Anonymous, LulzSec Dump Data from 70 Sheriffs' Offices | Hacker News Reader

Anonymous, LulzSec Dump Data from 70 Sheriffs' Offices

eweek.com

43 pointsGarbage16 comments

Apparently reddit moderators remove links to lulzsec torrents or news articles that directly link the torrents, as it violates the rule about posting personal information.

I realise this article doesn't do that, but do similar rules apply to hn? I recall seeing direct links to lulzsec dumps on the front page of hn. Is the reddit moderating team enforcing this rule simply as a choice or is it a legal decision? More directly: if for example the New York times posted an article with a link to the torrent front and center, are they breaking the law? And it so would they likely be pursued for the violation?

I'm not sure HN has any publicly posted rules regarding acceptable content.

The one guideline that seems to apply is content should not be too contrary to YC interests.

The other question to ask: Would they likely be pursued even if isn't illegal (i.e. some us attorney trying to make case law or a name for him/herself)?

I believe Reddit started doing it voluntarily because of the harassment that was occurring whenever personal information was posted. I do not believe it triggered by any legal action.

[blog post] http://blog.reddit.com/2011/05/reddit-we-need-to-talk.html

Recently a sheriff's deputy pulled me and my family out of a car that we sent off the road at 75 mph. I admire Anonymous, but I believe the world is not always as binary as they perceive it to be.

What point are you making here? Is it that since one guy did his job, the rest cannot be looked at hard for corruption? Is it that since your family is now safe from a wreck, that the savers don't need public accountability ever again?

Well... no... My point was that police officers are just another slice of humanity - mostly good, some bad.

Obviously they will be pissed, but I'm curious what the reaction is from the officers and sherrifs in the limelight...

does it occur to these people that we might become used to them leaking stuff and not care anymore? i, for one, don't care and don't know what they are fighting for anymore...

Nice, let's screw rural sheriffs.. The only ones fighting this massive influx of gangs in the rural areas. But then again, 99% of anonymous aren't in rural America so they have absolutely no idea how it actually is out here.

Sheriffs tend to be even worse than city police when it comes to abuses (e.g. see Sheriff Joe).

Let's not tar all Sheriffs with the same brush. Yes there are a few very visible cases of abuse, but the reason you can even say "Sheriff Joe" and have people know what you're taking about is that he is a very special case.

I live in Montana and even our biggest cities are small compared to the rest of the country. I'm not aware of any 'massive influx' of gangs here.

If you're a rural cop in need of funding, any brown guy will look like a Mexican cartel hit-man. You can see the same sentiment elsewhere; here in Australia there are horror stories of Sydney/Melbourne/OtherDenOfEvil gangs moving to the country side, going under-ground for decades as farmers/miners/GoodGuys(TM) and suddenly springing to action to kill innocent people & prize whining cattle.

They did a TV segment of a Bangladeshi dentist who evaded taxes. Yeah, a fucking tax evasion case made into a 60-minute segment of hard-hitting journalism. GTFO!

You might be interested in Frontline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(Australian_TV_series...

Every city has a gang problem. Most just will not admit it. You may not notice it, but go to a different part of town. You have it.

Even an estimated 2% of the US military are gang members. (this is how they get many of their weapons)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com