Who's A Rat.com

DasFox

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
4,668
46
91
PLEASE DO NOT SPAM, TROLL OR THREAD CRAP! PLEASE KEEP IT NICE SO EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE THIS. I PERSONALLY DON'T SPAM ON THREADS AND RESPECT OTHERS SO THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING TO PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL HERE! THANK YOU!


I just say this site today, and read this article, pretty wild.

http://www.whosarat.com/


JUDGES FEAR DANGERS OF ONLINE 'RAT' DATABASE

WASHINGTON -- Police and prosecutors are worried that a Web site claiming to identify more than 4,000 informants and undercover agents will cripple investigations and hang targets on witnesses.

The Web site, WhosaRat.com, first caught the attention of authorities after a Massachusetts man put it online and named a few dozen people as turncoats in 2004. Since then, it has grown into a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers and rumors.

Federal prosecutors say the site was set up to encourage violence, and federal judges around the country were recently warned that witnesses in their courtrooms may be profiled online.

Among those on the site is former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, who served 10 months in prison before testifying in a public corruption case.

"My concern is making sure cooperators are adequately protected from retaliation," said Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, who alerted other judges in Washington's federal courthouse. He said he learned about the site from a federal judge in Maine.

The Web site is the latest unabashedly public effort to identify witnesses or discourage helping police. "Stop Snitching" T-shirts have been sold in cities around the country and popular hip-hop lyrics disparage or threaten people who help police.

In 2004, NBA star Carmelo Anthony appeared in an underground Baltimore DVD that warned people they could be killed for cooperating with police. Anthony has said he was not aware of the DVD's message.

Such threats hinder criminal investigations, said Ronald Teachman, police chief in New Bedford, Mass., where murder cases have been stymied by witness silence and "Stop Snitching" T-shirts were recently for sale.

"Every shooting we have to treat like homicide. The victim's alive but he's not cooperative," Teachman said. "These kids have the idea that the worst offense they can commit is to cooperate with the police."

Sean Bucci, a former Boston-area disc jockey, set up WhosaRat.com after federal prosecutors charged him with selling marijuana in bulk from his house. Bucci is under house arrest awaiting trial and could not be reached, but a WhosaRat spokesman identifying himself as Anthony Capone said the site is a resource for criminal defendants and does not condone violence.

"If people got hurt or killed, it's kind of on them. They knew the dangers of becoming an informant," Capone said. "We'd feel bad, don't get me wrong, but things happen to people. If they decide to become an informant, with or without the Web site, that's a possibility."

The site offers biographical information about people whom users identify as witnesses or undercover agents. Users can post court documents, comments and pictures.

Some of those listed are well known. But many never made headlines and were identified as having helped investigators in drug cases.

For two years, anyone with an Internet connection could search the site. On Thursday, a day after it was discussed at a courthouse conference in Washington, the site became a subscription-only service. The site has also disabled the ability to post photos of undercover agents, Capone said, because administrators of the Web site do not want officers to be hurt.

Authorities disagree. In documents filed in Bucci's court case last month, federal prosecutors said they have information that Bucci set up the Web site to help intimidate and harm witnesses.

"Such information not only compromises pending or future government investigations, but places informants and undercover agents in potentially grave danger," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter K. Levitt wrote.

While prosecutors haven't pointed to a case where a witness or officer was harmed because of the Web site, it has been used to shatter an undercover agent's anonymity. After Hawaiian doctor Kachun Yeung was charged with distributing narcotic painkillers this spring, a surveillance picture of an undercover Drug Enforcement Agent was posted on the site.

Federal prosecutors said they traced the posting to the University of Hawaii newspaper's photo department, where the doctor's son was a photo editor. The posting identified the names of three agents and described one as "a known liar and a dirty agent. He is an absolute disgrace to the American justice system."

Prosecutors in Boston have discussed whether WhosaRat is protected as free speech but have not moved to shut it down. In 2004, an Alabama federal judge ruled that a defendant had the right to run a Web site that included witness information in the form of "wanted" posters.

Earlier this month, federal judges from Minnesota and Utah urged their colleagues to be careful about how much information about witnesses is released in public files, noting that they could end up on WhosaRat.

