Hackers (Anonymous..) threaten Fullerton police website, email

Orange County Register ^ | August 14, 2011 | CLAUDIA KOERNER

[Beaten Valve]

FULLERTON – The hacker group Anonymous is threatening to disrupt the Fullerton Police Department's website and email after the death of a mentally ill homeless man last month following a confrontation with police officers.

The group is demanding the resignation of Police Chief Michael Sellers, the prosecution of the officers involved and the city to pay out $5 million to the family of Kelly Thomas, 37, who died July 10. Police said Thomas resisted while officers were investigating reports of an attempted car burglary. Six officers responded to subdue him, and a bloody photo showing Thomas' fatal head and neck injuries has received national attention.

In an online letter, Anonymous accuses the police department of attempting to cover up the incident. "This is not just a brutal attack against another human being, but an attack against human rights," the letter said.

[floozy22]

Just an excuse for more malfeasance.

Guess it hasn't ocurred to these geniuses that they are only hurting the tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of Fullerton.

[Zarro]

Cyber-Blackmail!

If the FBI is not already going after them, they should be.

[Cboldt]

They are also hurting their own cause, by telegraphing their existence and intentions.

[coloradan]

Guess it hasn't ocurred to these geniuses that they are only hurting the tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of Fullerton.

Did you mean the hackers or the police? (Homeless people pay sales taxes, and many aren't criminal either. Still, the police find it necessary to murder them from time to time.)

[floozy22]

I meant the hackers. What the police did is indefensible.

[txnuke]

Wow. Thanks for posting and thanks for your comments.

I am chiming in / speaking up rather early on this thread and I welcome replies and feedback from any and all.

I guess the reason I am posting on this thread is because I felt a sense of justice when I read the portion of the article at the top of the thread (I did not go to the OC Register website to finish the article).

I am vaguely familiar with some of the "adventures" (at least those that have been in the news, anyway) of the hacker group that calls themselves "Anonymous". I am a PC user of average skill and knowledge (who can keep up anyway?) and in no way a hacker.

As I looked into the most recent news concerning this group I came across and article about them planning a cyber-attack and/or a protest against San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18679827

So, I guess what prompts me to write this little reply is that I know I have a strong sense of justice and I try to balance it -- on a daily basis -- with a sense of tolerance and fairness. But I would be interested in what makes others condemn this group.

Lawfulness, civil disobedience, public relations: is there as big a "grey area" here as I initially thought? Do you guys have some input as to the worthiness of the chosen cause(s) or issues of this group? Because from what I understand, they are doing more than most citizen watchdog groups could ever do, using the leverage that they have due to their skills, distributed membership, anonymity (mob mentality?), and willingness to break the law.

Hopefully no one will misunderstand my desire for meaningful discussion on this topic as some sort of attempt to defend them. I know very little except they have taken on the Church of Scientology, the government of Egypt, and some corporations whom I could not remember by name nor tell why they were targets.

Thanks in advance for civil discussion and please know that my quest here is not for the purpose of this topic only, but self-improvement and understanding in other areas of my life, too.

[txnuke]

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Stuxnet: I bet the Israeli government was behind it. It was the first virus to affect a "real-time" process (centrifuges in Iran). It entered Iran through the lab software provided by a (Russian?) contractor who helped build and supply the weapon-refinement facilities in Iran. I am pretty sure it set back Iran's efforts toward having nuclear weapons by years. At least I hope so. I don't think even this "Anonymous" group could have done that, and if they did, they probably would have taken credit for it.

I guess I thought I would sweeten the pot / expand the scope and make even ~more~ complicated the questions of ethics, anonymity, hacking for social justice and the role of technology in our worldwide village. LOL

[Winstons Julia]

I feel that anonymous are simply vigilantes. There’s no accountability.

[Rebelbase]

"If you're gonna shoot, shoot; don't talk".

[txnuke]

I feel that anonymous are simply vigilantes. There’s no accountability.

Ditto many "lawful" organizations, corporations, and government entities: they may or may not portray themselves as accountable, but often are not, IMHO.

I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful. I really do appreciate your reply. I just thought it was kind dismissive.

Was the civil disobedience of Selma, Alabama comparable? (Boy, there sure are some differences: a cyber-attack is not at all like the passive resistance of not riding in the back of the bus). I guess my question is: under what circumstances or with what restrictions is breaking the law a justifiable means to an end?

[Cboldt]

-- Do you guys have some input as to the worthiness of the chosen cause(s) or issues of this group? --

Nope.

And I think the tactic of disrupting the public net also works against their cause.

The people of Fullerton are going to have to decide if, and if so, how, they will deal with the filth that occupies their police department.

