Anonymous Says US Senators Were 'Incorrectly Outed' As KKK Members

Dave Knott writes: Nine names, 23 email addresses and 57 unlabelled phone numbers were published by hackers last weekend as part of an Anonymous-organized effort to "unhood" members of the Ku Klux Klan. There are doubts, however, about the Operation KKK data dump's veracity — and about one file, in particular, that alleges four U.S. senators and five mayors have hate group associations. The questionable data was released on PasteBin by an individual called Amped Attacks, who has now distanced himself from Anonymous, stating "i am not apart of anonymous nor have i ever claimed to be. i am my own man that acts on my own accord. i do however respect #OpKKK." To clarify the situation, Anonymous took to Twitter on Tuesday evening to state that "the twitter account that released the pastebin with the government officials that are clearly not KKK". Meanwhile, the Anonymous members behind Operation KKK say that "the actual release for Operation KKK will be 5 Nov." This is of course a date that has no small significance for Anonymous.

Comments

Gay Kay Kay?

[Shoten]

I noticed that something seemed off about this...since they said the mayor of Lexington, KY (Jim Gray) was a member of the KKK. Jim Gray is gay, and came out long ago; I would believe that you'd lose your membership in the KKK once you announce in a very public manner that you're gay.

On the other hand, it definitely gives a new aspect to the notion of being "outed".

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Lexington, KY, and was saddened to see Mayor Jim Gray name on the list. The Mayor was forced to release a public statement denying the allegations. I may be stretching into hyperbole a bit here, but this is one of the result of McCarthyism: by merely being accused of association, the court of public opinion will judge that person guilty quickly-- even if investigation reveals no ties to said association. People's professional and personal lives are ruined by stuff like this if it gets too much momentum and oxygen.

Anyone with common sense would realize that Mayor Gray sexual orientation conflicts with that preferred by the KKK, which would preclude him from ever gaining membership in a group like them. Which makes it even more ridiculous that Mayor Gray had to release a public statement-- it's a shame it is even necessary.

The KKK has a hateful, narrow world view that is incompatible with who our mayor is. The KKK is anti-anything-not-WASSP (White Anglo Saxon Straight Protestant), and explicitly so. Mayor Gray is gay and out, and for those who know him personally or his public record, he hasn't an ounce of the racism that beats in the dark, angry hearts of KKK members. Gray doesn't sound like someone the KKK is looking to have among its ranks.

My goal isn't to sound like a staffer or loyal ally defending the mayor (despite the fact that I voted him.) The point is that there are a lot of idiots out there who believe these click-baitey releases and will swallow it whole without thinking. This is real; I heard small talk in line at the store this morning regarding it. There is enough general ignorance out there to make this a problem, and again: think McCarthyism. While this isn't the same as a powerful institution or individual from the establishment perpetuating it, the modern era of the internet can make us similar all victims.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who's paying attention at all knew the list was fake since it includes someone the far-right-wing Christianist Klan hates for being different.

Sane Christians need to strongly publicly denounce the hate-fueled right-wing Christianists, who really have nothing to do with Christianity other than using it's name to advance their sick agenda.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what it has to do with McCarthyism.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that is very true. There is a lot of homosexuality in these kind of groups, the church and the military being the biggest of the bunch. If you are very anti gay, chances are you're a homo. Physically and mentally healthy people don't care one way or the other. We just don't think about it.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sane Christians

Uh huh, tell us more about them.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what it has to do with McCarthyism.

They are comparing the use of the word "communist" with the use of the word "racist" in order to destroy someone's credibility. Whether or not that person has anything to do with those words, being publicly associated with them is not good for your image.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[truck_soccer]

It doesn't have anything to do with it. He was comparing the reactionary response of "kill em with fire" that would occur when someone was outed as a "communist", which is what will happen here if this release gets enough attention.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should call them what they are, "Christian extremists" not "far-right-wing Christian".

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what it has to do with McCarthyism.

Well, the poster did say that it was stretching into hyperbole a bit. OP probably should have said the whole thing was "like" McCarthyism. OP seems to be pretty clear at the end that "this isn't the same as a powerful institution or individual from the establishment perpetuating it", but I can see that the post could have been a little more concise.

I'm on board with OP in the sense that s/he says that this press release, that any press release like this, has the potential to do a lot of damage to people's reputations. That was one of the McCarthy things, you know-- mere association would kill your public life.

Of course, historically speaking, McCarthyism was much more than that, but again-- OP seems to make a point, even if s/he is using a little hyperbole to get there.

I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Some straight men, on the other hand, care a lot about lesbians. It makes for very interesting videos.

Fight for your bitcoins!

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not very good at critical thinking. Building up that skill set will serve you well; I recommend it.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[LaurenCates]

My public statement on the matter would read:

Members of the press, general public and constituents, journalists, friends, and Anonymous:

A list has been released that names me as a member of a well-known racist organization. Some of you may be likely to believe this because the news media reported on this story.

Fucking prove it.

This is the end of my statement. Questions may be directed to my inbox at: Nofuckyou (all one word) @ thisisbullshit.com

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly if you feel strongly against paedophiles you are most likely a closet pedosexual yourself.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he need to? You interact with them all the time.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, they're not Christian extemists - (Christian extremists are radically into loving their enemies and neighbours). If the KKK are anything "Christian", they are more properly classified as Christian heretics - (that is, people who are promoting false teaching that is anti-Jesus)

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[gnaarly]

Just like anti-racists are the most hateful racists because they repress these feelings within themselves?

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

McCarthyism was much more or maybe much less. It was mostly a big deal because the people attacked were the noisy sort.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[cdrudge]

I may be stretching into hyperbole a bit here, but this is one of the result of McCarthyism: by merely being accused of association, the court of public opinion will judge that person guilty quickly-- even if investigation reveals no ties to said association.

Pretty much every reasonable news site/blog/facebook wall/etc that I've seen has done pretty much the opposite with the list. They've pointed out the several names that are almost definitely not KKK members and questioning the legitimacy of the entire list as a result.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Barsteward]

i guess he is referring to Ted Haggard et al

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Triklyn]

no true scotsman eh?

you can't pick and choose membership

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, it does explain most social justice warriors... ;)

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[phantomfive]

You have my vote!

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

no true scotsman eh?

you can't pick and choose membership

Like hell I can't. I'm Christian and I want no part of the KKK, WBC, et al.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[meerling]

Actually when to be a member of the group, you have a clearly defined set of rules for allowed and forbidden actions and that anyone who violates those is no longer and actual member despite what they personally might claim, such as in a religion, if there is someone that doesn't abide by those same rules, and yet claims to be one of them, they are in fact, not a true [whatever].
So the whole 'No True Scotsman' thing doesn't apply, especially since to be a Scotsman, the requirement is mostly to be born in Scotland, or possibly to have Scottish parents, neither of which is true with religions, though adolescent indoctrination does play a large part of continued membership, or at least claims of membership.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds likd you've stumbled on the "name a falacy falacy", which is a good way to avoid understanding the argument.

Can you remain a law-abiding citizen while robbing a bank? answer: no, because the act of robbing a bank causes you to cease being a law-abiding citizen.

A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as their boss. The only response to disobeying the boss that allows you to retain them as boss, is repentance (which means turning around and ceasing the disobedient behaviour).

So, for a bank robber to regain the status of law-abiding-citizen requires a turning away from robbing banks (and dealing with prior bank robbing behaviour appropriately) - but do you see how the behaviour can be at fundamental odds with a claimed status?

Nationality, by contrast is unconnected with behaviour, which is why it is a falacy to say no "true" [person of some nationality] would do this or that. Because doing this or that is not connected with the definition of what it means to have a nationality, which is not true for a claim of Christianity.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. As a denial, this leaves much to be desired. If I were any half-decent reporter my first question would be "Well, are you or aren't you a member of the KKK?" Hell, even as an ordinary citizen that is the first question that would immediately come to my mind while listening to your public statement. While your statement leaves no doubt about your obvious disdain for having to answer this accusation it still leaves a lot of doubt lingering in the air.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Triklyn]

no true scotsman more along the lines of redefining the group to exclude those specific examples you take issue with.

christians doesn't commit murder.
what about ireland?
no true christian commits murder.

more important than what your definition and bounds of christianity, or group is. is what their definition and bounds of a group are. They self-identify as christian, they self-identify as muslim. they self-identify as jewish, they are christian, muslim, jewish. You know how fractured christianity is?

As I understand it, unless you're a catholic, christianity involves an incredibly personal and unique interpretation of the holy scriptures. Each person is to understand their relationship with God on their own terms and in their own way.

In that case, the only way to count christians is literally to see if they themselves would call themselves christian.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[ememisya]

They had me at terrorist.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

self-identification is inadequate. Many people self-identify as Christian without any understanding of what that means - largely because (until fairly recently) the term "Christian" was used as a synonym for "a good person" - and this is largely a result of at least 1500-1800 years of Christianity dominating the mental thought-world of the West.

It is for this reason, I have noted in a seperate post - that KKK and their ill are properly categorised as heretics, since their beliefs and behaviours and teachings are profoundly at odds with the official teachings of every major branch of the Christian church, including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, and a host of others. About the only persons self-identifying as "Christian" who have any time at all for the KKK are small groups of Americans (mostly from very small sects even within America) who are not at all representative of the bulk of world-wide Christians (not-withstanding the American tendency to think of themselves as normative in any given arena)

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[O('_')O_Bush]

No TRUE Scotsman was born in and lived their whole lives in Sub-Saharan Africa. You don't get to accept Idi Amin's membership.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[KGIII]

I'm running for office in Maine in 2016. I was kind of hoping I'd see my name on this list. It'd get me some free publicity! It would most amusing, as well, because I'm partially black (as mentioned in the other thread about this subject). I do not see my name on the list.

