back to article US police contracts and private forum posts dumped online

A data dump covering hundreds of police contracts and thousands of private forum posts by US law enforcement officers has been posted online. The 273MB zip file contains a large number of Word documents and two database backups of the forum and main website of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), American's largest police …

  1. NoneSuch Silver badge

    We want full access to YOUR data, but you can't see ours.

    1. Mikel

      One comment in

      And there's nothing left to say.

  2. ecofeco Silver badge

    Beat me to it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Speaking of beatings, Mr Thomas White may have a visit to his bungalow by the UK police and in the course of questioning at his abode he may have an unfortunately terminal fall down the stairs.

  3. a_yank_lurker

    Poetic Justice

    So the goons do not like others reading their files but they want the right to read ours. Karma is a b*.

  4. Alistair Silver badge

    Interesting that he's already recieved threats.

    I wonder who would be so silly as to threaten someone on line.

    <the one with the "Trolling for idiots" in the pocket please>

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But I thought...

    That if they were truly the good guys, they have nothing to hide?

    After all, we need to see where they spend all that tax money...

    1. 1Rafayal

      Re: But I thought...

      The police are rarely the good guys...

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: But I thought...

      Did you just confess that you are a bad guy, AC?

      Please report yourself to the proper authorities forthwith.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But I thought...

        They wanted to see everything about me, but when I ran around naked they had fits...

        Better to cover up completely now.

  6. MooJohn

    Big deal

    Who conducts private business over a web forum anyway? He's got 18 TB of nothing anyone cares about. Old flame wars, bragging, complaining, war stories, and maybe the occasional job application where one guy wants to work for another department. This is hardly Snowden-level data.

    1. skeptical i

      Re: Big deal

      If it's "18 TB of nothing anyone cares about", then the media circus will move on after scurrying down a dead-end rabbit hole and returning with a bucket of ho-hum (which is the job description for journalists anyway). If they've nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear, no?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Big deal

      There are plenty of idiots that do exactly that. It's how most criminals get caught - stupidity or hubris.

  7. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Was SIN ever so Sweet and Appealing and Enlightening ‽ .

    Who conducts private business over a web forum anyway? …. MooJohn

    Most everyone working in the clearly deeper fields and darker bright areas of webs weaving Sublime Internet Networks, MooJohn, is an educated guess based upon nothing more ethereal than published hearsay and panicking desperate reaction to changed memes and means in the way of doing great and good things in these/those changed postmodern times with more magic places and spaces.

    1. Alistair Silver badge

      Re: Was SIN ever so Sweet and Appealing and Enlightening ‽ .


      Either I've been hanging about these fora too long and am getting particularly damaged in some way, or you are starting to make sense. Not sure which of those is more scary.

      1. Lysenko

        Re: Was SIN ever so Sweet and Appealing and Enlightening ‽ .

        Relax. You're just drunk ;)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Was SIN ever so Sweet and Appealing and Enlightening ‽ .

        I think Mars is closer to Earth currently. The signal is clearer.

      3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Re: Was SIN ever so Sweet and Appealing and Enlightening ‽ .


        That's odd. Grumpenkraut had the same worries just the other day on another thread. My guess is that both of you are just getting better at processing amanfrommars1's texts.

    2. Tail Up

      Re: Was SIN ever so Sweet and Appealing and Enlightening ‽ .

      Well, I would believe :-) that patching such delicate stuff isn't an easy task. Scenes chosen intentionally to shorten the explaining this... if one hasn't experienced it before.

  8. frank ly

    This is why why need strong encryption!

    Oh, .... wait a minute.

    1. Tail Up

      Re: This is why why need strong encryption!


      Strong... *what*?

      owe me a keyboard


  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They can cheer up and just think of it as civil forfeiture for their pixels. And is it not police organisations who are pushing for everybody's data to be available? Job done, in that case.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    American Cops need reforms

    About 1/4 of the American police officers do have an attitute issue and no less than 10% are dirty Cops. 1/3 of them adore violence to resolve problems they hired tfor by the tax payers. Travellers from western EU, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Canada...immediately will see the higher differences compare to their home. I think US Cops definitely need some deep meditation and reform in order to regain the trusts from fellas Americans.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: American Cops need reforms

      You missed a big one...

      While most cops are generally good, 99+% of them will actively or passively participate in cover-ups of their "brother" officer's criminal activities.

      Any few that do go thru channels with complaints, will be filtered by that same ratio again and again at every level. Those very few that pursue it all the way will be ostracized and drummed out of the service.

      It's been quite a serious issue. The only thing that's causing fractures in the 'Blue Wall of Cover-up' is the proliferation of public video of events. Makes the old way very dangerous. That's a good thing.

      Leadership need to severely punish any (even passive) participation in cover-ups. Immediate dismissal for failure to report. Unions won't like this. They'd prefer the old corrupt ways, covering-up criminal actions of their members. Pathetic.