[txnuke]

"...I think the tactic of disrupting the public net also works against their cause. The people of Fullerton are going to have to decide if, and if so, how, they will deal with the filth that occupies their police department."

Fair enough. The case is not a "page 2" news story now, if it ever was.

I am glad to find people willing to reply. I am still --well, not floundering -- but not completely firm in my perspective.

[tarotsailor]

I want the murderers to be hacked...but I use the term with no associations to computers whatsoever.

[Ajnin]

Anonymous is creating an account full of pain. Computer keyboards are the wrong tool to use to f*** with the wrong people.

[txnuke]

Heh. thanks for your reply.

Added a smile to my day.

Not sure why I care to discuss this particular topic. I am no crusader. In fact, politically rather apathetic. I guess one of the reasons I am apathetic is because I feel powerless. And so this group seems to have some influence on society / events / public relations that the average citizen does not. So it intrigues me that there may come a day when more individuals and/or groups have a greater impact. Although in this case, they seem to be of questionable character, and proceeding at great risk to their personal liberties.

Every criminal thinks they are getting away with something.... most of them think that right up until the moment they get caught.

[floozy22]

The circumstance described in this article is similar to another this week, also in California. A rapper, the Game, incited a telephone flash mob via Twitter, that tied up the emergency phone lines in the city of Compton, CA for a couple of hours. It meant that actual emergency calls could not get through. The police may file criminal charges against the Game.

Sabotaging law enforcement is a bad idea, even in the name of “social justice.” To live in a lawful society means that we aren’t supposed to undermine the system or the people whose job it is to protect us. We have to have faith that the system will achieve justice on behalf of injured or wronged parties, even if the wrongdoers are law enforcement.

What this hacker group intends to do is become the judge, jury and punisher for the apparent bad behavior of the police. It’s not up to them to declare the police department guilty.

“Social justice” is a term that can mean different things to different people and depends on one’s perspective. It is too often used as an excuse for bad or unlawful behavior.

Ditto many "lawful" organizations, corporations, and government entities: they may or may not portray themselves as accountable, but often are not, IMHO.

It’s true that while some of these may not be accountable, there are vehicles and methods in the legal system to address shortcomings. Are you arguing that because other societal entities cross the line and get away with it, we should assume that the police will get away with it, so the hackers are justified in their actions? That’s a poor argument and just allows for any rogue group with an agenda to act on it’s own, regardless of the law.

[txnuke]

"Are you arguing that because other societal entities cross the line and get away with it, we should assume that the police will get away with it, so the hackers are justified in their actions?"

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I value the ability (both my own and other's) to express oneself.

I think that you give me too much credit in your question quoted above. I had not thought of that, maybe it was in the back of my mind. My (poor) reasoning was more along the lines of since we tolerate other socially accepted groups with questionable or no accountability, then why not Anonymous? Silly, I know, but --to some degree-- I was looking to be "corrected" by someone with logic.

~Anyway~ no, I have been thinking that a cyber attack (denial of service or shutdown website, shutdown email system, etc) on a law enforcement agency is different from an attack on a corporate or non-profit organization. But not by much. Especially since it is temporary and does not interfere -- at least, not very much -- with the basic functions of law enforcement, and what if a corrupt organization is made better by it?

Argh.

I just can't get past the fact that so many societal ills are accepted as normal and tolerable because they are conducted by the proper "authorities":
* * "rolling brownouts" decided by Public Utilities commission,
* * downsizing or reduction in services of state, county or local govts due to budget cuts,
* * poor EMS / Police response times to 911 calls,
* * polling "irregularities"
* * a legal system which varies due to wealth or lack thereof...

And I have not even BEGUN to touch on the waste, fraud and abuse of the last couple of years.

Aw, crud I could go on and on. I realize that this is more of the same (because this guy does it then its okay if that guy does it ... or the famous "2 wrongs make a right"). And I cannot say that I buy my own arguments (fallacies).

I just wonder in this day and age when so much of the liberal leadership in the US operates on the assumption that the end justifies the means, why fighting fair has to always be the best way to respond?

[signed]
Frustrated.

[txnuke]

That’s a poor argument and just allows for any rogue group with an agenda to act on it’s own, regardless of the law.

This is a good answer to my entire last post. In spirit I agree, but there is a lawlessness about the internet. And it seems we are entering a lawless age in our world. However, I recognize the potent and accurate truth that (even if the "barbarians are at the gate") we must not lower ourselves to their standards, for the rule of law sets us apart from them.

[La Enchiladita]

Haven’t you heard? The FBI is busy investigating the Fullerton Police. Supposedly, that is exactly what the protesters want... oh, that and $5 million bucks.