As an aside, what's amusing is your method of campaigning actually closely mirrors my own though I'm still having the documentation worked on. (Again, drawing on memory of the last thread on this subject.)

Anyhow, can't stop now! I'm late for my Klan meeting!

I do wonder if I could sue the Klan to make them let me in. It'd probably make all sorts of people hate me but it would be kind of funny. Can't have them racially discrimination now, can we? They must let in the white/native/black man that actually looks Asian! Ah... Trolling for fun and profit! It's kind of tempting. I wonder if the ACLU will help me out? Maybe NAACP will help me get the word out with my plight and misfortune.

I imagine that they'd just ignore me and call me an Uncle Tom or a House Nigger. *sighs* Where's the lulz in that?

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[KGIII]

And my ax!

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so tired of your lies. Every fucking post you make is going to be modded down. Cunt.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[KGIII]

Having a deranged stalker is awesome! I don't think I've ever had quite this much power over a complete stranger before.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[LaurenCates]

Oh, wow, modded down. Got 'im now.

I bet you'll be given the keys to the city for your acts of sheer heroism.

Tell me truly, what's it feel like to be braver than the average two-toed sloth?

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[rtb61]

Well of course those who form temporary associations within the shadowy smoke screen of 'Anonymous' do often follow up with proof, after allowing sufficient rope for the shame less denials. It is really much more fun that way, just when the denials and main stream media PR efforts are about to succeed, the hammer drops shattering the PR fabricated illusion. In fact the initial announcement often trigger insider accusation and exposure, people often get sick of carrying the water for other people's lies and get rich quick scams.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[KGIII]

Someone always comes along and fixes it. ;-) I've attracted a stalker - Matrix007 I think is their name. I've never quite had this much control over a random stranger before. I shall lord my power over them!!! They're gonna need an awful lot of mod points. I don't actually think they can damage my karma - even with a concerted effort. But, it is I who controls the situation and I demand they try.

They might as well waste the points on me. I don't actually mind. 'Snot like I was doing anything important, or anything. Truth be told, it's kind of an ego boost. I've never managed to attract a stalker - and I've been visiting BBS, specifically the forums, since the 1980s. They also seem to think that I'm not being truthful, which is kind of amusing. It's the internet - it's the one place you can be completely honest and not really get too excited about people who dislike you or your opinion.

I do actually have a story about axes (which is what I think irks them the most - the idea that someone's able to enjoy life and is willing to share it without a sense of importance and even fully disclosing their faults and frailties) but I think I'll save it for another day. The short version is that you can, legally, go wild boar hunting in Florida with pretty much any weapon you want. And that boars don't die easily.

Ah well, this will give them something more to moderate down. I mean, hell, they can go for off-topic and at least be legitimate. 'Snot like I don't have karma to spare.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that people can and do disagree on what Jesus wants them to do. This means that two people can behave in almost diametrically opposed fashion, claim to be Christians, and both be telling the truth. The only thing they need to have in common is, as you put it, accepting Jesus as their boss. They don't need to agree on what the boss's orders are.

So yes, it is in fact a No True Scotsman fallacy to say that so-and-so isn't a Real Christian (TM) because they did such-and-such.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with common sense would realize that Mayor Gray sexual orientation conflicts with that preferred by the KKK, which would preclude him from ever gaining membership in a group like them.

Common sense alone does not suffice. Why, just a few days ago, a candidate for the Cambridge city council who also happens to be openly gay dropped out of the race after his white nationalist postings were publicized. Anyway, it is impossible to define membership requirements for the KKK since it is not a distinct organization: "The current manifestation consists of numerous small unconnected groups that use the KKK name"

Really, the KKK in 2015 is just a paper tiger. Anonymous should be doubly ashamed of themselves: first for defaming innocents who have no connection to the KKK; and second, when seeking to do battle against present-day evils, choosing such a relatively weak target when there are much bigger fish to fry.

Re: Gay Kay Kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, that just demonstrates that you're too lazy to do the work of understanding the scriptures and the traditions associated with them in order to accurately gauge what is and is-not valid christian behaviour.

those who have studied it have no problem figuring this out for most cases (there's always edge cases) but you are not (willing to be) educated enough to figure it out.

it's like saying that any behaviour can be legal behaviour in america because you are not a lawyer and can't tell what is and isn't legal. it doesn't mean that everything or anything is legal.

While there are edge cases, in general across the worldwide Christian community there is a remarkable level of broad agreement on much of what constiutes appropriate behaviour as a Christian. The thing to watch for is the "liberals" who have in large measure given up on the authority of scripture for determining appropriate conduct - and with it any valid claim to know what Yahweh requires.

But just because you're uneducated in these matters (and lack the motivation to educate yourself appropriately), does not mean that validly Christian behaviour can't be determined.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[LaurenCates]

Eh, sometimes I just like to taunt the ACs that do stuff like that.

I know it's best to ignore them, but me being openly female, sometimes it's best to call people out on it when they think they're pissing in my cornflakes.

That, and I just like being snarky.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[LaurenCates]

That's why my approach to being slandered is "I'm in if you're in".

Because if you show people that you're not afraid or mealy-mouthed about what people have to say about you, people are more likely to respect you even if they don't agree with you. Except for the ones that were looking for a reason to hate you anyway.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[metrix007]

Not a stalker. I just keep running into your posts full of lies and irrelevant anecdotes and have to call out your bullshit.

Re:Gay Kay Kay?

[kmoser]

We should call them what they are, "Christian extremists" not "far-right-wing Christian".

Virtually all religion is extremism: to believe in a supernatural deity without any evidence is to practice extreme self-delusion.

Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

A fundamental problem I have with this, especially hacktivism in general, is that these people are doing things that they themselves wouldn't like the police to be doing. If you wouldn't support the police hacking into the systems of people saying things that are unpopular, then why would you support anonymous doing it? Likewise, DDoSing websites is censorship by every definition of the word, I don't care what purpose the website serves (be it commercial or not.)

Maybe in some situations, censorship is acceptable in Europe, but not here, not with the first amendment.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Big Hairy Ian]

What makes you think censorship is acceptable in Europe?

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

There are a lot of examples, such as it being illegal to bear a swaztika in Germany.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that. What I have an issue with is 'oh wait we got it wrong'. How much info do they have? Is it an email address? As a young punk I used to send my friends emails from Bill Gates...

This strikes me as ham fisted hacktivism. Out people then go woopsie sorry I turned your life inside out because I screwed up. Wont happen again 'pinkie swear'.

This is basically using shame to try to push your ways. How is it any better than what the KKK does and did in the past?

Also never thought I would feel sorry for someone from the KKK and defend them... You have to be a real screw up to get someone like me to defend them.

Many people talk about the 1st in relation to the KKK. But also consider the 4th. You are basically taking it upon yourself to rifle thru their personal papers to dig up dirt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Background
In fact the 4th was designed to blunt exactly these sorts of lynch mob tactics under the color of law. We as a country used to take these things seriously. For example opening someones mail carries a massive penalty and fine.

You may be doing the right thing. But are you any better than the group you espouse to take down by using dirty tactics?

Re:Even if it is correct

[shaitand]

The police have legal immunity for their crimes while being granted special powers to enable them to commit them and the first amendment only applies to government. Private citizens are granted protections in the Constitution not restrictions while the reverse is true of government. Officials acting in their public capacity do not have protections from the bill of rights as evidenced by the separation of church and state. It is illegal for a government official to bring their religion to their public office/function.

A private citizen not only is granted no protections but must commit civil disobedience at great personal risk to protest for major changes and fight the protected and entrenched powers.

There is no end to the list of things I'm perfectly okay with a private citizen doing while completely opposed to police/military/government doing.

Re:Even if it is correct

[NotDrWho]

And Britain's broad anti-slander/anti-libel laws.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think censorship is acceptable in Europe?

Knowing its laws, being born there, and having lived there.

That's also why I know that Europeans are ignorant and/or in denial about it.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

This strikes me as ham fisted hacktivism. Out people then go woopsie sorry I turned your life inside out because I screwed up. Wont happen again 'pinkie swear'.

And this is different than the 'legal' process how?

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

Many people talk about the 1st in relation to the KKK. But also consider the 4th. You are basically taking it upon yourself to rifle thru their personal papers to dig up dirt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In fact the 4th was designed to blunt exactly these sorts of lynch mob tactics under the color of law. We as a country used to take these things seriously. For example opening someones mail carries a massive penalty and fine.

Exactly this. Unless hacktivists and hacktivist supporters think that it would be a good idea to one day give the police the ability to ignore the 4th, then they shouldn't do it either.

In the case of ISIS, I can understand because they've already long since provided justification for doing this (which the 4th amendment specifies) but as for the KKK, with as much as I don't like them either, I don't see a justification for this.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Alumoi]

USA you can post that you think Obama and his children are a bunch of racial slur, racial slur, racial slur, and nothing legally will happen to you.

For now. Give it a couple of years and then we'll talk. Or not?

Re:Even if it is correct

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And laws against encryption, where in the US encrypted speech is considered speech, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment.

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

In other words, if you say something that somebody doesn't like, it's acceptable for them to rummage through your computer and your house and air your dirty laundry to the public, just because they aren't the government? Because this is what you're advocating against the KKK. Sure, your unpopular opinion might be different, but other than that the circumstances are identical.

Not only that, but the 4th amendment doesn't specify that the government isn't allowed to do it, that's only the first amendment.

Re: Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

He never said anything about rights applying to him. He stated human rights as a whole for the USA. So in short, you are the asshole jumping to conclusions putting words in his post. Go eat a fat dick.

Re:Even if it is correct

[lister king of smeg]

There are even Nazi websites and a Nazi party in the US, and the government does nothing about it!
That way there is only the citizenry's common sense to prevent the Nazi to grab power there!

And surprisingly that hasn't backfired.
yet...

