Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Cancels Drug-Ring Attack

snydeq writes "Anonymous supporters have backed off threats to expose Zeta drug gang collaborators, an operation launched in early October as a retaliation for an alleged kidnapping of an Anonymous follower by the Mexico-based drug gang. Members of Anonymous had posted a video claiming the group could identify journalists, police officers, and taxi drivers who collaborate with the Zeta crime syndicate. Zeta has not shied away from targeting its online critics. In September the crime group hung two people from an overpass warning bloggers and 'online snitches' to beware. The decapitated body of another social-media reporter was found later with a similar warning. Worried about the impact on both misidentified people and Anonymous followers, other supporters of the Anonymous movement worked to dismantle the operation over the weekend. In effect, the group canceled the attack, according to online news site Milenio."

58 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Tough guys by SharkLaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not so tough now, are you Anonymous?

    Their "we can do anything, beware us!!" pissing contest quickly turned around when they realized shit just got real.

    1. Re:Tough guys by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their "we can do anything, beware us!!" pissing contest quickly turned around when they realized shit just got real.

      ...when they stopped messing with the FBI and defense contractors and moved up to Mexican drug cartels.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Tough guys by CheshireDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they didn't even have the information and it was just empty threats.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    3. Re:Tough guys by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when they stopped messing with the FBI and defense contractors and moved up to Mexican drug cartels.

      And here I thought those two would be about on even ground in terms of power, ruthlessness, and lawlessness. But clearly the Zetas have the FBI beat on overall intimidation. Guess that's the difference between getting dumped in prison vs hung from an overpass?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Tough guys by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The FBI will not come to one's house; rape and kill one's wife, girlfriend, mother, daughters, and/or sisters while making one watch; and then torture one to death, cut off one's head and leave it in one's lap for the police.
       
      Comparing the FBI to the drug cartels is a text book example of one' foolish hyperbole undermining one's argument.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:Tough guys by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Don't we have some armed drones we could use along the MX border?

      I mean, if you're crossing illegallly....you're an invader...*BOOM*.

      Might that not cut down traffic a bit?

      And heck...good target practice for picking off terrorists in other parts of the world.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Tough guys by cobrausn · · Score: 2

      C'mon, AC, everyone knows that's the CIA's gig, not the FBI. The FBI would rather work to turn you into a terrorist so they can catch you, put out a press release, and justify their budget.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    7. Re:Tough guys by Algae_94 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they're just cowards, but I have the suspicion that they didn't want to out anybody, because they didn't want to be complicit in any murders. Zetas is not to be fucked with if they know who you are, but I doubt they have better cyber-intelligence skills than the US gov't which has been unable to identify Anon members. So what names would Zetas have to go on if this operation went on? The People that Anonymous outs would be silenced as weak links, and it's quite possible that Anonymous outs the wrong guys and gets them killed for no reason. It's a big step for a group like Anonymous to go from releasing information that makes the populace more informed about what is really going on to releasing information that will almost certainly result in people dying.

    8. Re:Tough guys by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Paedophiles and Scientology aren't evil? Christ, you must be from a rough neighborhood.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    9. Re:Tough guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe Jose Padeilla would see things differently.

      And although not directly the FBI, I am sure there are many other the US has disappeared to black sites, Abu Ghraib and Bagram who would support the claims that there isn't a whole lot of difference between tactics of the cartels and the US government.

    10. Re:Tough guys by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 3

      Belgium? ;)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    11. Re:Tough guys by gknoy · · Score: 2

      While many might feel Jose got the short end of a stick, I don't think that it's at all accurate to imply that his family faced troubles like the OP mentioned. He might have been sent to Gitmo (since released, and actually got a trial -- that's good!), but his family wasn't raped or murdered or disfigured. That's a level of scary where the drug cartels are (from what I've read) far worse than the FBI/CIA are.

      The FBI and CIA at least purport to behave in a manner consistent with the law. In the cases where some feel they aren't, they often claim that either they /are/, or that the law doesn't apply in this case -- which is very different from the drug cartels' scorched earth policy, and tendency to leave mass graves. Comparing the FBI/CIA to the drug cartels' tendency to work violence would be like comparing Severus Snape to Pol Pot.