      1. John McCallum

        Re: American Cops need reforms Re videoing cops

        this is why it is illegal in quite a few States to film/video cops doing their "job".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: American Cops need reforms Re videoing cops

          It is _not_ illegal. It's legal in every state.

          Every so often, state politicians try to create laws that make it illegal, but those laws get challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.

          In some states audio recording is illegal without consent of all parties, but most require only the consent of one party.

          What you _can't_ do is interfere with the police doing their work so people filming may have to make sure their recording shows that they maintained a reasonable distance.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: American Cops need reforms Re videoing cops

          It's not illegal in any state to record cops. Such laws have been ruled as constitutional violations and as such are invalid.

          Cops (USA and uk) just wish it was illegal because it means their misdeeds are becoming harder to cover up.

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: American Cops need reforms

      Did you mean mediation? Not that meditation wouldn't do them good, mind you.

    3. Dan Paul

      Re: American Cops need reforms

      Everything you said can be considered libel and slander. You have no proof except your own supposition.

      Perhaps, those who believe they can disobey the directions of a police officer or that they could just run away and not suffer any consequences should follow your advice as well.

  11. tom dial Silver badge


    After reading the first dozen and a half comments I find it interesting that the interest in protecting privacy seems to extend only to favored individuals and groups, much the same way that freedom of speech often is approached.

    1. Awil Onmearse

      Re: Interesting

      Protect the privacy of Individuals, certainly. But why should any group - especially one in service of the public - have an automatic "right" to privacy?

    2. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

      Re: Interesting

      You probably misread these comments. Among IT folks, prevailing interest is to have privacy for everyone. With a (somewhat naïve) hope that everyone would like to play by the same book and would respect the privacy of others.

      That's clearly not the case for the law enforcement and secret services. High-ranking officials are rather constantly banging on the notion that privacy serves no other purpose than providing a cover for nefarious people. Which is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if you ask me.

      Anyhow, if that "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra is repeated endlessly, it is only natural that people will want to put it to the test. Should it become apparent that these mockers of privacy are using double standards, you'll witness a good deal of schadenfreude. As you just did.

      Schadenfreude is a rather nasty emotion, of course, but quite frequently it's a normal response to seeing an even nastier mindset going down in flames.

    3. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

      Re: Interesting

      I tend to agree with your unexpressed concern - yes, it's not fair to 'punish' big and diverse group of people for words and actions of their head honchos. Too much collateral damage. Not to mention that collective responsibility is never just, it's a leftover from tribal societies.

      If some specific individuals leading the crusade against constitutional rights would see their dirty laundry out in the open...that'd be much more fitting.

      OTOH, those big honchos don't seem to have any qualms about invading the life of millions to catch few perpetrators. Where's the fairness in that.

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Interesting

        In the US, both organisations and individuals are protected by the Constitution, specifically by the Fourth Amendment, A government agency would not be permitted to access the information released (as described int the article) without a warrant. It is not clear why a non-government organization, although not constrained by the Fourth Amendment, should be given a pass when it does so. That is not, of course, entirely applicable to someone who receives and releases the information without actually committing CFAA violations.

        These constitutional and legal protections apply to all, including criminals and criminal organizations, and even those who might be seen as "leading the crusade against constitutional rights ." The presumption that some individuals and organizations are entitled to less consideration than other under the Constitution and laws has no place in the US, and I suspect that, with allowance for constitutional differences, it also has no place in the UK.

        1. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

          Re: Interesting

          "These constitutional and legal protections apply to all, including criminals and criminal organizations"

          Yes, that's how I understood your initial comment too. Very commendable principle.

          And much loathed in the executive branch.

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: Interesting

            However much some executive branch officials (in the US that applies to both federal and state/local officials, who operate with considerable independence), the constraints operate with considerable effectiveness for several reasons. In the first place, the relevant executive branch official largely share the underlying belief system and accept their legitimacy. Secondly, they know that when they do not, the results are quite likely to be challenged in and rejected by a court where they are offered as possible evidence, along with any other facts they can be seen to have led to. In short, executive branch officials (i. e., police officers and prosecutors) have to live with them; it does not matter whether they like that.

            My original point, though, was that it is unseemly, perhaps even hypocritical, to celebrate privacy breaches committed against those one dislikes and condemn it when done against those one favors or innocent bystanders.

          2. Keven E

            Re: Interesting

            Big corps have (forever) been pushing to bust up unions and privatize whatever they can get thier grubby little capitalist hands on, and I can see this as a possible inroad to find weaknesses, perhaps a little "thought policing"(sic). Organizations can generally only "whittle down" competing organizations one member at a time, and I wonder if this also exposes some undercover *workers. That would be sad, but any assumption that (any) organizations are without corruption is even sadder.

  12. The Vociferous Time Waster

    Attention seeker

    Another one wants a sofa suite at a London Embassy.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The moral high ground is mine!

    and I'm going to hold it by threats of blackmail - "The passphrase to unencrypt the information is reportedly held by an unnamed third party who will release it if anything happens to White."

    So ner.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like