Probably because Nazis are the only group that virtually every non-member would unquestionably define as evil.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Frosty Piss]

...where in the US encrypted speech is considered speech, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment.

Sure it is. Tell it to the Boarder Patrol and TSA - if you want to lose your device (it happens all the time). Also a court can rule that you have to "surrender" your password, simply a fact. Of course you don't have to give up your passwords, nobody can "make" you to do what you don't want to do, though they can certainly put enough pressure on you to the point that you give it up.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be doing the right thing. But are you any better than the group you espouse to take down by using dirty tactics?

Yes! Victory must be had at all costs. This is war. People who use guns deserve what's coming to them. Fuck them!

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately, this is the ends justify the means crowd taking to task something that is so obviously heinous, it deserves to be seen in the light of day. In many respects, little different than whistle-blowing.

Small problem being when they get it wrong, it's nice that someone like Jim Gray has the resources to correct the misattribution. Who knows how many more have effectively had their lives ended, and Anonymous gets to wash their hands of the entire event.

And of course, should others want to turn the fickle eye upon Anonymous (they are implicated in quite a few crimes), there would be much gnashing of teeth about privacy rights and whatnot.

There is a huge disconnect here, and while it is easy to describe this as simple hypocrisy, unless the KKK were implicated in some recent crimes, this is essentially thought policing.

That is a rabbit hole I doubt Anonymous wants to engage.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe you can say anything you want, and then get punished.

In the US you either get censored or punished before you get the chance to speak.

Re:Even if it is correct

[truck_soccer]

How is it any better than what the KKK does and did in the past?

Is that a serious question? You can't think of ANY differences in their tactics? Dumping a list on pastebin = violent acts of murder, rape, and torture? Wow.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice FUD! Thanks for making the internet a worse place!

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Our system already disregards the constitution any chance they get. So why not use their own tactics against them? Our beloved hemp document has no ability to stop anyone from doing anything, and the fact that you think our government are a bunch of constitutionalists is hilariously naive.

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

Which is why we hold them accountable when they do. Granted, the NSA hasn't been held accountable yet, I don't think that will last forever.

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

There is a huge disconnect here, and while it is easy to describe this as simple hypocrisy, unless the KKK were implicated in some recent crimes, this is essentially thought policing.

That's EXACTLY what it is.

Re:Even if it is correct

[cayenne8]

In the US you either get censored or punished before you get the chance to speak.

That's only if you are espousing opinions that go against the current liberal / WSJ political correctness group-think.

If you even attempt to say something that differs from their opinions, you aren't merely argued with, you are shouted down and they try to prevent anything like that being said in public at all. Look at what's happening in our colleges....

Anything not remotely "PC"..and you get shouted down at racist, or something "phobic" or the like.

Re:Even if it is correct

[slew]

In general, what you can take across a border is not the same as what you can do inside the border...
(e.g., booze, guns, cigarettes, etc), why do you expect "encryption" or "munitions" (basically what encryption used to be classified as) to be any different?

Stay inside, or stay outside...

Re:Even if it is correct

[slew]

There are even Nazi websites and a Nazi party in the US, and the government does nothing about it!
That way there is only the citizenry's common sense to prevent the Nazi to grab power there!

And surprisingly that hasn't backfired.
yet...

Probably because Nazis are the only group that virtually every non-member would unquestionably define as evil.

Or maybe because our constitution prevents naturalized citizens from Austria from becoming president (sorry Arnold ;^)

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Nailed it. I hate to play the old man card, but I weep for the future where people aren't judged by their actions, but by their intent.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you cool with me going through your email?

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know the Constitution Free Zone, That 100 miles near a border, it engulfs my entire state.

Re: Even if it is correct

[Bing Tsher E]

No, modern NAZI allies are just dumb. Complete idiots with zero chance of ever mattering. It's like advocating that the earth is flat. A troll deal. They do have some success in their trolling, though.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

the sad thing is, it's not FUD.

If you post what, 9 words today to that effect, you're rolling the dice as to whether your life is over or not. Someone cares enough to find out who you are, and suddenly you lose your life in a fucking twitter storm. Ask the lady that made a shitty joke about africa and aids, she's still recovering from a tweet.

It's not governmental interference, but the colossal overreaction and weight of social media.

back in the day, you could say something stupid, get shunned locally, but could move to somewhere where you could escape the social stigma. these days... it will follow you to the grave unless you change your name and there's no guarantee it won't follow you still.

And we're all happy about it, because political correctness still hasn't hit its peak... hopefully they won't pass any local legislation after it has. hate crime legislation is a thing, and it's just a short hop and a skip.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

In some ways I think it is even more slimy. You do not want to get your hands dirty so you get someone pissed off to do it for you. Then you can sit back and say "i'm innocent I didn't do anything but cut and paste some words around".

Inciting violence is no better. That is exactly what this is.

Or is your opinion violence and bullying is ok because it is some group you don't like?

Re:Even if it is correct

[dywolf]

your logic doesn't quite follow.

case law is pretty clear that the 4th (indeed, the entirety of the Constitution) only applies to governmental entities, being a document concerning the governments relation to those under its authority.

but, that doesn't automatically grant private non governmental entities the ability to tread where the government cannot, as there exist other laws that private citizens would be breaking in doing so.

if I were to dig through your personal info in your private office to dig something up on you I would not be violating your 4th Amendment rights. A lawsuit against me for violating your 4th Amendment rights would have zero legal merit. I would however be violating various trespass, privacy, and property rights, rights not set out by the Constitution, but no less existent for that.

Re: Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because Nazis are the only group that virtually every non-member would unquestionably define as evil.

Only as long as you catch them goose stepping in identifiable uniforms

The rest of the time, they're as popular as ever.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Coren22]

Is the Wall Street Journal some kind of Political Correctness bible now?

Or did you mean SJW (Social Justice Warrior).

Re:Even if it is correct

[T.E.D.]

I think we can safely count Germany an exception. Yes, not every western democracy outlaws free association and free speech in this manner, but not every western democracy happens to be the country that started the two bloodiest wars in human history less than a century ago either. Sometimes, if you make it targeted enough, an exception or two might be understandable.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're wondering why almost no one is replying to you, don't. I read what you've done to others here and the slimy way you operate. You're slime. I see from your post history you went on a sock puppet powered down moderating binge to hide your rotten stupidity yesterday and yet now none of the posts that expose your asshole ways are down moderated today. You're all out of mod points now aren't you from your sock puppets. Face the music. You can't hide posts from others view today and have to live with the fact everyone sees you for who and what you are. A lying scummish troll Coren22. That's what you get and you have to live with it. Thought I'd let you know what people here think of you.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US you either get censored or punished before you get the chance to speak.

That's only if you are espousing opinions that go against the current liberal / WSJ political correctness group-think.

Yeah, they totally deleted your useless whiny comments (quoted above) before I could even read them.

The savages. They probably aren't even circumcised!

Re:Even if it is correct

[cayenne8]

Is the Wall Street Journal some kind of Political Correctness bible now?

Or did you mean SJW (Social Justice Warrior).

OOps...well, you know my motto:

"Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!!"

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone will have to prove the NSA is actually guilty before holding them accountable. So far the evidence of their nefarious deeds include a few unspecific memos, power point presentations, and a shit load of innuendo. Where are the implementation and operational details at? The chain of custody of the various pieces of "evidence" cannot be verified since the evidence was collected illegally and there is no way to prove beyond a reason of doubt that someone has not been creating or modifying the documents before release. The actions the NSA has admitted to are covered by the various legal protections put in place by the legislative and judiciary and if those laws are struck down you cannot retroactively charge people for breaking a law at a time when the law plainly says their actions were legal. And any accusations of the NSA breaking any US laws is nonsense when it comes to their activities on foreign soil. And it was the European security agencies collecting the information on their own citizens and then sharing that data with the NSA. Some how the EU has convinced people that their data will be more protected in servers based on European soil. I have a hard time understanding the logic behind that but the Europeans have not been the sharpest people on the planet for quite some time. I think the EU is just looking to shakedown US companies for more money for the privilege of providing it's citizens of the technology services they cannot provide themselves. And using the security angle to do this seems like a good plan at the moment. Face it. Europe was asleep at the wheel during the early years of the PC and Internet boom years and they are desperate to extract cash from those who actually did something besides pass idiotic regulations and hover under the security blanket the US has provided for their refined buttocks. The missing evidence is also another huge factor in doubting the conclusions people have come to based only on the released documents. Where is the other 90% percent of the stolen documents that could refute, put into context, or explain in more detail the contents of the released documents? The released documents have been cherry picked to help strengthen and advance the political agenda of the ones entrusted with the data. None of the people associated with the release of the stolen data comes close to being objective observer. And finally someone will have to prove they were harmed by any NSA actions. Just because you say something is illegal and you can find like minded thinkers in your favorite echo chamber does not actually translate into someone being guilty.

Re:Even if it is correct

[KGIII]

This is basically using shame to try to push your ways. How is it any better than what the KKK does and did in the past?

Well, Anon doesn't really go around lynching people or catching people and killing them by dragging them behind a pickup truck. Umm... You seriously conflate the two groups based on one hyperbolic connection and determine them equal? That's *almost* as silly as saying that Uber's a proponent of civil rights (which has been argued) and equating them with Rosa Parks.

Re:Even if it is correct

[KGIII]

You've been here long enough. You know the rules. This here's Slashdot. The laws are what we say they are! That's why Reddit's censorship is illegal, copyright infringement doesn't deprive the owner of anything, the 2nd Amendment only protects militias, and anything violates the 4th even if it was done by Anonymous.

Next thing we know, you'll be expecting us to read the articles and make informed, well-reasoned, logical posts! No, no sirree! This here's screech like a howler monkey and throw poop territory. And we like it!

Re:Even if it is correct

[metrix007]

Shut the fuck up.

