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This discussion has been archived.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 @07:59PM (#36549144)

    It's anti-illegal-immigrant. There's a difference.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Let's face it: they're "anti-Mexican".
      • by Libertarian001 (453712) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:08PM (#36549240)

        You really are stupid. I live in AZ. My immediate supervisor is 100% ethnic Mexican (and his grandfather immigrated here). His stance? Fully supports SB1070. It's anti-illegal-immigration.

        • by William Ager (1157031) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:13PM (#36549294)

          It's worth noting that Mexicans from more affluent areas, and more central areas in general, often are quite racist against Mexicans from border areas. It isn't hard to find people who immigrated to the US from Mexico City and dislike Mexicans from Tijuana more than white supremacists do.

          • by Abreu (173023) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:55PM (#36550776)

            As a Mexican, I can say it is true that there are frictions between ethnic groups and geographical regions within the country.

            A lot is just stereotype and jokes, like Californians and Appalachians and New Yorkers, etc, might regard each other.

            But there is an undercurrent of racism in Mexico, which is not polite to admit in public (People say "this is a country that abolished castes and slavery during its independence war! Of course we are not racists!"), but is true nonetheless.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:16PM (#36549330)

          He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.

          • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:30PM (#36550568) Journal

            He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.

            You mean like when he gets pulled over and the police man asks for his driver's license? Yeah, that never happens to white people.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by stinerman (812158)

          He may fully support SB1070. Good for him. It's still a bill that is anti-brown people.

          • He may fully support SB1070. Good for him. It's still a bill that is anti-brown people.

            Please read the bill and quote the "anti-brown people" portion of it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Troll)

          by Dhalka226 (559740)

          What's your point?

          I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.

          That much I will never support, and I really could not care less if you happen to know a Mexican who does.

          • by cavreader (1903280) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:45PM (#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 _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:18PM (#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 ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @11:32PM (#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 Dhalka226 (559740)

              You are not required to present identification to a police officer. If you're driving, of course, that will lead to a rather quick arrest -- but you are still not required to do so. The only thing you are required to do is provide your name. And, for the record, a driver's license would not be sufficient proof. California, among other states, issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. "Drivers license please" is not equivalent to "drivers license and green card please" even if you accept a non-exis

          • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:38PM (#36550646) Journal

            I'm all for enforcing immigration laws (though I do believe it should be done at the federal level), but that does not mean stopping people for driving while dark-skinned and asking for their papers is anything less than inherent and frankly disgusting racism, codified into law.

            Show me where that is written into the law. Someone has lied to you.

            For the record, pulling someone over because based on looks is strictly forbidden in the law.

    • by geoffrobinson (109879) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:02PM (#36549172) Homepage

      Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between the two positions. My legal immigrant friends sure can.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:05PM (#36550372)

        Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between the two positions. My legal immigrant friends sure can.

        I am anti-illegal immigrants, but I have a problem with the Arizona law: It can't possibly be constitutional.

        Allow me to explain. My mother is a white american who married a latino. I was born in the US, I have citizenship by blood and by place of birth. If I were to visit Arizona, and some cop looks at me, he might decide that he has "probable cause" to ask for papers, because I look foreign. As a result you have a cop that is going to ask an American citizen for papers and jail me if I refuse to comply.

        How in the FUCK can you think that's constitutional?

        Now, if the law would instead put employers in jail who hire illegal immigrants knowingly, I'd be all for it. That's the problem anyway. If they couldn't get jobs here, the US wouldn't be worth the enormous risk they take crossing the border.

      • by jd (1658) <imipak@yahoo.cEINSTEINom minus physicist> on Thursday June 23, 2011 @11:45PM (#36551116) Homepage Journal

        I find your .sig interesting, given that there were Jews in the Nazis who apparently couldn't distinguish between the positions either. Since this means illegal immigrants are now incapable of appealing to the law against forced labour (which is actually very common in the US), slavery hasn't ended either. Russia has reverted to communism because President Raygun failed to provide support for Gorbechev's reforms. And since American independence was founded on no taxation without representation, taxing these people whilst prohibiting them from enjoying any rights whatsoever is clearly a complete destruction of what American independence actually is.