    12. Re:Tough guys by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:Tough guys by jvkjvk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Scientology is at best annoying and a scam.

      Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the people they have brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally), tortured (and yes, I mean that quite literally), killed, or bankrupted through intimidation using the legal system.

      And they are infiltrating centers of power, a secret society beyond government bounds.

      But other than that, they are 'at best annoying and a scam'.

      Regards.

    14. Re:Tough guys by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      Well but don't forget the low actual suicide rate of thos trying to commit suicide by jumping into the river...

      --
      bickerdyke
    15. Re:Tough guys by EdIII · · Score: 2

      I wonder why nobody else is considering the alternate explanation here?

      It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels backed down or paid Anonymous off handsomely. Which is more pragmatic in the short run? Antagonize a bunch of people that do have information that can hurt you and your revenue.... or just pay them off and use them?

      The Mexican drug cartels strike me as very very ruthless, and yet pragmatic in some cases. A more ordered evil than one might think. These are the same people that are probably gathering intelligence through common means as Anonymous does, or even better means. Same people that continually construct more and more complex distribution systems such as tunnels and submarines.

      I don't think it is too far fetched that they just flashed a couple million dollars and Anonymous reconsidered pretty damn fast. It's either that or everyone thinks that Anonymous group members are all idealists fighting for just causes and not soldiers of fortune. It will take an awful lot of idealism from everyone involved to turn down millions of dollars.

    16. Re:Tough guys by Riceballsan · · Score: 2

      The Zeta's aren't the only drug cartel, or even the only fierce group. I'm sure their enemies wouldn't mind cutting them down a peg or 2 via killing their "Collaborators" (I put that in quotes for a reason, as I'm sure many people aiding them aren't doing it because they want to,

    17. Re:Tough guys by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally)

      Actual cranial lavage?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Bullies. by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They pick on the vulnerable for lulz. That's about it.

  3. And just as anonymous was starting to make a diff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been happy to hear lately about anonymous's campaign against child pornography distribution. I was even more happy to hear that they were taking action against Zeta. But this withdrawl makes me question the mettle of the group. Any time you fight against organized crime, there will always be fallout. But the only way these groups have been pushed further underground or quashed is by taking action, and typically through infiltration and exposing the key players. If they have it in their ability to expose corruption, and do not do so, then they're just as bad as the corrupt officials enabling the criminals.

  4. Re:There was no other possible outcome by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Funny

    And backing down only teaches the cartels that this form of intimidation works. I would never back down from some mexican with a machete.

  5. Re:Where's Wikileaks when you need them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh, right. He's too busy begging for money ever since he made his organization a pariah by raping two chicks and haphazardly giving up the secrets of the good guys.

    I hope you're trolling. The accusation that it was rape was retracted immediately by a senior prosecutor. The facts have surfaced that it turns out to be regarding a condom that broke, a matter which was politically labeled rape by a feminist police officer who was a personal friend of the accuser and also member of the same socialist party. Sweden has previosly bent over for US interestes, even violating their own constitution by allowing CIA "rendition" flights to send Swedish citizens to Egypt for torture. The Julian Assange case is another case of US information warfare.

  6. Who's Anonymous by fastest+fascist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here we go again, talking of Anonymous as a unified group. What makes someone a member of Anonymous? It seems claiming to be one suffices. So, someone posted a threat to the Zetas in the name of Anonymous, and another person posted a notice saying Anonymous will not be taking action against the Zetas. That's about all that can be said about this.

    1. Re:Who's Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But I am part of Anonymous! Just look at my name!

  7. Re:There was no other possible outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would never back down from some mexican with a machete.

    No, you'd die. Idiot.

  8. I'm glad they didn't by Superdarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a good thing they backed away. Anonymous usually attacks organizations that are somewhat bound by law and fear of PR disasters, so their retaliation is quite limited. Drug cartels care for neither of them. That's why being a reporter in Mexico is a very risky thing to do.

    Had they gone ahead with their attacks, they could have unleashed hell for all bloggers in Mexico. A lot of blood could be in their hands.