Steve Bunnell, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said the rules of evidence already require authorities to identity witnesses to the people most likely to harm them: the defendants. Most of the documents labeled "top secret" on the site are really public court records or information copied from other Web sites, he said.

His concern is that the site disparages the reputation of people who come forward to help solve crimes.

"We don't make those high-level gang and drug organization cases without somebody on the inside telling us what's going on," Bunnell said.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
The style seems out of place for a website dealing in law enforcement
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: DasFox
NO SPAM, TROLLS OR THREAD CRAPPING OR YOUR REPORTED. KEEP IT NICE EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS.


I just say this site today, and read this article, pretty wild.

http://www.whosarat.com/


JUDGES FEAR DANGERS OF ONLINE 'RAT' DATABASE

WASHINGTON -- Police and prosecutors are worried that a Web site claiming to identify more than 4,000 informants and undercover agents will cripple investigations and hang targets on witnesses.

The Web site, WhosaRat.com, first caught the attention of authorities after a Massachusetts man put it online and named a few dozen people as turncoats in 2004. Since then, it has grown into a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers and rumors.

Federal prosecutors say the site was set up to encourage violence, and federal judges around the country were recently warned that witnesses in their courtrooms may be profiled online.

Among those on the site is former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, who served 10 months in prison before testifying in a public corruption case.

"My concern is making sure cooperators are adequately protected from retaliation," said Chief Judge Thomas Hogan, who alerted other judges in Washington's federal courthouse. He said he learned about the site from a federal judge in Maine.

The Web site is the latest unabashedly public effort to identify witnesses or discourage helping police. "Stop Snitching" T-shirts have been sold in cities around the country and popular hip-hop lyrics disparage or threaten people who help police.

In 2004, NBA star Carmelo Anthony appeared in an underground Baltimore DVD that warned people they could be killed for cooperating with police. Anthony has said he was not aware of the DVD's message.

Such threats hinder criminal investigations, said Ronald Teachman, police chief in New Bedford, Mass., where murder cases have been stymied by witness silence and "Stop Snitching" T-shirts were recently for sale.

"Every shooting we have to treat like homicide. The victim's alive but he's not cooperative," Teachman said. "These kids have the idea that the worst offense they can commit is to cooperate with the police."

Sean Bucci, a former Boston-area disc jockey, set up WhosaRat.com after federal prosecutors charged him with selling marijuana in bulk from his house. Bucci is under house arrest awaiting trial and could not be reached, but a WhosaRat spokesman identifying himself as Anthony Capone said the site is a resource for criminal defendants and does not condone violence.

"If people got hurt or killed, it's kind of on them. They knew the dangers of becoming an informant," Capone said. "We'd feel bad, don't get me wrong, but things happen to people. If they decide to become an informant, with or without the Web site, that's a possibility."

The site offers biographical information about people whom users identify as witnesses or undercover agents. Users can post court documents, comments and pictures.

Some of those listed are well known. But many never made headlines and were identified as having helped investigators in drug cases.

For two years, anyone with an Internet connection could search the site. On Thursday, a day after it was discussed at a courthouse conference in Washington, the site became a subscription-only service. The site has also disabled the ability to post photos of undercover agents, Capone said, because administrators of the Web site do not want officers to be hurt.

Authorities disagree. In documents filed in Bucci's court case last month, federal prosecutors said they have information that Bucci set up the Web site to help intimidate and harm witnesses.

"Such information not only compromises pending or future government investigations, but places informants and undercover agents in potentially grave danger," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter K. Levitt wrote.

While prosecutors haven't pointed to a case where a witness or officer was harmed because of the Web site, it has been used to shatter an undercover agent's anonymity. After Hawaiian doctor Kachun Yeung was charged with distributing narcotic painkillers this spring, a surveillance picture of an undercover Drug Enforcement Agent was posted on the site.

Federal prosecutors said they traced the posting to the University of Hawaii newspaper's photo department, where the doctor's son was a photo editor. The posting identified the names of three agents and described one as "a known liar and a dirty agent. He is an absolute disgrace to the American justice system."

Prosecutors in Boston have discussed whether WhosaRat is protected as free speech but have not moved to shut it down. In 2004, an Alabama federal judge ruled that a defendant had the right to run a Web site that included witness information in the form of "wanted" posters.

Earlier this month, federal judges from Minnesota and Utah urged their colleagues to be careful about how much information about witnesses is released in public files, noting that they could end up on WhosaRat.