Re:Even if it is correct

[KGIII]

Incite has a definition. It even has a legal definition. I am pretty sure, however distasteful, that this criteria has yet to be met. I've seen nary a single anon positing that one should engage in violence against any of these people. I also suspect that I'm closer, by loose definition, than you are in regards to these anons. That said, I've yet to see one anon suggesting violence against any of these people. They might be giggling, expecting someone to engage in violence but they're not suggesting it - no inciting there at all.

If I say that AC is a bacon-hater who uses Windows ME and then list your address, it's still not inciting violence. Hell, even if I say I think you should die, it's not inciting violence. If I say that someone should go kill the bacon-hating, ME using, AC who lives at such-and-such address then, yes, that's inciting. If I say that I wish someone in the audience would kill you then that, too, is inciting violence.

I am not a lawyer, I am certainly not your lawyer. This post, in no way, indicates an attorney/client relationship in any jurisdiction. Consult a legal professional before inciting violence.

Re:Even if it is correct

[shaitand]

I didn't say anything about Anonymous or the KKK. I was speaking to the logical basis of the GP's argument that if you aren't okay with the police doing something you shouldn't be okay with a private citizen doing it.

Laws are black and white, the real world is very very grey. If it weren't we wouldn't need courts and the constitution wouldn't guarantee the people the ultimate right to block injustice from all branches via the right to jury trial and their power to nullify the law if they feel it is the just thing in this particular case.

All in all violating the privacy of a person and exposing they are a member of a club isn't a particularly harmful thing in and of itself. You aren't damaging someone's person or property. In a sense you are putting them up for a mass jury trial. I'm not saying someone doing something like this should not be charged and made to answer to a jury of their peers. I'm saying that someone trying to do good should be entitled to face a jury of their peers who have actually been informed of their right to nullify the law

Can we condone this in every case? Absolutely not, which is why it is illegal. Is it sometimes necessary to break the law to prevent greater harm? Yes it is. This is the basis for police and military protections (which are not totally illegitimate just heavily abused and taken too far), the civil rights movement, and the fact that the very same IS a valid legal defense in the US and most states. For instance, in Florida medical marijuana was not legal last I checked but medical necessity was a valid legal defense against charges if you are arrested.

Personally, I think that as with most legal charges it comes down to a few key points. Was the intent to prevent a greater evil? Was that evil something which carried a significant risk of harm to others? Was the action committed in this one particular instance the lesser evil? I do not decide, you do not decide, the government is most certainly barred from deciding. This is the entire purpose of juries and why their decisions do not set precedent. It isn't perfect but nullification is the only direct power given to the people. Any one of us has only 1/12 the power to do it in only a single instance but in our Constitutional government it is the people and not any branch of government that has the final say in what was or was not a crime.

Ironically, many members of the KKK got away with crimes as a result of jury nullification in an overwhelmingly racist south. Judges have decided they can lie to juries on the topic, not only not informing of their power to nullify but actually telling them they are not allowed to judge the law. It's a blatant illegal judicial power grab but they found a really good excuse and stuck with it. The Constitution does not limit the basis on which juries may decide your fate and it does not empower judges to set aside jury verdicts, abuse procedural authority to declare mistrials to block nullification, or lie to jurors about it in their instruction. But when all their own peers are behind them, I guess judges don't sweat high treason against the people of the United States much.

Re:Even if it is correct

[shaitand]

I'm not cool with anyone going through my mail. My concern about you doing it ranks somewhere below the government doing so.

Of course why you were going through my mail is a factor as well. Was it to fix my corrupted mailbox file? Was it something that happened as part of an effort you sincerely believed would end all spam forever, end NSA abuses, destroy the copyright cartels? Or were you just hoping to find some nude pics of myself or my SO? Motive is a very big factor.

There are definitely no shortage of things looking at email is the lesser evil compared to. Even if I'm not okay with it, that might well be because I'm up to the greater evil you are trying to prevent.

See more here, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8271357&cid=50858789

Re:Even if it is correct

[shaitand]

Under the law they should in fact be judged by a combination of the two. The absolute judgement by action ignoring mitigating intent is not an old man thing, it is the new thing. There is a reason murder charges come in multiple degrees.

Ironically, it was largely members of the KKK being set free for hate crimes in the racist south that was used as the excuse for a massive power grab by the judicial and justification for lying to juries about their right to nullify the law where it's application was not just. For example, a judge will instruct jurors that they can not judge the law and therefore could not find you not guilty of assault charges in an instance where you tackled a man who mugging an elderly woman. The Constitution on the other hand empowers juries to do exactly that. Along with other little things like refusing to prosecute people who protest against the government or violated the "Snitch on your Neighbor Child Safety through Bread Tax and Exemptions to Unauthorized Systems Access Penalties for Copyright Cartels Puppy Love Act".

Do what is right and the hell with the law. Then face a jury of your peers who are actually informed of their right to nullify and face their judgement. They have every right to both be opposed to hacking systems and feel your actions in this case were the lesser of two evils. Their decisions are one off and set no precedent.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Coren22]

Haven't had mod points in about a month, used to often get 15, but I don't think that the 45 points that APK accuses me of are in any way possible, how could someone run enough accounts, and maintain positive Karma on all of them to have enough mod points to mod bomb a single person who posts near 100 comments in a day? I don't have enough time to keep up with everything on one account, let alone 10-20 I am being accused of running by a troll who shitposts constantly anything that mildly disagrees with him or points out flaws in his logic. I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Kierthos]

There's a solution to that, you know.

Don't say stupid stuff.

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

The concept of "encryption as munitions" concept fell apart when Phil Zimmerman made the point that he could print the PGP source code in a book and send it overseas. Politicians at the time didn't understand why code could be considered speech, until they realized that it could be in book form, which already had a long established first amendment protection.

Re:Even if it is correct

[ArmoredDragon]

No, you can't. For example, France is demanding that Twitter turn over information about people who tweeted "hate speech" so that it could prosecute them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...

A tweet is nothing more than speech, and the "speech crimes" that France is pursuing were:

- Anti-semitic comments
- Holocaust denial (this is actually illegal throughout Europe, not just Germany)
- Denigrating muslims

Even if you call this one an exception, I can find countless others, and for practically every country in Europe.

Re: Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

5th amendment says I don't have to give up a damn thing -- government has to prove their case _without_ my help.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Please respond for your $1,000,000.00 prize.

-apk

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no supporters, Alex. Everyone can tell that it's just you.

Re: Even if it is correct

[thinkwaitfast]

OT...Did you know that Thomas Dolby (She Blinded Me with Science) is member 1 of the flat earth society?

Re:Even if it is correct

[slew]

The concept of "encryption as munitions" concept fell apart when Phil Zimmerman made the point that he could print the PGP source code in a book and send it overseas. Politicians at the time didn't understand why code could be considered speech, until they realized that it could be in book form, which already had a long established first amendment protection.

Historically, there has been a difference between *ideas* and *knowledge*. Back in the days, the engineering/practical knowledge on how to construct machines that performed encryption efficiently wasn't widely available, so restricting transportation of such machines or the practical knowledge on how to replicate such machines overseas was analogous to sending say high-speed centrifuges overseas today.

As engineering knowledge becomes more pervasive, it makes less sense, and at some point in time you could send enough information to convey to another skilled party on the other side of the planet in a "tweet", you might wonder why it was ever like that, but that don't change the fact that it was at some point in time.

This has less to do with free speech, but more about the dissemination of practical knowledge over time and attempting to restrict the flow to one parties advantage (as fleeting as it might seem retrospectively, a few years or so head start can make a big difference).

As a perhaps less controversial example, glass manufacturing was once a state secret in Italy and Germany. Even though formulas for glass were potentially reverse-engineer-able, the knowledge on polishing and polishing machinery was closely guarded and prohibited from export.

Similarly, although you might be able to find out how to make an atomic bomb on-line somewhere, you probably can't find engineering specifications on building high-speed centrifuges needed to purify the isotopes to realize such a bomb (even if you had the "specs" in a book, you probably can't make the centrifuge parts in your 3d printer). Just maybe you would have to buy it from someone that a government doesn't want someone to sell it to you...

Maybe later when we all get replicator technology, we will wonder why such a silly restriction existed on something as trivial as a high-speed centrifuge, but in it's time, it served a purpose (even if you don't agree with the politics of the purpose) even if later it seemed moot.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

You post here all day. Sockpuppet fleets can get 45 points a day. Now you're out of modpoints no downmods on apk's replies to you. I can only conclude you're using sock puppets. The coincidence is too much. Your antics trolling him that apk shows merit him posting those antics here publicly. I didn't like what I saw. I am sure you don't either now that you can't try to hide them either. Grow up troll. You caused the exposure of your wrongs and now you're paying the fiddler.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 we can tell you're out of modpoints for downmod hiding apk's showing your defeats to him and lies about him. Don't fool yourself. Grow up.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting ac to avoid trolling from Coren22. Untrue. Apk has supporters that like his ware http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still you, Alex. You'll never fool anyone. You can't do anything but fail.