    1. Re:I'm glad they didn't by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. By backing off, they're letting the cartels know that their methods of intimidation work. It will only encourage similar acts in the future. The only way to stand up to bullies like the drug cartels is to defy them, not to cave in to their threats.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:I'm glad they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only way to stand up to bullies like the drug cartels is to exterminate them

      Fixed. Standing up to bullies has never worked. Stopping bullies from bullying does.

    3. Re:I'm glad they didn't by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only way to stand up to bullies like the drug cartels is to defy them

      ...and then your mutilated corpse is found hanging from a freeway overpass. This is not some schoolyard fight. We are past the point of standing up to the Zetas with blog posts and words, the only way to deal with them is with military force -- Mexico is in a state of what amounts to civil war.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:I'm glad they didn't by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree. By backing off, they're letting the cartels know that their methods of intimidation work.

      Er, the cartels already know that.

      And the discussions between different Anonymous-affiliated factions that I've seen reported didn't focus on fear of retaliation, they focussed on whether an action that would mainly reveal low level people who had been blackmailed into cooperation by the Zetas so that they could get murdered by rival drug gangs was in any way consistent with the ideals Anonymous wanted to advance, or productive in any way.

    5. Re:I'm glad they didn't by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      We are past the point of standing up to the Zetas with blog posts and words, the only way to deal with them is with military force

      Or legalizing drugs in the US, removing the lions share of funding for the Mexican cartels.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:I'm glad they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Attacking them with military force is exactly what sparked the current bloodbath. Felipe Calderon campaigned for the presidency of Mexico with a promise to go to war against the drug cartels, while his predecessor, Vicente Fox, suggested that drug legalization would cut off their source of funding and limit their power and influence. Drug cartel violence was a problem when Fox was president, but the situation was at least under control before 2006. When Calderon launched his military campaign, he found out very quickly that he was out-gunned by the cartels, and saw that he could actually lose his war on drugs. It didn't help when we found out that many of the guns the cartels have at their disposal were provided by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). The ONLY way to fight back against these gangsters is to remove the source of their wealth. Legalizing drugs is the solution Fox suggested, but the legislature was too corrupted by bribery and intimidation to follow through with Fox's bold initiaitive. All you have to do is look at how the violence in Columbia has been curtailed by the government changing their drug policies. It really is a no brainer.

    7. Re:I'm glad they didn't by ed1park · · Score: 2

      The other way to deal with it is to legalize drugs and the drug cartels and crime will go away. Have the govt subsidize it like corn if we must.

    8. Re:I'm glad they didn't by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      They are already moving on from drug-related businesses to other ways of obtaining income. Not so long ago, they have started "taxing" the people in some locations - simply demanding that a certain amount of money is provided monthly, or else they will "punish" you.

    9. Re:I'm glad they didn't by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They can be if they are levied against the entire population (and not just businesses), which, of course, is only possible when organized crime is more powerful than the state.

      Keep in mind that, historically, governments have evolved pretty much as organized crime that managed to stomp all its competition within specific borders. When you think about it, peasants giving their produce to a feudal lord who uses it to feed and otherwise maintain his own private army that lets him stay in power, is not really any different than school teachers paying to Zetas who uses that money for exact same purpose.

    10. Re:I'm glad they didn't by cornjones · · Score: 2

      you say it sarcastically "Because once most of the money is gone, they will all just stop killing and go get real jobs....." and then you step on your argument "The reason so many people go to the drug gangs is because they money is good". if you stop the money and the guns pouring from the US to mexico, the gangs will have far less money. less money = less people involved.

      there is not the same money in human trafficking. There just is not the same demand in the US for that service. without the demand the money (largely shipped as guns in my understanding) won't be heading south.

      There is some demand for human trafficking from within mexico but i don't see the demand really going up, they are already in a warzone, anybody that could (and wants to) pay their way out probably will anyway.

      i guess I could see a possible rise in the violence as the currently powerful gangs go all out to secure what little commerce would be left. That is not an argument to continue w/ the status quo

  9. Re:There was no other possible outcome by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    And Darwin smiles....

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. Re:And just as anonymous was starting to make a di by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, because you'd do it if you could.

    I mean, clearly you're risking your life fighting Mexican drug cartels right here ... as you call them cowards ... in the safety of your own home ... while you post on slashdot.

