Slashdot Mirror
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.
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".
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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.
Just asking
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
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.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
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?
So this release was a fake, and the true release will not have any mistakes? How did they verify?
People who release things on the internet anonymously with no accountability can be wrong?
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
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."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
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.
Gosh, it's almost as if Slashdot has different people with varying opinions on things.
...when the watchers hide behind masks? Anyone taking this whole thing seriously is fooling themselves. (Hint: The 24 hour news cycle)
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.
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.
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?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That's like saying "I find it amusing that only redheads have red hair."
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.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
yep. nothing to see here.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
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.
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:
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:
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I thought torture and threats of torture were ineffective? I know that because my professor told me that.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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 )
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.")
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And Clayton Bigsby is his sidekick.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
They were slandered, not "outed."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They're extremely effective at extracting the truth from the lies if done properly.
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.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Is he "not apart of anonymous"? That means he's with anonymous.
It's not pedantry.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
This organization keeps on showing their true colors... They're just some IT lobbyists.
http://twitter.com/bash_history
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/...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
They're anonymous because they're ashamed of their grammatical skills...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?