Steve Bunnell, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said the rules of evidence already require authorities to identity witnesses to the people most likely to harm them: the defendants. Most of the documents labeled "top secret" on the site are really public court records or information copied from other Web sites, he said.

His concern is that the site disparages the reputation of people who come forward to help solve crimes.

"We don't make those high-level gang and drug organization cases without somebody on the inside telling us what's going on," Bunnell said.

NO SPAM, TROLLS OR THREAD CRAPPING OR YOUR REPORTED. KEEP IT NICE EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS.

So can you explain why everyone should see this?

Is the the new ANAND Forum policy that if as the OP you add a disclaimer the Mods have to enforce it??
oh...the irony..lolol

http://www.irony.com
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,318
14,724
146
I saw this in the newspaper a couple of days ago...sweet...I hope every police agency watches for these pukes, and writes them for anything they can get on them...I also hope they get sued by anyone who gets harmed or has a family member get harmed by the information they provide...NO, their disclaimer that they're not responsible doesn't cut it...
 

iamaelephant

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2004
3,816
1
81
This website disgusts me. I'd love to hunt this piece of sh!t down and string him up by the balls.
 

DasFox

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
4,668
46
91
I edited the bold text over, all I'm asking is people be nice, seems I'm always running into peeps spamming up the place when I post something, so it does get a little frustrating, when all you're doing is sharing.

Just be nice, I don't think it's to much to ask. :) THANKS!

ALOHA
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
I'm all for it. I want to know the people I do business with aren't working for the man.
 

iamaelephant

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2004
3,816
1
81
Originally posted by: Jadow
I'm all for it. I want to know the people I do business with aren't working for the man.

And exactly what sort of business are you in where that would be a concern?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
This is a very bad Idea and could end up getting someone killed.

Edited: 12/06/2006 at 01:46 PM by AnandTech Moderator

WTF?

hmm not to mention other post are gone. just gone.
 

DasFox

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
4,668
46
91
Let it go guys you don't know what's up, ok so please be cool no spams please.

All is cool!

THANKS
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
This is a very bad Idea and could end up getting someone killed.

Edited: 12/06/2006 at 01:46 PM by AnandTech Moderator

WTF?

I left it cause I thought it was cool :D Mr. Mod didn't like my reply. heheh.
 

uhohs

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2005
7,660
44
91
Originally posted by: DasFox
Let it go guys you don't know what's up, ok so please be cool no spams please.

All is cool!

THANKS

lies, you're hawaiin, you LOVE SPAM.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I saw this in the newspaper a couple of days ago...sweet...I hope every police agency watches for these pukes, and writes them for anything they can get on them...I also hope they get sued by anyone who gets harmed or has a family member get harmed by the information they provide...NO, their disclaimer that they're not responsible doesn't cut it...


Why? This is freedom of information.

What about all the people who are suspects in criminal cases, and it turns out that they're innocent? Everyone still suspects them of doing something wrong. Can they sue the government?

You cannot stop people from displaying information. If I want to make a website showing your picture, I can. You cannot stop the free flow of information.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
So, let's say I'm looking to make sure I'm not doing business with someone who's working for the man. Maybe I could charge the subscription fee to a credit card that couldn't be traced back to me, but my IP address is going into the site's http logs, so how would I be sure I wasn't revealing myself to the man while I'm at it?
 

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I saw this in the newspaper a couple of days ago...sweet...I hope every police agency watches for these pukes, and writes them for anything they can get on them...I also hope they get sued by anyone who gets harmed or has a family member get harmed by the information they provide...NO, their disclaimer that they're not responsible doesn't cut it...


Why? This is freedom of information.

What about all the people who are suspects in criminal cases, and it turns out that they're innocent? Everyone still suspects them of doing something wrong. Can they sue the government?

You cannot stop people from displaying information. If I want to make a website showing your picture, I can. You cannot stop the free flow of information.

The Freedom of Information Act has nothing at all to do with posting people's faces on the internet.

If you expose undercover police officers who are actively investigating crimes, wouldn't that be interfering with a police investigation? If you supply information of undercover officers to the criminal organizations who the officers were targeting, and those officers or their families are killed, wouldn't you now become an accomplice to murder? And if you start harassing and slandering ordinary citizens, that's a crime too.