    I think Anonymous is a bunch of idiots, but you're fucking retarded for calling them cowards.

    Take your computer courage and STFU, you're EXACTLY like them. Big talk behind a computer, and I'm certain you'll shut up and cower in the face of actual danger.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  11. Constraints by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

    A group like Anonymous can only operate in a free society where the rule of law constrains the actions of large and powerful actors. Shame and humiliation of powerful players is possible because they are unable to fully marshal their resources to strike back. Sure, Western governments have made some arrests, but in the end, the military and large corporations are limited in what they can do (yes, they can illegally and secretly do things, but the complexity, costs and risks of doing it are extremely high). The cartels however are a different animal, an opponent in an environment with no such constraints. They have repeatedly killed with impunity, and Anonymous members in Mexico are no different. Unless Anonymous' entire membership is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the cartels are much more likely to drop a bomb on a member of Anonymous than the CIA is.

  12. POSEURS! by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anonymous had a chance to do some good, they pussied out like the fucking poseurs they are.

    While I'm at it, we've INVADED countries for lesser atrocities than these barbarian Zeta motherfuckers have committed. WHERE'S YOUR BALLS NOW, U.S.? Send a few dozen cruise missiles up their asses!

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    1. Re:POSEURS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As wonderful as it would be to launch some missiles into sovereign Mexican territory, that would amount to an act of war. I'll take a fight with the psychotic Taliban vs. a fight against Mexico and its well funded, well trained, massive drug cartels any day. You want a nasty fight? A really nasty, vicious, bloody, drawn out brawl? Go for it.

      Our borders are stupidly porous and we don't have enough military to stop every one of those guys from crossing into Texas or Arizona (or just sailing to Cali or Louisiana, etc.) and raping/torturing/murdering/mutilating entire families.

      I really want those guys dead, but our underbelly is too soft. Plus, a lot of America flips out when we lose one guy a week in the Middle East. What do you think will happen when over a weekend we see 1,000 murders and kidnappings of civilians, in addition to whatever casualties the military has?

    2. Re:POSEURS! by Requiem18th · · Score: 2

      I'm sure your xenophobic neonazi ass won't care but please stop calling my country a shit-hole. Yes Mexico has problems in its backwater towns. But then again backwater towns are the stuff of legend even in the US. The big cities are still here, have always been, always be. They are for the most part safe. People go about their business as usual. In 2006 Monterrey was rated the safest city in Latin America for perspective. This last 5 years have been an uncomfortable bother, but we are far from the "civil war" situation America's media has been broadcasting.

      We know what a civil war is, had we one a hundred years ago. The current situation is comparable to prohibition era Chicago. The Mafia seemed to do as they pleased but in the end got controlled by the government because they were nothing but a small group of thugs. The Zetas are larger, armed with modern guns and modern communication tools so they are more dangerous. But they aren't a threat to national stability.

      We are a peaceful society, the policemen/civil ratio is smaller than in the US, their budget is as well smaller compared to other branches of government. The cartels have effectively taken over a few small towns by threatening the police with grenades and drive-by shooting (which by the way, can happen anywhere).

      Yet the cartels run from the police when it responds and are shit scared about the military. What's going to happen is that Mexico will have to become a little more like the US, a little more of a police state. Cell phones will have to be taped, cameras increased, and the budget of the police department will have to increase, as is the policemen/civil ratio.

      We will get out of this just like you got the Mafia problem under control.

      Oh and about the century of peace that the US has gifted to the world. I'm sure the Chileans, Colombians and Hondureans will beg to disagree.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  13. summory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anon; "We'll expose you if you harm him."
    Zeta, "Go ahead. We will kill every man, women, and child wearing a guy fawkes mask."

  14. Mistaken Identity by yodleboy · · Score: 2

    The problem is that targeting a government agency or what have you might lead to them tracing back and nailing the actual people involved, not just someone that happens to be in the same group but was on vacation that week. With these cartel guys, if you've EVER been associated with Anon and they find you, they don't really give a shit, you're fair game to them. They are just as happy making an example of you as they would be to catch the masked clown that made these idiotic threats to begin with. That's a real problem with groups like Anonymous. With no clear leadership, some "faction" can spout off crap that endangers everyone.