        In short, you're not just a fool, you're a damn fool.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@world3AAA.net minus threevowels> on Friday June 24, 2011 @04:07AM (#36552368) Homepage

        Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

        In the UK we managed to get rid of slavery without a war, as did most other places. There are plenty of ex-colony countries that became independent without war. The Nazis rise to power was a direct consequence of WWI and the situation we put Germany in after it (massive reparations, hyperinflation etc.) Communism... Well, you failed in Vietnam and the cold war ended why the USSR collapsed rather than when you defeated them militarily.

        So yeah, starting a war rarely improves the situation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Urza9814 (883915)

      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

      • by anagama (611277)
        I'm as anti-police state as you can get, and the story you tell if true would be very seriously egregious. However, you should do the google work and post a citation. There is one fact in the story that is glaringly wrong -- the Feds don't keep birth certificates, states do that. Secondly, it wouldn't take months of labor to earn enough to get a copy -- I would guess the usual price is $15-30, so two weeks to a month.
        • by Urza9814 (883915) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:59PM (#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 aardvarkjoe (156801) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:46PM (#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 _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:26PM (#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 blair1q (305137)

      That's what they say, but then, they know the immigration quotas keep the numbers of brown people low.

    • by WNight (23683)

      Great. Get the fuck out then.

      Or, are you a member of the Navajo, Ak-Chin, Cocopah, etc, tribes? Because if not you're a just another hypocritical authoritarian on a bender. Sit down and shut up.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Nobody seems to ever bring this up, but by supporting illegal immigration you are supporting modern day slavery. Illegal immigrants don't make a proper wage and dont receive any of the protections that their legal immigrant friends enjoy. Stop pretending that this is a human rights issue, its not, its simply a channel to allow businesses to abuse workers. And now I will sit back while people that don't live near the border chime in and tell us that do what the facts really are....

    • by leromarinvit (1462031) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:21PM (#36549362)

      You can't fix slavery with a law that punishes the slaves instead of the slaveowners.

    • by pclminion (145572) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:26PM (#36549430)

      Nobody seems to ever bring this up, but by supporting illegal immigration you are supporting modern day slavery. Illegal immigrants don't make a proper wage and dont receive any of the protections that their legal immigrant friends enjoy.

      Ah, that explains why they keep on comin'.

      • by hedwards (940851) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:44PM (#36549630)

        No, what explains that is that wages and work conditions are even worse where they come from. If you want them to stop coming, then you fine the crap out of businesses that fail to properly identify that their employees have their documentation and those that fail to obey the legal requirements regarding workplace safety.

        • by pclminion (145572)

          No, what explains that is that wages and work conditions are even worse where they come from. If you want them to stop coming...

          So you want to reconfigure the situation so that these people remain in Circumstance A rather than a somewhat better Circumstance B. You want to do this for... humanitarian concerns?

          • by jd (1658)

            Naturally. It's far cheaper to lower everyone's standards of living than to raise them Oh, and chocolate rations are going up tomorrow to half of what they were yesterday.

    • by Eil (82413)

      Nobody seems to ever bring this up, but by supporting illegal immigration you are supporting modern day slavery. Illegal immigrants don't make a proper wage and dont receive any of the protections that their legal immigrant friends enjoy.

      By casting illegal immigrants as slaves, you diminish the tragedy of actual slavery. Real slaves don't get paid. Real slaves can't escape their captors or they will face death if they try.