Here in Baltimore, when the drug dealers found out which lady was calling the police on them, they firebombed her house and killed her and her whole family. Is this the freedom you are talking about?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I saw this in the newspaper a couple of days ago...sweet...I hope every police agency watches for these pukes, and writes them for anything they can get on them...I also hope they get sued by anyone who gets harmed or has a family member get harmed by the information they provide...NO, their disclaimer that they're not responsible doesn't cut it...


Why? This is freedom of information.

What about all the people who are suspects in criminal cases, and it turns out that they're innocent? Everyone still suspects them of doing something wrong. Can they sue the government?

You cannot stop people from displaying information. If I want to make a website showing your picture, I can. You cannot stop the free flow of information.

The Freedom of Information Act has nothing at all to do with posting people's faces on the internet.

If you expose undercover police officers who are actively investigating crimes, wouldn't that be interfering with a police investigation? If you supply information of undercover officers to the criminal organizations who the officers were targeting, and those officers or their families are killed, wouldn't you now become an accomplice to murder? And if you start harassing and slandering ordinary citizens, that's a crime too.

Here in Baltimore, when the drug dealers found out which lady was calling the police on them, they firebombed her house and killed her and her whole family. Is this the freedom you are talking about?

This isn't about the freedom of information act. It's about the freedom of information, such as freedom of speech and the free press.

And the fact that other people use the information you give them in an unlawful way doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. If you tell me where a person lives and I kill that person, are you to blame? Of course not. You just gave out public information.

If I tell you how to take the engine out of a BMW and you gank the engine out of someone's car and sell it on Ebay, does that mean that I'm responsible? Of course not, I just told you how something is done.

If I tell you that the person living down the street is an FBI agent and you kill that person, does that make it my fault? Of course not. I just gave you basic factual information and you misused it.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I saw this in the newspaper a couple of days ago...sweet...I hope every police agency watches for these pukes, and writes them for anything they can get on them...I also hope they get sued by anyone who gets harmed or has a family member get harmed by the information they provide...NO, their disclaimer that they're not responsible doesn't cut it...


Why? This is freedom of information.

What about all the people who are suspects in criminal cases, and it turns out that they're innocent? Everyone still suspects them of doing something wrong. Can they sue the government?

You cannot stop people from displaying information. If I want to make a website showing your picture, I can. You cannot stop the free flow of information.

The Freedom of Information Act has nothing at all to do with posting people's faces on the internet.

If you expose undercover police officers who are actively investigating crimes, wouldn't that be interfering with a police investigation? If you supply information of undercover officers to the criminal organizations who the officers were targeting, and those officers or their families are killed, wouldn't you now become an accomplice to murder? And if you start harassing and slandering ordinary citizens, that's a crime too.

Here in Baltimore, when the drug dealers found out which lady was calling the police on them, they firebombed her house and killed her and her whole family. Is this the freedom you are talking about?

This isn't about the freedom of information act. It's about the freedom of information, such as freedom of speech and the free press.

And the fact that other people use the information you give them in an unlawful way doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. If you tell me where a person lives and I kill that person, are you to blame? Of course not. You just gave out public information.

If I tell you how to take the engine out of a BMW and you gank the engine out of someone's car and sell it on Ebay, does that mean that I'm responsible? Of course not, I just told you how something is done.

If I tell you that the person living down the street is an FBI agent and you kill that person, does that make it my fault? Of course not. I just gave you basic factual information and you misused it.

91TTZ believes in selective "freedoms."
 

DasFox

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
4,668
46
91
By what you just said 1sikbITCH, I'm surprised written in some fashion this is not considered some form of "Interference", and standing in the way of the law from performing their duties.

Really odd this site hasn't been taken down.

ALOHA
 

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
Read the article you posted:

The site has also disabled the ability to post photos of undercover agents, Capone said, because administrators of the Web site do not want officers to be hurt.

Authorities disagree. In documents filed in Bucci's court case last month, federal prosecutors said they have information that Bucci set up the Web site to help intimidate and harm witnesses.

"Such information not only compromises pending or future government investigations, but places informants and undercover agents in potentially grave danger," Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter K. Levitt wrote.

They are already trying to shut it down because it's interfering, and they have filed papers showing intent to interfere already.