    You can throw out all the police state, abuse of power crap you want, the bottom line is in the end the FBI is accountable to SOMEONE and subject to laws and public outrage. There IS a limit to what they can and will do to you. The cartels have no such limit.

  15. Comparison by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • Defense contractors -- if you are caught, you spend time in prison, and the far right calls you a traitor.
    • FBI/DEA/other cops -- if you are caught, you spend time in prison, and the far right accuses you of putting cops at risk.
    • Child pornography -- if you are caught, you might go to prison but probably not, and the far right lauds you as a hero fighting for the children.
    • Zetas -- if you are caught, they torture and kill you, torture and kill your family, and put your corpses on display.
    --
    Palm trees and 8
  16. wrong by unity100 · · Score: 2

    organizations like drug cartels are practically sociopath organizations. it is very tough for even major governments to handle them.

    the fact that anonymous is actually taken by the drug cartels as a serious threat that requires this much action basically tells that anonymous is on the same league with them in regard to impact now.

    and someone will leak the data eventually.

    1. Re:wrong by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the fact that anonymous is actually taken by the drug cartels as a serious threat that requires this much action basically tells that anonymous is on the same league with them in regard to impact now.

      They took "Anonymous" about as seriously as they take any snitch. Do you actually think that Mexican drug cartels consider Anonymous a serious threat? Are you fucking retarded?

      Yeah, they go through the trouble of killing someone and displaying their mutilated bodies as foreplay. Are you fucking retarded?

      They kill snitches and display their mutilated bodies because snitches are dangerous to the organization. They harm the families of snitches because snitches are dangerous to the organization. The more public the execution and the more those around the victim are harmed, the more dangerous they were to the organization.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  17. Like many said ages ago about them by bhcompy · · Score: 2

    Don't fuck with Russians and don't fuck with ruthless organized crime operations. As the saying goes, you mess with the bull, you get the horns. Fucking with the FBI is messing with the de-horned milk cow, not the bull.

  18. Forgetting what "Anonymous" means by Aphoxema · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymous isn't a person, it's a meme. Even when you identify the people who participate and hold them responsible for the actions of the group, you're doing nothing to define what it is or keep it any less intangible. "We are legion" is another Christianity, another Patriotism, another The 99%, and it is indestructible because it has no body. It is only by the elimination of any memory and evidence that this kind of thing can be destroyed.

    Even when governed it has no nature or goal. It is exactly as what each person who is aware of it decides it to be. The way those who call themselves Anonymous see themselves is just as much authority as the way those who do not call themselves Anonymous see them. It is the Ship of Thesius incarnate, My Grandfather's Axe in practice.

    Don't bother judging the supposed declarations you see today. Just because you saw one collective of "Anonymous" back off doesn't mean another won't act differently. But still, we'll call them all the same. Every time they do something we appreciate or find unforgivable we'll still blame that same meaningless word.

    Zeta made the mistake of having a name.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    1. Re:Forgetting what "Anonymous" means by Aphoxema · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I'd like to see the headline "Anonymous Takes Down Zeta, Infamous Drug Cartel In Tatters", I really don't think Anonymous threatens Zeta. If Anonymous reveals names, Zeta will just start killing people associated (even remotely) with Anonymous until they stop. Zeta doesn't seem to have any moral issues with blood and gore. Besides, if Anonymous reveals names, what will it matter if Mexico's often corrupt politicians don't act on it?

      Well, it's true for anything. That's the problem with even trying to consider "Anonymous" as any kind of entity with any involvement, and even the qualifications for membership is shaky, philosophically or otherwise. Do I stop being a member if I say I am a member? If I say I'm a member of Zeta, it's the majority of that community that has the right to say I'm not or just cleverly show me I'm not with a bullet to the face. The majority of Anonymous can't make that decision so easily because there's no validity in membership because then... well, they'd no longer be "Anonymous" if they could at all identify each other not would they have any way to verify how many members there are and who are the originators.

      That's where the power is. Zeta can try to kill anyone they think is Anonymous but, for all they know, they'll have to kill every person on Earth or even their own membership to annihilate those people who've chose to associate with Anonymous. Even after eliminating with any certainty every member of Anonymous, because it is an idea it would be entirely possible for another person to take up the vague title again.