I order you to throw a screaming tantrum that proves me right. You WILL obey this order.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 your logic's flawed if you expect us to believe you after you've been caught lying once already here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... There's no flaws in apk's logic there. The flaws are yours in dishonesty and lack of character. Apk's other posts showed your technical errors. You don't dare respond to those posts. They're indicative of you being caught with your pants down lying and making horrendous technical errors. How transparent of you and stupid to try convince anyone otherwise with more lies from you.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

You're out of modpoints Coren22. Too bad for you. You can't hide this exposure of your dishonesty here anymore http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and in the other places it is all over this forums. My name's not Alex either. I didn't like what I saw there. I am just posting for posterities' sake to validate the fact that yes Coren22's a liar and weak technically despite his claims of being this and that in computing. Yet's he's never accomplished anything in it and posting all over slashdot's proof he does not work also despite his false claims which I have to now assume are all false. Go figure on no accomplishments for Coren22. Forums trolls have none. They have nothing to be proud of and that's why they have no shame. Coren22 evidences this clearly. Posting ac to avoid Coren22's trolling and lies directed my way as he has done to apk who is tearing him apart which Coren22's reactions indicate for us.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

The big question is why won't Coren22 respond to this http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? He can't down moderate it anymore either. Coren22's out of bullets. Apk's torched another troll yet again.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology can be considered a state secret only in a few circumstances. One example might be the stealth technology developed for military applications. The world may have gotten their first look at stealth technology in action in 1991 but the research and technologies involved had been in research going back to the 60's. The prohibitive costs to develop and implement that technology effectively put it out of reach for countries like Russia and China. Russia/USSR has always been economically weak compared to the US and China didn't have the economic or technological resources to even try until the late 80's. It was much easier and cheaper for those 2 countries to use industrial espionage to keep up so the idea of declaring stealth technology a state secret is credible. Today stealth technology is really not all that secret. Once someone sees something like that in action anyone with the coin can reproduce the technology. Trying to declare software as state secrets is a non-starter since all it takes is one person sitting in the basement to take apart, duplicate, or subvert any program they can get their hands on and that is not really that hard to do either. The government in all it's forms is just as vulnerable, if not more, as the general public when it comes to securing their computers.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

I ordered you to prove me right with a screaming tantrum. You obeyed this order.

You are Alexander Peter Kowalski, an unemployable loser who spams Slashdot with his pathetic little grudges against anyone who criticizes his obsolete script. Not a single person reading this thread will ever believe otherwise.

I order you to prove me right again, Alex. You will obey, because it's all you know how to do.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 why don't you respond to apk where he caught you in a blatant lie about him here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... instead? Cat got your tongue or is it you're caught with your pants down again? Yes to both.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not Coren22, nor do you believe that I am.

You are Alexander Peter Kowalski. You are a fraud and a malware author. You are unemployed and unemployable. You have no friends and your family is ashamed of you. These are facts that you agree with.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Big Hairy Ian]

What people don't get sued for slander/libel in America? What's the most litigious country in the world coming to?

Re:Even if it is correct

[drinkypoo]

For example, a judge will instruct jurors that they can not judge the law and therefore could not find you not guilty of assault charges in an instance where you tackled a man who mugging an elderly woman. The Constitution on the other hand empowers juries to do exactly that.

This has always boggled my mind. How are judges able to legally lie to jurors at the beginning of every trial, and yet retain their jobs? They should be removed from the courts with extreme prejudice if they have ever made such a statement, and let them try to get their jobs all over again.

Re:Even if it is correct

[drinkypoo]

There is a huge disconnect here, and while it is easy to describe this as simple hypocrisy, unless the KKK were implicated in some recent crimes, this is essentially thought policing.

This is not thought policing and it is not hypocrisy. This is war. The KKK has been an openly harmful organization for the whole of its existence, and there's no valid reason not to stamp it out. Not by outlawing it, but by attacking it on every valid basis. Attempts to unmask the members of Anonymous are ongoing and continual. Why should they not unmask their enemies? If Anonymous were attacking people or groups which were not simple groups of shitbags, then they'd have less sympathy. But you can't defend the KKK without supporting not just racism, but violence against non-whites.

That is a rabbit hole I doubt Anonymous wants to engage.

Well, you're wrong. They clearly do. And fuck the KKK, and fuck anyone who defends them. They're an openly harmful organization, and I'm not talking hate speech. They took up the practice of wearing those fancy dresses specifically to avoid prosecution for their crimes, and now they want to complain when someone wants a look up their skirt. Well, fuck 'em. Not all situations are identical.

Re:Even if it is correct

[luis_a_espinal]

What makes you think censorship is acceptable in Europe?

In Germany and France, you cannot parade with Nazi paraphernalia. That's one example of censorship that is legally impossible in the US (and I'll go on record to say, I wish we could have some of that type of censorship against people parading in white hoods... or people with pulled down pants or unattractive people wearing uber-tight spandex clothing 2 sizes too small.)

Re:Even if it is correct

[cyberchondriac]

In fact the 4th was designed to blunt exactly these sorts of lynch mob tactics under the color of law.

Were those intentional puns or did they just surface subconsciously?

I agree with your sentiment. While I don't really feel bad for the actual KKK people, those who are incorrectly outed could very well have their lives destroyed by this wanton and careless act. This is one reason the amendments are in place. I think it's also beyond ironic that anonymous wishes to (I'm paraphrasing here) "..strip the KKK of the cowardly masks they hide behind".. and yet, they're "anonymous".

Re:Even if it is correct

[Hognoxious]

He's probably one of the numerous fat idiots who think truth isn't a defence under UK law because they read something on the internet written by a fat idiot.

For the benefit of him and any other DeVry alumni.

Re:Even if it is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandpa? I thought we took away your internet because of this. We are coming to take the laptop back.

This gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

[Anonymous Coward]

Of great confidence in any revelations coming from, or allegedly coming from, Anonymous.

It was on the Internet!

How many of them are black?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Just asking

Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[presidenteloco]

And anyone can claim to be anonymous?

Well, I say we need to throw everyone in jail, on suspicion of this cowardly info-terrorist activity.

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You mean like that "Anonymous Coward" guy that keeps posting here?

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest - it wasn't me.

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but the subtle difference there is that the calling card for the Anonymous Coward post here is:

We are excretion

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[dmomo]

No. It's there's no solid Anonymous identity, but there IS a known twitter account spearheading opkkk, so in a sense,that does have an identity. An identity which claims to be no part of this recent data dump.

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in no way affiliated to "Anonymous".

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you get the joke inherent in the label "Anonymous Coward". I feel like a lot of people here think both words are intended to be descriptive and devoid of sarcasm.

Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

Re: Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if we were, we'd be too scared to admit it!

[subject]

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that Anonymous seem to have no respect for anonymity other than their own ( not that I support the KKK, I can barely believe that's a thing in a modern country ).

Re:[subject]

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I find it amusing that Anonymous seem to have no respect for anonymity other than their own

That's like saying "I find it amusing that only redheads have red hair."

Re:[subject]

[phantomfive]

Maybe it's because Anonymous as a group are bound together not because they desire to be anonymous (although they do desire that), but because they realize anonymity is a form of power. They want to wield that power, and 'disarm' other people of that power.

Anonymity is a weapon, and Anonymous has found ways to use it.

Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

To clarify the situation, Anonymous took to Twitter on Tuesday evening to state that "the twitter account that released the pastebin with the government officials that are clearly not KKK".

This is syntactically incoherent. I have no idea what it is that Anonymous actually claimed on Twitter.

Re:Editors

[hey!]

The syntax is not hard to unravel, although the combination of the syntax AND the jargon (the most common source of Slashdot incoherence) is a bit of a challenge. The problem is a stray "that". "That" is used to introduce a restrictive relative clause (i.e., a phrase which narrows down the universe of possible things that "the twitter account" might refer to). The tweeter began a sentence with what he thought was the subject, then introduced a restrictive relative clause to clarify the subject; when he discovered that what he wanted to say was in that clause he simply slapped a period on the end.

The simplest edit would be to make "pastebin" the subject of the sentence:

The pastebin released by the twitter account included government officials who clearly are not KKK.

On the other hand, the subject in a subject-verb-predicate sentence has a kind of pride of place. I suspect that the writer was trying to put the spotlight on what he saw was unethical behavior by the tweeter. So you could also write it this way:

The twitter account that released the pastebin included government officials who clearly are not KKK in that pastebin.

Re:Editors

[LynnwoodRooster]

They're anonymous because they're ashamed of their grammatical skills...

Who to believe?

[mschaffer]

Who do you believe? A mysterious organization that uses nefarious and questionable means to gather their information? Or, do you believe what comes out of the mouth of a politician?

Re:Who to believe?

[tnk1]

If the information released under the name of Anonymous is backed with verifiable facts, then we won't need to believe them, we'll be able to fact check it ourselves. And the most effective "operations" are ones where the information is found is released so that it can be checked.

However, it is true that what "Anonymous" says about someone is meaningless without proof being provided to back it up. The very attribution of this to Anonymous literally means that anyone could be releasing it for any reason. Even just for the lulz.

In the case of the person who "released" the list early, it appears to have been for a reason other than to provide facts.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

This was quite evident yesterday - one could still find news articles mentioning the Nov 5 date written from several days ago.

What bothers me is that I pointed this out in a comment... that was hidden at the bottom of 500. I read all of the comments and nobody else seemed to pick up on this.

News in plain sight to counter what the article said, and a 0.2% of picking it up via the magic of "distributed intelligence"

Conclusion: we are screwed

Imposters?

[truck_soccer]

So this release was a fake, and the true release will not have any mistakes? How did they verify?

Re:Imposters?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did they verify?

Magic 8-Ball.

Re:Imposters?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shoot them all and let God sort them out!" is the SJW (including Anonymous) mantra, except for the "God" part.

Re:Imposters?

[Rob Riggs]

No. This is a false flag operation to get the public to doubt the real information when it is released. Thanks for playing.

Re:Imposters?

[tnk1]

Presumably, they will provide proof that can be fact checked independently.

If they don't provide that, then there is no point in accepting any suggesting that they have "verification". "Anonymous" has no reputation to stake on this, so there is no reason to trust their word.

And really, the point of Anonymous doing these things is to release information for review. They may say it is a list of KKK members, but anyone who understands how Anonymous works understands that they are there to simply release things that may not have otherwise seen the light of day. It's up to you to believe them or fact check them or not.

Let's hope they didn't just pick a list of Republicans that everyone loves to hate, and then just rely on everyone nodding their heads and going with the narrative.

Re:Imposters?

[zlives]

more incoming in 3,2...

This is the net. Call anyone a KKK member you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't slander Tom Cruise. Scientology's lawyers will fuck you up!

