Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

LulzSec Posts First Secret Document Dump 835

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This discussion has been archived.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.

  • 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 MichaelKristopeit500 ( 2018072 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:03PM (#36549180)
    it's anti-citizen. every time i drive through arizona, gestapo checkpoints operated by the border patrol force me to stop my car for inspection. trained dogs circle my car while i'm asked interrogated. innocent until proven guilty? no-cause traffic stops? this is the america arizona provides. there is most certainly a difference.
  • Who knew? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashikiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:09PM (#36549246) Homepage

    A state mirroring federal law, is anti-immigrant. I mean seriously here. You have the feds who refuse to enforce the law, you have a state creating a law that mirrors it, and they're anti-immigrant? Hardly. Anti-illegal immigrant indeed and I have no problems with that.

  • by Libertarian001 ( 453712 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:10PM (#36549248)

    Border Patrol? You mean from U.S. Customs and Border Protection? The Federal Agency? Why are you bringing this up in a conversation about a state law?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:12PM (#36549282)

    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 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.

  • Re:Who knew? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:16PM (#36549324)

    You'd have to read it to know if it mirrors federal law or not.

    It doesn't, and you haven't read it.

    And after trying to discuss certain issues like whether bus or taxi drivers run afoul of AZ's sb1070 on AZCentral (by "transporting" them), I've determined that people in favor of it are thick and stupid.

    SB1070 is bad law badly written.

    Also, explain to me what an illegal immigrant looks like, because the last one I saw was German and overstayed her visa.


  • 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 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.

  • Re:Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shellster_dude ( 1261444 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:21PM (#36549364)
    You don't have a problem with continuing a process that allows a whole sub-culture of people to be treated like slaves, paid almost nothing, worked in unsafe environments, and have no representation because you don't want to pay a buck fifty more for you produce?...what a disgusting position. I think you'd have been more in comfortable in the 1800's in the south.
  • 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.
  • by Urza9814 ( 883915 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:23PM (#36549392)

    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.

    If even native-born citizens are being picked up and imprisoned for months under OLD laws, what do you think the effect will be of making those laws harsher?

    Besides, even if nobody legal gets arrested, SB1070 still effectively legalizes police harassment of anybody who's skin is darker than a certain shade of brown. And they require that you carry identification with you. This is not a legal requirement anywhere else in America. This is not Nazi Germany, we should not be required to carry our papers. Of course, if you're white, you aren't. It's just brown people who are being required to carry papers...

  • Re:Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekforhire ( 300937 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:25PM (#36549412)

    Bingo. People that support illegal immigration just cant seem to grasp that they are supporting a system that exploits people that have no protection under the law. Also..dont give me that 'jobs you wont do' crap. I will happily pay more for fruit if the worker that picked it was making at least minimum wage and I know a ton of people without jobs that will take *anything* at this point.

  • by stinerman ( 812158 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {enits.nahtan}> on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:26PM (#36549428) Homepage

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

  • 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 MrEricSir ( 398214 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:27PM (#36549432) Homepage

    Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes. It's not that they're looking to move to a country that's safer where they can work their asses off for less than minimum wage to make a better future for themselves. Nope, that could NEVER be the case.

  • by SQL Error ( 16383 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:31PM (#36549470)

    Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.


  • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:40PM (#36549586)

    You need to get your information from somewhere other than LaRaza.

  • 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 betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:46PM (#36549660)
    Anyone who signs up for that kind of work (drug enforcement) knows they are taking on that kind of risk. If that is not something that society wants -- if we don't want to put families in danger as part of the "war on drugs" -- the answer is to reevaluate our policy on drugs, not to spend even more energy trying to keep the identities of our drug enforcement personnel secret.
  • Slaves don't vote. Slaveowners do.

  • Spot on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @08:52PM (#36549718)
    Especially since we are talking about law enforcement agencies. These are people who are given the legal authority to deprive other people of their rights -- that is the last group of people that I want operating in secret.
  • by xantonin ( 1973196 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:07PM (#36549874)

    "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the united states or arizona constitution"

    Page 1, lines 30-34.