      As for naming the members of Zeta, anyone can just do what Zeta does to others. There's nothing barring a person who thinks they're following the will of Anonymous from murdering someone. For both groups, they may rely much in their lack of identification to persist, but Anonymous is at much less risk of actually being identified.

      This is a serious question that's due for an answer, and I fear most people haven't begun to realize that.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  19. Re:There was no other possible outcome by PoolOfThought · · Score: 2

    What about 'a mexican with really long fingernails'? Would you believe 'a very tanned white guy with bottle opener'?

    --
    My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
  20. Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anonymous: We are going to release information about corrupt politicians and officers and reveal sensitive data about your bank accounts and properties.
    Slashdot: NO! DON'T DO THAT! THERE WILL BE BLOODSHED! YOU ARE NOT WORST THAN TERRORISTS!
    Anonymous: Sigh, fine, we won't.
    Slashdot: HUR HUR not so tough now, are you?

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
    1. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by oddjob1244 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

  21. Coming to a town near you by datavirtue · · Score: 2

    This Mexican drug cartel shit is out of control. They are practically right up our ass. Their presence is felt in almost every community in America, they extort public servants and teachers in Mexico (many have been killed and they demand 50% of their pay), and they flaunt their power or complete lawlessness to the world. Hitler did less than this and it was enough to mobilize the entire fucking globe to stop his party's advance. The Mexican drug cartels make the SS look like fucking strawberry shortcake and no one stands up to this shit. However ineffective "anon" is or would have been I laud them for trying or attempting to do something--whoever they are. WTF People!? Remember too that these drug cartels most likely operate in your community as well--yes IN America. They are everywhere. I'm truly saddened by all this.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    1. Re:Coming to a town near you by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Hitler did less than this

      What history books have you been reading? Hitler did much, much more than the Zetas could ever do.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  22. Re:And just as anonymous was starting to make a di by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that more likely the cartels called anonymous' bluff and they backed down once they realized that this was actually real. Anonymous is made up of a few thousand members that do nothing but talk a lot of shit, make threats, etc. and a small handful of skilled hackers. In the past what has happened is that one or two of the hackers have broken into something (i.e. sony) and released a lot of data while the rest of the group takes all the credit. But even the skill of these few hackers is questionable. The servers they broke into had known security vulnerabilities that were unpatched due to incompetent administrators, one guy actually gave out the password to his server after some social engineering. The recent "child porn bust" was some "genius" who managed to write a script to return a list of names and other information that was publicly available in the first place.

    I suspect what happened here is that a lot of members said "we're going to take down the cartels", the cartels didn't like that and responded by killing people. So now you're left with a bunch of shit-talking idiots and a few good hackers. The hackers aren't exactly useful here because I'm pretty sure the drug cartels don't go around storing details of their crimes on insecure servers. MAYBE some cartel member has an email account that might be of some use, but good luck hacking into a gmail account that you don't have any prior knowledge of. The rest of the anonymous members decided that maybe they should stop poking a hornet nest and tried to play it off as "well, we don't want anyone else to get hurt" rather than "we threatened some bad people, couldn't back it up, and got someone killed so we're not doing that anymore".

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  23. Re:Undercover Brother(s) by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

    Cowards wouldn't have initiated a challenge in the first place. Cowards don't throw down a gauntlet in front of the Zetas, and then walk away quietly. Something else is awry.

    I have no idea whether anonymous are cowards or not, but you are dead wrong, the behaviour exhibited is exactly how the classical cowardly school yard bully works, pushing people around and making demands until confronted and then finding some excuse to back down. whether they are cowards or not, backing down in this situation I think was probably smart, the moronic thing was getting into the situation in the first place, what sort of retard attacks a gang of people with money, resources and a complete lack of ethical or legal constraints. Such a confrontation can only end badly, while saying "ner ner, can't prove it was me" to the FBI might work, it will do nothing but earn yourself and your family an early grave with these people.

  24. Re:And just as anonymous was starting to make a di by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 2

    There is this concept you need to learn about called hypocrisy. BitZtream was just pointing it out.