BTW: also a member of the KKK? Bill Cosby. True fact 'cause pastebin says so(therefore you know it's legit).

Pastebin is a credible source for information right? It's where I get all my CC#s and SSNs so I've seen a few pastebins in my day.

Well now

[93 Escort Wagon]

So yesterday, on the original story, I snarkily posted "I'm sure there's no possibility that there will be any names released who aren't actually KKK members." What was funny is that one guy actually said "no way it'll happen, Anonymous definitely will have vetted this because of their previous screw-ups".

Obviously not... and it did t even take very long to find out.

I'm not sure why anyone pays attention to anything that purports to come from that group.

Re:Well now

[rhazz]

Did you even read the summary? The person who released the data clearly stated they are not part of Anonymous and not part of the operation. As Anonymous stated, they will release it November 5th from a specific twitter handle. Additionally Anonymous has also clearly stated that just because names exist in their dump, does not mean those people are members of KKK, it just means those names existed in the KKK members database. After all, George Bush's name appeared on dozens of accounts on in the Ashley Madison dump.

Re:Well now

[shaitand]

You know that this wasn't anonymous right? This was someone else posting garbage to discredit the previously announced 11/5 dump that will be from anonymous.

Re:Well now

[Anonymous Coward]

With this you showed either your gross inability to read or your commitment to misrepresenting the facts.

Pick one.

Slashdot apologizes for the llamas...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot: Doxxing is bad, mmm-kay, because it hurts people and causes lynch mob mentality against people we agree with, mmm-kay?

Which is why those llamas have been sacked, but the correct llams will release their doxxing info on the 5th which is very important because those llamas have history.

Slashdot: Doxxing is good, mmm-kay, because it exposes injustices and causes lynch mob mentality against people we disagree with, mmm-kay?

Re:Slashdot apologizes for the llamas...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, it's almost as if Slashdot has different people with varying opinions on things.

Re:Slashdot apologizes for the llamas...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not.

Re:Slashdot apologizes for the llamas...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are an extremist and you see everyone that doesn't agree with you as belonging to "the other side" does not make that true.

Vigilantes

[Anonymous Coward]

Vigilantes have always will be vermin that have no place in civilized society. Justice shouldn't be in the hands of self-indulgent losers with no authority.

Re:Vigilantes

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree wholeheartedly. If the authorities aren't going to do anything about these vigilantes, I say we all get together and teach 'em a lesson...

Re:Vigilantes

[Anonymous Coward]

>Justice shouldn't be in the hands of those with no authority.
>Justice belongs in the hands of [...]

Yes, mi'lord.

Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

How come they won't go after the drug cartels and release that data?

Re:Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried this but the drug cartels started killing more innocent people than they had been, with threats to do more. IIRC it's the only time that the claimed "Anonymous" has actually backed down.

Re:Drug cartels

[tehcyder]

How come they won't go after the drug cartels and release that data?

1. They probably don't think drugs are bad, and

2. They would like to remain attached to their testicles and kneecaps.

Re:Drug cartels

[tnk1]

I believe that there have been some attempts to do that.

However, two things. First, the cartels are already experts on doing business secretly. They aren't soft targets in terms of process or operational security.

Second, they have threatened to kill the shit out of anyone who tries it. Any "whistleblowers" aren't sent to jail and mistreated a little, they are tortured and killed. And their families are tortured and killed.

It's hard to say if they will be able to find the people carry out their threats on, but there is no reason to doubt their sincerity and their capability to commit organized, and violent, crime.

Re:Drug cartels

[GLMDesigns]

I thought torture and threats of torture were ineffective? I know that because my professor told me that.

Re:Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

They are ineffective at extracting truthful confessions. Try not to make arguments when you don't even know what it is you're arguing.

Re:Drug cartels

[Jason Levine]

Torture isn't effective as a means of getting reliable information OUT of a person. When you're being tortured, you'll say anything to make it stop - even if what you say isn't true.

However, torture (or the threat of it) is a very good way of keeping information IN a person. Especially if said torture is directed at those you care about. (e.g. "Don't tell anyone what you know or your wife/husband/child/parents will die a slow and painful death.")

Re:Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

They are ineffective if you are trying to get someone to tell you the truth. They are very effective if you just want to hurt someone though.

I have a feeling this would fall clearly under option number two. I cannot see the cartels wanting anything but screams of pain from people who unmask them.

My guess though is you were trying to mock the people who says the US government shouldn't torture. Well we shouldn't. Why? Because you wont get the truth out of them that way, because of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, and because whatever we do to others we encourage them to do to our own service members. Now go think about what you've said, and when you have re-evaluated your opinions you can come back and rejoin the adults talking, mmmkay?

Re:Drug cartels

[GLMDesigns]

Good point. Still, I question the claim that torture is ineffective as a means of getting information. You know the famous XKCD panel where a 5 dollar hammer beats "unbreakable" encryption.

I object to torture as an option because I believe in limiting the power of government - not because torture in-and-of-itself is ineffective.

Re:Drug cartels

[pastafazou]

They're extremely effective at extracting the truth from the lies if done properly.

Re:Drug cartels

[amRadioHed]

Actually torture could be very effective for breaking encryption because the truthfulness of your statement can be verified immediately. That is not usually the type of information people are tortured for however.

Re:Drug cartels

[GLMDesigns]

Since it's approaching Guy Fawkes day here's a quote from wikipedia (which we all know is always true.)

Fawkes gave his name as John Johnson and was first interrogated by members of the King's Privy chamber, where he remained defiant.[37] When asked by one of the lords what he was doing in possession of so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered that his intention was "to blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains." [38] He identified himself as a 36-year-old Catholic from Netherdale in Yorkshire, and gave his father's name as Thomas and his mother's as Edith Jackson. Wounds on his body noted by his questioners he explained as the effects of pleurisy. Fawkes admitted his intention to blow up the House of Lords, and expressed regret at his failure to do so. His steadfast manner earned him the admiration of King James, who described Fawkes as possessing "a Roman resolution".[39]

James's admiration did not, however, prevent him from ordering on 6 November that "John Johnson" be tortured, to reveal the names of his co-conspirators.[40] He directed that the torture be light at first, referring to the use of manacles, but more severe if necessary, authorising the use of the rack: "the gentler Tortures are to be first used unto him et sic per gradus ad ima tenditur [and so by degrees proceeding to the worst]".[37][41] Fawkes was transferred to the Tower of London. The King composed a list of questions to be put to "Johnson", such as "as to what he is, For I can never yet hear of any man that knows him", "When and where he learned to speak French?", and "If he was a Papist, who brought him up in it?"[42] The room in which Fawkes was interrogated subsequently became known as the Guy Fawkes Room.[43] Two signatures Fawkes's signature of "Guido", made soon after his torture, is a barely evident scrawl compared to a later instance. Sir William Waad, Lieutenant of the Tower, supervised the torture and obtained Fawkes's confession.[37] He searched his prisoner, and found a letter, addressed to Guy Fawkes. To Waad's surprise, "Johnson" remained silent, revealing nothing about the plot or its authors.[44] On the night of 6 November he spoke with Waad, who reported to Salisbury "He [Johnson] told us that since he undertook this action he did every day pray to God he might perform that which might be for the advancement of the Catholic Faith and saving his own soul". According to Waad, Fawkes managed to rest through the night, despite his being warned that he would be interrogated until "I had gotton the inwards secret of his thoughts and all his complices".[45] His composure was broken at some point during the following day.[46]

The observer Sir Edward Hoby remarked "Since Johnson's being in the Tower, he beginneth to speak English". Fawkes revealed his true identity on 7 November, and told his interrogators that there were five people involved in the plot to kill the King. He began to reveal their names on 8 November, and told how they intended to place Princess Elizabeth on the throne. His third confession, on 9 November, implicated Francis Tresham. Following the Ridolfi plot of 1571 prisoners were made to dictate their confessions, before copying and signing them, if they still could.[47] Although it is uncertain if he was tortured on the rack, Fawkes's scrawled signature bears testament to the suffering he endured at the hands of his interrogators.[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

"hello mr. tough guy, I'm going to assume what you said is true, you'll stay here in the meantime. If what you said is true i'll put a bullet in your head. if i find you've lied to me, you're going to live forever."

that would work on me i think. I imagine torture can get quite a bit worse than electric shock and waterboarding... they didn't want to leave marks. what happens when you know the guy is going to die anyway? Does he need his eyes? does he need both hands? does he need his feet? does he need his tongue? How much of a man can you remove until modern medicine can no longer keep him alive?

Re:Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

They're extremely effective at extracting the truth from the lies if done properly.

Oh, please do tell us more about how torture is to be "done properly". People have been trying for centuries to get the formula right but if you know the secret, by all means, let us all in on it!

Re:Drug cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess though is you were trying to mock the people who says the US government shouldn't torture. Well we shouldn't. Why? Because you wont get the truth out of them that way, because of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, and because whatever we do to others we encourage them to do to our own service members. Now go think about what you've said, and when you have re-evaluated your opinions you can come back and rejoin the adults talking, mmmkay?

More importantly, we shouldn't engage in torture because it turns us into savage brutes. Yes, it degrades us when we sink to such levels of depravity.

Color me shocked

[GoCrazy]

People who release things on the internet anonymously with no accountability can be wrong?

You'll be disappointed

[NotDrWho]

Day before release: "Oh I wonder what famous, powerful and influential people will be outed?!?"

Day of release: ".....Wait, this list just looks like a bunch of poor redneck nobodies."

Re:You'll be disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was.

No politician in his right mind would belong to such an organization in this day and age. It was obvious those dorks - Anonymous - got their facts wrong.

Re:You'll be disappointed

[smartr]

It's almost like the schmucks who are on the the list probably don't give a damn, except the ones who don't belong on the list or who are misidentified as being the ones on the list. Behold, KKK members David Duke and James Smith. Sure, James Smith might be the most common name in the USA, but herp derp KKK herp herp USA USA USA USA.