    Do you really think in a state where brown skin is the majority that cops will waste their time bugging everyone who is brown skinned? We in AZ are aware there are a lot of legal Hispanics here, don't insult us with your assumptions.

  • by _KiTA_ ( 241027 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:11PM (#36549930) Homepage

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

    Except Sheriff Bubba-Joe is on record as being a bigoted racial profiling asshole. There's a difference.

    5 minutes of research (outside of the Fake News / Tea Party bubble) will show that SB2010 did nothing for immigration save to codify the already existing "fuck wetbacks" mentality down there.

  • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:12PM (#36549938) Homepage Journal

    "I didn't even notice he was Hispanic, judge! I swear!" heh heh.

    Law Enforcement has NEVER lied to make themselves look better.

  • by gbutler69 ( 910166 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:13PM (#36549948) Homepage
    The fine for the employer is a simple cost of doing business. Save $100,000.00 per month on wages, pay an $10,000.00 fine now and then. Getting sent back to their "Home Country" is life-devastating for the "Criminal Brown People". Not the same thing at all.
  • 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...

  • by _KiTA_ ( 241027 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:14PM (#36549960) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:No Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:15PM (#36549966) Homepage Journal

    In America, the Lobbyists are the Government!

    Wake up and smell the coffee. You're living in the past.

  • by unitron ( 5733 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:43PM (#36550216) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, how dare those Mexican corn farmers who were put out of business by NAFTA and the US agribusiness conglomerates come up here looking for stoop labor so that they can provide for their families?

  • by MichaelKristopeit350 ( 1968134 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @09:51PM (#36550276)
    doing something to EVERYONE does not make it CONSTITUTIONAL -OR- JUSTIFIED.

    how could you possibly infer from my comments that i believe that anyone should believe that the federal government answers only to arizona? you're an idiot.


  • 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 wisty ( 1335733 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:28PM (#36550552)

    The best way to beat sympathy isn't hate. It's disgust. I read a study [citation needed] that showed people stopped showing sympathy if they were disgusted by the perp's crime. This is, incidentally, why perverts (for whatever the current definition of pervert is) get cracked down on so hard - it's easy to be disgusted by them, so nobody has any sympathy.

    If you want to get rid of illegal immigrants, you don't run a hate campaign. It's likely to be illegal, makes you look bad, and may actually drum up a lot of opposition. Accusing Mexicans of being drug smugglers, violent criminals, and terrorists might drum up a bit of fear (and hate), but it doesn't really work.

    The best way to persecute people is to drum up disgust. It can be overt (attacking their personal hygiene), or more subtle (attacking their immoral values). Calling mexicans "filthy" has been extremely effective, but it isn't going to fly anymore. The modern day equivalent is calling them tax cheats, freeloaders, and queue jumpers. Queue jumping (at the supermarket checkout, or Disneyland, or any other context) isn't seen as a serious crime, but as a disgusting lack of social nous. Which makes it a far better slur than "drug runner", if you want people to lose sympathy.

  • by ArcherB ( 796902 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:29PM (#36550558) Journal

    it's not worth noting.

    and it's very hard to find those people.

    it's a lot easier to find people who are sympathetic, but want the law enforced.

    someone please mod William Ager and his fantasy land into the ground.

    It's quite easy to find Hispanics who are against illegal immigration. Of course, you won't find them on TV. Newscasts are borderline racist in their portrayal of Hispanics as one, big, massive stereotype. They display them as if they are all lemmings who follow whatever the liberal Hispanic "leaders" say.

    If you want to know the truth, go to a place where Hispanics are the majority and live there for a few years. I live in such a place. My wife, daughter and best friend are all Hispanic. To be honest, Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanics.

    It other words, you don't know WTF you are talking about, gringo.

  • 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.

