unfortunately, I'm not finding it available online anywhere, and the name in the article was changed.

  • by blair1q (305137) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:08PM (#36549882) Journal

    Illegal immigration is a civil violation, not a crime.

  • by jmac_the_man (1612215) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:09PM (#36549902)

    The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them...

    But then

    The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing.

    So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right? Given that they don't have one, is it reasonable to ask why they don't have it?

    The only way this law would come into play is if the cops already have probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, in your words. It's far different than judging their immigration status just by looking at them.

  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:18PM (#36549980) Homepage

    Read the damn law. They can not be stopped randomly and checked for immigration status. Only after they are detained for some other reason can they ask for immigration status.

    (snip)

    Anyway how is this any different than anyone else getting stopped by the police and being asked for identification such as a drivers license?

    Except that Sheriff Bubba-Joe has a history of having his officers stop every brown person they see, under the troll logic that "Non-Whites commit more crimes." Usually under the guise of wanting to see their drivers licence. And then, with this new law, they have to PROVE that they're not illegals, or the cop can arrest them on the spot for the crime of "possibly being illegal."

  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:26PM (#36550046) Homepage

    The requirements for carrying identification/immigration paperwork are exactly the same as the federal laws.

    Except that this law, and the bigoted environment in Arizona, codify anti-latino racial profiling and harassment. You don't see Canadians or Koreans being stopped citing SB 1070. Because that's not what this law is about.

    Amusingly (in the darkly tragic sort of way), the law was actually written by a known white supremacist [splcenter.org] (Kris Kobach, a member of FAIR, a known hate group). He literally handed it off to Brewer's administration to push through. Which she did, because it was an Election year and she needed the bigot vote to keep her job.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:33PM (#36550106)

    That is the issue.

    Did you ever stop to think that if the socialists didn't keep trying to turn the country into a "Free Services R' Us" heaven, it wouldn't really matter who the fuck was in the country?

    That's the real issue.

  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:44PM (#36550218) Homepage

    Where i live, both are. If you get caught employing illegals, you get fined and the illegals are sent back home.

    I used to work in Apple Warehouses in Yakima Washington.

    One day I noticed a few trucks from the warehouse down the road filled to the brim with Latino workers. They were driving out towards the orchards, away from the other warehouse, which looked absolutely deserted.

    I asked my father, who still works as a forklift foreman at the warehouse, what that was about.

    "Oh, Evans is getting a surprise inpsection, so they're moving all the illegals out to the field for the rest of the week. They'll have the legals work at the warehouse until the inspectors leave."

    "Wait, but isn't it a surprise inspection?"

    "Yeah, but they warn them a day or two ahead of time so they don't get caught."

  • by blind monkey 3 (773904) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:54PM (#36550294)

    Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.

    By definition. Which part of "illegal" != "commit crime" ?

    " A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
    What public offence makes a person removable from the Unites States (apart from being illegally in the US or some other serious crime - which I would hope would compel the person to produce documentation regardless of this law).
    The law gives police the right to arrest (not just question) anyone suspected of being in the country illegally, they would not need to have committed a crime before being arrested - proving they are profiling is not a simple matter (he/she was acting in a suspicious manner your honour). To argue this will not encourage racial profiling is not being honest.

  • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:36PM (#36550618) Journal

    What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.

    Not exactly. The law requires you treat all Mexicans as Illegal Immigrants unless proven otherwise.

    In addition, the giant "screw you, liberty" the rabid far right snuck in was the ability for private organizations (read: white supremacists) to sue the police if they don't feel they're harassing Latinos enough.

    Please, quote me the exact portion of the law that requires all Mexicans to be treated as illegals until proven otherwise. I've read it and I can't find it. Was there an amendment I'm not aware of?

    Or, if it's not in there, you are lying your fucking ass off and you think it's OK. You have literally made stuff up and convinced yourself that it is true to justify your opposition to the law. So, go read the law, and tell me where it says what you say it does or STFU.

    Or, tell you what. Go to Arizona and walk up to a police officer. Odds are he will be Hispanic since Hispanics are the largest race in Arizona and be sure to let him know that he is a "white supremacists".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:22PM (#36550986)

    Go to Arizona and walk up to a police officer. Odds are he will be Hispanic since Hispanics are the largest race in Arizona

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona#Demographics says: "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Arizona had a population of 6,392,017. In terms of race and ethnicity, the state was 73.0% White (57.8% Non-Hispanic White Alone) [...] Hispanics or Latinos of any race made up 29.6% of the state's population."

    Unless that "largest" was a fat cop joke or something, in which case it whooshed right by me.

    The "assume all Mexicans are illegal" part probably comes from this section:

    FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

    Sorry about the all-caps-shout, that's direct copypasta from the all-caps pdf quickview from googling for SB1070.
    Anyway, that could easily end up being discrimination-by-demographics - it's Arizona, 90+% of illegals in Arizona are Hispanic, so the only time a cop has 'reasonable suspicion' that they're talking to an illegal alien is when they think he looks kinda Mexican and has an accent, since that's the only thing you'd be able to see and hear until after you checked. Given the stats I listed earlier, that's kind of a problem... apparently almost 30% of Arizona residents look kinda Mexican! That's a whole lot of citizens and legal residents who could basically be checked at any time.

  • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:32PM (#36551052) Journal

    Except that Sheriff Bubba-Joe has a history of having his officers stop every brown person they see, under the troll logic that "Non-Whites commit more crimes." Usually under the guise of wanting to see their drivers licence. And then, with this new law, they have to PROVE that they're not illegals, or the cop can arrest them on the spot for the crime of "possibly being illegal."

    Evidently, you've never been to Arizona. Nearly 40% of the police officers there consider themselves to be Hispanic.

    So, are you going to change your statement to read "Except that Sheriff Lupe-Jose has a history of..."? Why not? Why is it OK to assume that AZ Police officers are "Sheriff Bubba-Joe" when you thought they were all white and not OK when the Sheriff is Hispanic?

    Sorry, buddy, I just proved that you are a racist. You are what you accuse others of. I guess that makes you a hypocrite too.

    And you do realize that any cop can pull you over right now, demand to see you license, throw it in the ditch and arrest you for driving without one? He can then beat the crap out of you the back of the car and charge you with resisting arrest. While you lay in the back of his car, bleeding, he can "find" that missing girl's body in your trunk and have you on death row for murder. Why are you not suggesting that we do away with cops? After all, you are against this law because cops might use it to profile, even though profiling is explicitly prohibited by this very law. Why are you not against all laws because any law may be abused by any cop?

    And again, you totally ignore that 40% of cops in AZ are Hispanic. Or do you think they are racists too?

  • by Discopete (316823) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @11:35PM (#36551422) Homepage

    In AZ if you get caught knowingly hiring illegals and you lose your license to do business in the state. Many employers are not willing to take that chance.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...