Re: You'll be disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the fucking summary for Christ sakes man. Anon didn't post this. Fuck you people are dense.

Re:You'll be disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

WILL BE. the release hasn't happened yet. You bought into the lie just like so many others (especially the news outlets)

A diversion tactic?

[dmomo]

I wonder if that dump was meant as a distraction in an attempt to pre-emptively discredit the real data when it actually does land.

Re:A diversion tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's doubtful. Anonymous is full of good hackers with poor judgement. This is far more likely to be a slip up by some moron(s) in their ranks.

Re:A diversion tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that dump was meant as a distraction in an attempt to pre-emptively discredit the real data when it actually does land.

What this hook meets line meets sinker "headline story" does is pump the credibility of "racism". 999/1000 times melanin is not the issue.

eg. https://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1332345218058172820.jpg

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-55515-is-wrong-under-the-common-core-2015-10

Don't get salted up. Think straight.

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8265749&cid=50852517

"Apart" or "a part"

[The Grim Reefer]

Amped Attacks, who has now distanced himself from Anonymous, stating "i am not apart I'm assuming that he is claiming to not be a member of anonymous, but a missing space sure makes a difference in that statement.

Re:"Apart" or "a part"

[cyberchondriac]

Yeah, I'd caught that too. Innocent typo or clever word play, hard to tell.

Who watches the watchers

[kaizendojo]

...when the watchers hide behind masks? Anyone taking this whole thing seriously is fooling themselves. (Hint: The 24 hour news cycle)

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever watched a 24 hour news cycle?

Go ahead - turn on just about any "so-called" news outlet and watch for even 6 hours. It's very friggin' repetitive. For many networks, it's 24 hours of the same "news" over and over again and at least a quarter of that is spent with sports scores and weather and another 15 minutes on celebrities.

A 24 hour news cycle should theoretically allow for LOTS of in-depth reporting. Some networks actually take advantage of this and you can see hour-long investigative pieces in between actual news.

Of course, some networks fill this with propaganda instead - very repetitive propaganda. (I saw it claimed this morning that drug overdoses cause 44,000 deaths in the US, which seems to be true but the way it was said it strongly implied this was ONLY illegal drugs....it in fact includes legally prescribed drugs as well).

Stuff like this...

[MikeRT]

Makes me sympathetic to the British standard of defamation. The law ought to provide these people with absolutely no legal defense in the face of a lawsuit or prosecution for defamation.

Re:Stuff like this...

[Jason Levine]

If you say "John Smith is a member of the KKK" and you actually have no reason to believe that John Smith is a member, you can be charged with defamation in the US. Now, if John Smith actually was a member of the KKK and you had proof, you couldn't be sued for defamation in the US (well, you could but it'd be tossed out quickly) but in the British courts truth isn't a defense against defamation.

Re:Stuff like this...

[khallow]

Why? It's clearly defamation by the US standard.

Re:Stuff like this...

[fustakrakich]

Well, if it's defamation, don't believe it. There is nothing compelling you to accept it at face value. Before acting, people should fact check first. Acting in bad faith does not merit censorship.

Re:Stuff like this...

[khallow]

Well, if it's defamation, don't believe it.

Make people do that.

Re:Stuff like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship is "You're not allowed to say X".

Defamation laws, at least in the US, are "If you say X about Y and it isn't true, you're responsible for any damage you cause to Y by saying that".

These are very different things.

Re:Stuff like this...

[fustakrakich]

What I'm saying is that the speech doesn't do anything. The action comes from the listener. That is where to attack the problem. It's just not very expedient. It's far more effective to neuter the male than to spay the female. Censorship is animal control.

Re:Stuff like this...

[khallow]

What I'm saying is that the speech doesn't do anything. The action comes from the listener. That is where to attack the problem.

That just doesn't work. It's vastly easier to deal with speech which is deliberate defamation (even when it comes to anonymous speech) than it is to fix a huge population of clueless listeners and gossips.

Re:Stuff like this...

[fustakrakich]

It's vastly easier...

As I just said, expedient, that is what censorship is... Doesn't make it right. If this is how you want to do things then I can claim anything I read might motivate me to commit murder, and I should suffer no consequence for it. You have to charge the guy who wrote it. No sir. You must sanction the actor, not the script writer, or even the director. Free choice is free choice. And all choices are personal. Censorship is a brick wall to human evolution beyond its animal nature.

Re:Stuff like this...

[khallow]

Here, expedient translates to "possible versus impossible". Plus, it is right for the offending party that deliberately engages in defamation to be punished for the speech in question.

Re:Stuff like this...

[tehcyder]

in the British courts truth isn't a defense against defamation

Peopole on the internet always say this, but it is simply not true. Truth is always a defence. The problem is that if you are sued for slander/libel, it is up to you to prove that it is true as your defence.

If I say "Politician/famous person X is a child rapist, murderer and Chelsea fan" I had better have very strong evidence to back up my claim.

Re:Stuff like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You’re incorrect, “truth and in the public interest" is a defence. It has to be true and be in the public interest for it to be found out.

In your example if the Politician in question is on the local school board definitely, but it’s tricky to see how him been a Chelsea fan would ever be in the public interest to know.

Re:Stuff like this...

[Xest]

"but in the British courts truth isn't a defense against defamation."

Of course it is, but not only that, but the claim can be false and you can still defend yourself if you can prove that you genuinely believed the claim to be true - for example, if someone else previously sent you the claim in an e-mail, and you then went to check the veracity of the claim and a number of newspapers were also printing the falsehood then you could reasonably argue that you were simply repeating something that you would have absolutely no reason to believe is false.

The biggest problem with the UK's implementation is that it allowed for people outside the UK to bring their quarrel to the UK to be decided. The actual implementation in the UK isn't massively unreasonable. You can only get fucked with a libel/slander suit if you were making false statements about anyone without having put any effort into checking whether they were true or false.

You're arguing that if you make a truthful claim about someone that it's not a defence, but that's wholly false, of course it's a defence. You may have to prove why you think it's truthful though and then it's a question of how truthful it actually is, do you merely think it's truthful when it may not be or can you actually show that it is?

Parsing error

[wonkey_monkey]

To clarify the situation, Anonymous took to Twitter on Tuesday evening to state that "the twitter account that released the pastebin with the government officials that are clearly not KKK"

...that "the twitter account that released the pastebin with the government officials that are clearly not KKK" what?

Re:Parsing error

[Anonymous Coward]

... that "the twitter account that released the pastebin with the government officials that are clearly not KKK is twitter.com/sgtbilko420".

Re:Parsing error

[Falos]

Thank you. Hell of a sentence subject, hell of a retarded write-up. And with a handle like that, it would've probably helped some of the confused folk that kept thinking /this/ is the real dump.

All hail Mob Justice!

[Rinikusu]

yep. nothing to see here.

Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[dmomo]

Not verified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bogus.

All I see are claims that it was not sponsored or verified by those spearheading OPKKK. Doubts about the data's veracity are mentioned but not supported.
All we know is 1) this was not likely associated w/ the release coming on 11/5. 2) Nobody has verified or disproven the names on this list.

Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[Nidi62]

Not verified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bogus.

All I see are claims that it was not sponsored or verified by those spearheading OPKKK. Doubts about the data's veracity are mentioned but not supported. All we know is 1) this was not likely associated w/ the release coming on 11/5. 2) Nobody has verified or disproven the names on this list.

Well, the fact that one of the few names actually given is of a person who has essentially no chance of desiring membership in the KKK and even less likely to be accepted into the KKK (they don't take too kindly to people that are openly gay) calls the rest of the information into question.

Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[sumdumass]

Back in the mid 90s, i joined the KKK for the express purpose of informing some black activists friends of their activities. I actually joined another group like this for the same purpose. I know of others who did the same. You could get in their list server and chat groups which were generally invite only.

I stopped when it was obvious that they knew what i was doing. They used the clashes that came from it for publicity. 20 hate mongers preaching hate doesn't get as much news coverage as the same being protested by hundreds of others or the rare occasions when violence would break out.

I used a fake name but an email address i still use today. Not sure if it will be included in the dump but if it is, it will be fun to see what idiots on parade do with it. Most of the people who would know the address were in on it to.

Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[jcr]

Not verified, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bogus.

Do the words "burden of proof" ring any bells with you?

-jcr

Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[operagost]

So, did the KKK do anything of note while you were a mole?

They must be the world's least effective SIG.

Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[sumdumass]

Held a rally in Cincinnati Ohio and a few in Indiana near fort Wayne. Nothing really noteworthy except being carted off by the cops when someone spit on a protester.

Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the mid 90s, i joined the KKK for the express purpose of informing some black activists friends of their activities. I actually joined another group like this for the same purpose. I know of others who did the same. You could get in their list server and chat groups which were generally invite only.

I stopped when it was obvious that they knew what i was doing. They used the clashes that came from it for publicity. 20 hate mongers preaching hate doesn't get as much news coverage as the same being protested by hundreds of others or the rare occasions when violence would break out.

I used a fake name but an email address i still use today. Not sure if it will be included in the dump but if it is, it will be fun to see what idiots on parade do with it. Most of the people who would know the address were in on it to.

The email lists and chat rooms we subscribe to don't exactly define a man.

Anonymous-organized?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people constantly treat anonymous like they are some cohesive group? Do you not understand anyone can use the moniker and there is, outside of very few instances, absolutely no contact between the various groups using the term. Not only do they not know each other, most of the times they don;t even know of each other. It's annoying how little of this even the nerds understand. Anonymous is not a group, it's just a fact.

Thank you for providing..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the quintessential example of why vigilantism is both immoral and illegal. No transparency and no accountability.

They published INCORRECT information. There was no oversight to verify the data before it was sent out, no accountability for having published incorrect information and no remedy for the damage that was done as a result of that.