      Illegal immigrants make a choice to cross over the border because they can (or at leas

  • by tantaliz3 (1074234) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:21PM (#36549370)
    Not for public distribution should be illegal in a free democratic society. Democracy fails if the voters don't have a clear and complete perspective.
  • So.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by scubamage (727538) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:24PM (#36549398)
    I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret. Just like trying to push a large boulder up a mountain - like Sisyphus. And eventually they're going to trip up, and that boulder will come tumbling back down. We're watching it happen. And I, for one, am enjoying nom'ing on some popcorn while it happens.
    • "Information's natural state is to be free "

      So for example if police or security services have information about a crime to be committed but what to keep it secret so they can catch the criminals in the act , you think they should just make that information public ASAP and if the criminals find out, well too bad eh? At least your moral high ground is intact.

      Christ I wish people like you wold grow the fuck up. This is real life with real people, not some fantasy nirvana with idealtistic ciphers standing in f

  • The info released isn't funny in any obvious context. The press release is certainly not funny and doesn't even try to be. The ASCII gun graphic and the content of the information and press release look like classic anarchist material. Not sure if it's intentional or what but none of this seems directly connected to the personality on Twitter.

    Maybe this is the result of the Anonymous/Lulzsec partnership. Maybe Lulzsec is under new management. Maybe the false flag operation has kicked into high gear.

    Something has changed. You can tell by the dejavu.

    • by scubamage (727538)
      I'm assuming that they got access to a machine and did a snatch and run. They're just throwing it together in an archive and sending it out. The fact that there are image files, videos, etc all thrown together would tell me they got into a documents folder somewhere. Probably someone who brought a work computer home and got it compromised?
  • No Problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by d'fim (132296) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:35PM (#36549544)
    It's OK. As long as the state didn't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about.
  • How about... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:14PM (#36549958) Homepage Journal

    Fining the ass off of Employers that are hiring illegal aliens?

    Oh, I forgot who has the bigger lobby.

    This country is seriously screwed...

  • Same old nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MaWeiTao (908546) on Friday June 24, 2011 @01:54AM (#36551810)

    Why is it that white people seem to be the most vehemently opposed to any measure to deal with illegal immigration? It's like they're operating from a standpoint of hyper-sensitivity and guilt.

    I find it offensive that suggesting that something needs to be done about illegal immigrations leads to a person being branded as a racist. Can anyone explain to me what's unreasonable about keeping people from entering the country illegally? That's the key distinction here: illegal.

    My entire family consists of first generation immigrants. My uncle had to wait 7 years for his number to be called because he was coming with his family. And my parents were sponsoring them. I'd say 90% of my closer friends are immigrants and most of them have a problem with illegal immigration. The important thing here is that they all, myself included, came here legally. We followed the process, paid the fees and did whatever was necessary to come here.

    So why should someone who felt they didn't want to bother with any of that be given a free ride? And the irony here is that coming illegally merely insures unending hardships. All those illegals who couldn't be bothered to follow the process end up being exploited doing crap work. Had they come here legally they would have had many more options.

    My wife, having been in the country one week shy of a year had to pay out of state tuition at the local community college. Now an illegal immigrant enjoys the benefit of paying in-state tuition by virtue of not submitting any paperwork that proves residency. I can appreciate the motivation behind that move, they're trying to encourage illegals to go to school. The problem is, if you're still an illegal when you graduate you're still not going to be able to find work. And ultimately, there really needs to be some level of penalty for breaking the law.

    The fact is, however, that there's no way we can realistically deport those already here. We do need to legalize them. But that should never happen before we've addressed the problem of those coming across the border. If we don't do that first we're never going to fix this problem and in fact we'll probably make it worse. It isn't the first time we've tried this.

    And the propaganda campaign against the Arizona law was quite effective in how it has misled the American public. It basically mirrors the Federal law already in place and makes it illegal to conduct racial profiling. I found it rather amusing to hear Europeans and the Chinese berate us over the law given that their own immigration policies are much harsher. Hell, Mexico is much tougher on illegal immigrants than we are.

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Friday June 24, 2011 @07:57AM (#36553384)
    How about this: If illegal workers are found at an employer, they are sent back home by airplane with all expenses paid by the employer - along with a month's worth of pay equal to the average legal workers' wages. Talk about disincentive.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...