Hacker News Reader

Comment by maeon3 | Hacker News Reader

Most people are going to says lulzsec is doing something illegal and immoral here. Consider a different example:

A bank robber robs a bank, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars, then proceeds to hand out the money to anyone who wants it. Who are you more mad at? The bank robber who figured out a way to steal the money, or the bank who has no clue how the money was stolen?

View on HN

I was with them until the snitch list. These aren't exactly people abusing power (AFAIK). If there was one particular person among the snitch list that was interesting, they should've just cited that one. Releasing the entire list can seriously endanger some innocent people.

Overall I still like that they're trying to wrest power from those who abuse it, but I think it hurts their stance to cause collateral damage like that.

the reason snitches talk is because they ran out of ways to avoid prosecution, so i feel the innocent would be the minority in that group, as the police wouldn't have anything on them to compel cooperation.

Regardless of why snitches talk, it's a basic assumption that their collaboration will be rewarded by the protection against retaliation by those they inform on.

If those snitches are helping the investigation of violent crimes, it's really, really irresponsible to release their identities.

I have to say this is the first time I've seen someone argue that confidential informants receive special protection from Law Enforcement outside of the Witness Protection Program, which is a federal thing and quite specific (and limited) in its application. Do you have a reference for this "basic assumption?"

It's only fair that you protect your sources. As a law enforcement agent, would you be comfortable if you recklessly exposed your sources to harm? If, for no other reason, you protect your informants so they continue to inform you.

I'd say that's an assumption (or agreement) some of the time, but I'd wager just as soon that the "protection" offered is always post-hoc: someone gets busted and drops dime, getting them protection from prosecution in their instant case.

Except it says "Report a Crime" before, which would imply it's not people avoiding prosecution, but people knowing of a crime and then contacting the authorities. For example a family member of a criminal or friend.

Approximately half of these are people reporting the where-abouts of people with outstanding warrants. I agree that those should not have been released.

The other half appear to be neighbours slandering neighbours out of personal grudges.

That is just illogical.

The "banks" mistakes and failures do not justify the crimes committed by the "robbers". If you forgot to lock your car one day, it would be acceptable for me to steal said car if my intent was to teach you to always lock your doors?

From your example, most people would be more mad at the bank robber because of the malicious intent.

You're connecting the two examples too much. While releasing this information may well have malicious intent, robbing a bank to give away money (as this information was hacked -to leak-) isn't exactly malicious. Leaking information that can be a warning or making an example of, now that can be. Intent depends on intent, and the intent of the example bank robbers was to hand out free cash. (and banks are insured...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com