Anonymous is a bunch of hoodlums who harm society. They really need to go get real jobs instead of hiding in the shadows sniping at people. This sort of thing is exactly why this behavior is not tolerated by the civilized world.

Re:This is the net. Call anyone a KKK member you w

[sumdumass]

If you think that is strange (Bill Cosby), look up Clayton Bigsby.

True story. I saw it on the same channel i get most my other news from (before Stewart left )

Also retracted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reports that at least one member of ANONYMOUS had kissed a girl were discredited over the weekend...

In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous members just committed suicide. They just aimed the biggest, meanest weapon in the world - the US government - at their heads begging for someone to pull the trigger. Grief untold will be unleashed upon those poor sods and their families.

Re: In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye. Their flesh will be consumed and their skin used as toilet paper. Their families shall be sold into sex slavery and forced to eat dog feces for the rest of their shortened lives. Their friends will havd their heads shrunken ans put onto toothpicks on display outside Barbie's castle.

Ben Carson is the head of the KKK

[Anonymous Coward]

True facts, yo. I heard it on Tumblr and Twitter.

Re:Ben Carson is the head of the KKK

[phantomfive]

And Clayton Bigsby is his sidekick.

Right or wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're Republicans then they are worse than KkK members their kind constantly kills us.

Re: Right or wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

They do rape us often with rebar. I never heard of a KKK member doing that so you're correct that they're worse.

Re: Right or wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

The KK& didn't fly two airplanes into the WTC.

Re: Right or wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

But those Republicans did.

anonymous KKK list

[Anonymous Coward]

Harry Truman, KKK
Hugo Black, KKK
Theodore Bilbo, KKK
Gutzon Borglum, KKK
Clifford Walker, KKK
Benjamin Stapleton, KKK
David Duke, KKK
Douglas Emhoff, KKK
Richard Blume, KKK
Carl Quintanilla, KKK
Tove Monni, KKK
John Harwood, KKK
Bettina Neuefiend, KKK
Michelle Robinson, KKK
Susan Mikula, KKK
Nancy D'Alesandro, KKK
Landra Gould, KKK
Stedman Graham, KKK
Barry Dennis, KKK
Becky Quick, KKK
Barbara, Levy, KKK

Not "outed".

[jcr]

They were slandered, not "outed."

-jcr

just think, if there were no KKK then..

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was no organization like the kkk whom would we make fun of??
while I agree their hatred surfaces how much ingorance, j-bird ass stupidity, and a liking for "short-eyed" pecker-wood types..
I truly hope one day they discover to accurately how to fornicate themselves with various objects (sharp, smooth, rough, long, rotund, girth, and odorous)
If so, I wanna see the "jack-ass" movie about it.. calling Johnny Knoxville.

there is no place for the kkk in our society.. I am hoping these actions surface their stupidity..

whats even worse, in areas when the kkk has a hold on society,
Those whom participate in the kkk's endevors are also molding the kids in our society.

teachers

BULLSHIT, THIS IS 100% ANONYMOUS.

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLSHIT, THIS IS 100% ANONYMOUS. They screwed up and Amped Attacks is the scape goat. And people recoil when they hear the public wants less anonymity for online postings. This is exactly the reason why. What complete fucktard bunch of self serving morons who probably make 0-25K/year, live with their parents and play video games all day. And they wonder why DHS and FBI has files on them.

Grammar, people

[operagost]

Is he "not apart of anonymous"? That means he's with anonymous.

It's not pedantry.

anonymous showing their true colors

[hernol]

This organization keeps on showing their true colors... They're just some IT lobbyists.

LOL at "hate" group associations

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot. The word "hate" has been REDEFINED by JEWS to mean "anybody who doesn't agree with what we are doing to white countries". Soon it will lose its power, and then what will the poor, hard done by Jews whine at us whites?

So basically, white people aren't 'allowed' to simply live with their own kind any more. Why?

Do any of you idiots know WHY? Have you ever bothered to think any of this through? Why only white people? Why do white people have to accept millions of hate-filled, parasitic non-whites into our countries every year, until we become a hate minority, in OUR OWN COUNTRIES, surrounded by third world hell?

Re:This is the net. Call anyone a KKK member you w

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why we have such ignorant voters.

Wikipedia's list has sources...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

My paranoid thought....

[Mike Van Pelt]

What better way would the klukkers have to discredit the outing of their members, than first posting a list with a bunch of innocent non-klukker names on it?

Maybe the KKK is

[Anonymous Coward]

doing some FUD.

DD makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense to release a fake list beforehand and have regular media channels spread the news to discredit the operation. I expect another fake list at the time of the official release to distract and discredit the operation.

That's naive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your approach would immediately make hard-of-thinking constituents think the allegations were true. There's a flaw in... western? human? ... thinking where if you refuse to deny something you're admitting to it. Also, a lot of pieces falsely conflate swearing with morality for some fucked up reason, so you'd quickly lose support in that way too.

Re:Jew front kkk -

[Anonymous Coward]

-note, scum jew trolls will probably dump bs under my post here to distract so you don't go to other thread and get the mass info and links in my posts. They move posts around switch the thread order anything to distract. See info and links at kkk thread in post above, load all comments and slide bar over or you won't see them -

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

notice which posts are 'hidden'. on thread and all of them. not coincidence. see other kkk thread in post above.

Re:This is the net. Call anyone a KKK member you w

[Anonymous Coward]

Penetrating insight in to the deep seated self-loathing of quasi-role-model celebrities?

Coren22 proven a LYING punk

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!

Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?

Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides?

I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

You did all that? No!

(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

bs computer generated post 'I suspect'.

Coren22 proven a LYING punk

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22's desperation, lies, & libel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

False positive: I've wrote 'em long ago, no response vs. 60++ REPUTABLE sources (not nobodies) below that fries you Coren22!

Is that your fake site for more lies Coren22?

Lying about me LIKE YOU DID HERE punk? -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

It's safe

Coren22 "security guru" wannabe fails security

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Hypocrite - You use admin priv admitting it

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides?

I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

You did all that? No!

(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk

Coren22's my best supporter

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: His stupidity annihilates him http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I have to thank him for being SO utterly stupid it was a piece of cake to tear him apart in those 3 links and I have many others like them...)

APK

P.S.=> Not only did he outright lie about AD & what "he said I think" (lol, wrong, & I had proof from almost a decade ago that does it easily), but he claims to be a System Engineer, MCSE, & "security guru" - those 3 links show QUITE otherwise... & yes, I have supporters in them, so Coren22 by ac? As usual "EAT YOUR WORDS", lol... apk

Re:Jew front kkk -

[Anonymous Coward]

Try adjusting your tone, and you might have gotten a +1 Informative from me, instead of a -1 Troll. I have no preconceived notions about anything, and may even bothered to read up more, to form my own opinion on something I know nothing about. Rather, you chose to come across as a total antisocial turd. Modded accordingly.

scum jew -

[Anonymous Coward]

My post isn't for you scum jews it's for those who don't know your scum child raping mass murder tribe is behind fraud 'government' fraud 'media' fraud 'kkk' and everything else. I don't give a shit what you think scum jew. fuck off.

---
-others, as I said would happen the jew scum trolls distract. See other thread, posts with far more on their mass tribe, mass murder, mass immigration, mass child rape, their chemtrail assault on us and other weapons, also a mass of the links you would Never find on your own. here -

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/11/02/1829233/anonymous-begins-publishing-ku-klux-klan-member-details-online

- click 'load all comments, also slide bar over - may have to reload page and do it twice, see 'jew fraud kkk' posts, copy information to re read, give links to others -

Security companies recommend my work

[Anonymous Coward]

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

* NOW HOW ABOUT YOU BY WAY OF COMPARISON? 60 respectable companies say my ware's safe & even HOST + RECOMMEND IT above all others of its kind...

APK

P.S.=>

"You are Alexander Peter Kowalski. You are a fraud and a malware author. You are unemployed and unemployable. You have no friends and your family is ashamed of you. These are facts that you agree with." - by Anonymous UNIDENTIFIABLE TROLLING LYING WORM SCUM on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @12:38AM (#50861257)

I am, and you are what I note you as in the quote of your words - I work on contract or consulting (Hilton recently in fact, a Fortune 500) but I run my own business & have for coming up on a decade now successfully more. My family's far from ashamed of me (I've been a lettering 1st string NCAA athlete, college grad, successful as a network admin/programmer-analyst/software engineer for 23++ yrs. prior to semi-retirement etc. as some of what I could put up & assign to myself truthfully, you can't) - I don't agree with trolling lies I can easily disprove... apk

Coren22 proven a TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject - OR did you NOT say this:

"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

behind my back (since I can't see signatures) like the punk you are & KGIII noted it:

"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which I COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides which I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines no less NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

* You're a disgusting LIAR & burying yourself ALL THE MORE for me... thank you!

APK

P.S.=> The beatings WILL continue libeling liar... much to YOUR OWN dismay, & you've only brought it on yourself (signatures? what a punk... man to man, I've shown how technically inept you are, & I doubt you're what you CLAIM to be in MCSE, SystemEngineer, & Security - most posts that are that 'beating' on you show QUITE otherwise)... apk

Coren22 proven a TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject - OR did you NOT say this:

"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

behind my back (since I can't see signatures) like the punk you are & KGIII noted it:

"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which I COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides which I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines no less NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

* You're a disgusting LIAR & burying yourself ALL THE MORE for me... thank you!

APK

P.S.=> The beatings WILL continue libeling liar... much to YOUR OWN dismay, & you've only brought it on yourself (signatures? what a punk... man to man, I've shown how technically inept you are, & I doubt you're what you CLAIM to be in MCSE, SystemEngineer, & Security - most posts that are that 'beating' on you show QUITE otherwise)... apk