  • by scot4875 ( 542869 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:53PM (#36550762) Homepage

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

    But pulling someone over for driving erratically isn't. Good luck proving that you weren't driving erratically.

    Your selective distrust of the government is incredibly amusing.


  • by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:57PM (#36550798) Homepage Journal
    I'm going to blatantly whore for visibility because this entire discussion is still a bunch of "racist Arizona nyah nyah bickering, and contains nothing of the content of the torrent which I downloaded and briefly pored over. Here are some highlights, feel free to share your own:

    - The conversations in Charles_Springstun.txt include correspondance from a Mr. Frankie Oxendine who is an antiterrorism /OPSEC officer and U.S. Army reserve candidate. He has "In God we trust, all others we monitor" included in his sig - that alone should provide some insight into the sanity of the whole homeland security operation. His business, mobile, and fax numbers are listed in the document.

    - In one of the text documents(forgot, too lazy to look through again), there is a detail about an officer bragging about how easy a shotgun is to operate, before or after he had to undergo remedial training for ditching his shotgun and cowardly running away from a firefight while his compatriots charged on.

    - From the Larry_Parks document, in the Blythe, AZ paperz pleaze gestapo checkpoint, "a K-9 alerted to the vehicle he was driving. A secondary inspection was negative for contraband; however, record checks revealed that the driver had a suspended registration and no valid driverâ(TM)s license. The subject also admitted that he had no insurance. YCSO was contacted, responded and arrested the subject and took custody of his property. "

    - A very professional conversation from the originator in the Steven_Loya document: "I'm sorry bro, I don't even talk to my squad or they talk to me. I really don't know where I belong right now... And we can't take blame for anything bro...Im sorry bro, there is just a lot of stuff going on... Keep me updated bro.

    - A fairly gruesome video called ' Spike Deployment Gone Bad, ' not for the faint of heart. Also among the documents are the usual MBA-prepared homeland security warning charts, a racial profiling advisory by the ACLU, what appear to be photos of an officer's' family/ies, an amusing survey of Jihadist tattoos, Active-duty membership of outlaw biker gangs, and an advisory about Purple Drank.

    The documents individually are not significant, but when read as a whole show the frightening, incompetent, paranoid mess that is the homeland security apparatus.
  • by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @02:56AM (#36552098)

    Your statement is wise. I demand to see the names of every under-cover agent in the country, and also the name of every female rape victim. It's a DEMOCRACY god damn it!

    Fucking twit.

  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@world3.nBLUEet minus berry> on Friday June 24, 2011 @04:07AM (#36552368) Homepage Journal

    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:Spot on (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @08:12AM (#36553530)

    that is the last group of people that I want operating in secret.

    You are so right. There should be some sort of web site where the names, home addresses, and family profiles of under-cover cops are listed. Also, all investigations and pending busts should be announced before hand, so that criminals can modify their behavior and hide evidence before things get ugly for them. All in-progress rape investigationss or child abuse cases should be listed publicly, with names of everyone involved, of course, with all related police activity on public display so you can go about your day better informed. And definitely, when the police have a lead on a potential bank robbery or a group of people who are planning a mass murder, they should never be allowed to operate covertly to gather information about those involved, or to take non-public steps to prepare for arrests of those involved. And definitely all procedures related to things like security details and travel plans for people like governors (with police protection details) should be made public, with everything about the detail's members, parking arrangements, timing, etc., announced online before each event.

    And, of course, all investigations of white collar crime should include advance notice and public display of every lead and the daily activities of every investigator who is following up on a suspect's money laundering, tax evasion, extortion, etc ... this has to happen BEFORE an arrest, of course, so that you can be comfortable that they're handling each step of the case correctly. Hopefully the bad guy who is trafficking in underage sex slaves, laundering money from the sale of stolen pain meds, and similarly civic-minded activities will be too busy to notice the information you're saying should be public. You really should run for office so that your fine ideas can get a better public hearing.

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.