Hackers publish data on thousands of US police officers and federal agents

No one says "over a million data" in English, though it is arguably grammatically correct. Together with the typos it strongly suggests a foreign speaker.

> I didn't see any indication of that in the article, beyond what could be regular typos

part of standard OPSEC is to run your typing through an anonimyzer tool. Hm thats not the colloquial names of those tools

Basically something to reduce the fingerprinting of how you write. Often times it makes you seem to have bad grammar, but some of the tools can intentionally give you the profile of a Russian person that learned English as a second language.

gives you an easy scapegoat to get away with the hacking, and gives the investigators an easy scapegoat to mask their incompetence

Long dead? Tsk, Latin is in ur courtrooms, making ur laws... de jure ac de facto.

The problem in the usage is that most native speakers use 'data' not as a plural, but instead to identify the continuous stream that is comprised of datum, and therefore as an uncountable.

According to Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data#usage-1), both are correct.

> Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (such as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (such as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (such as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard. The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.

I wasn't even thing about that. I was looking more at the larger pattern of speech here: "We hacked more than 1,000 sites,” said the hacker. “Now we are structuring all the data, and soon they will be sold. I think something else will publish from the list of hacked government sites.”

It doesn't matter if you need to contact them.

They're domestic public servants, not clandestine agents operating overseas. Why shouldn't their position in the government and means of email/phone/postal contact be part of the public record?

Pranks will be appropriately addressed, by the very same public servants you're okay with being nameless and faceless.

There are many people who consider working for the law enforcement of the USA is an inherently evil practice, and the subset of them that consider themselves as revolutionaries might want said data as to enact punishment - similar to what the police does to the people who they consider as criminals.

Just release the info on the abuse then. Most police are just doing their job and the hacker has no right to release information on them or their loved ones. Not to mention, the people that the police help. As an amateur hacker, I'm dead against "doxing" indiscriminately.