Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the can't-trust-anybody-any-more dept.

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.

27 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Gay Kay Kay? by Shoten · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Gay Kay Kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Gay Kay Kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Sane Christians

      Uh huh, tell us more about them.

    3. Re: Gay Kay Kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re: Gay Kay Kay? by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      no true scotsman eh?

      you can't pick and choose membership

  2. Even if it is correct by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Even if it is correct by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

      What makes you think censorship is acceptable in Europe?

      --

      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.

    2. Re:Even if it is correct by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    3. Re:Even if it is correct by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Even if it is correct by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Even if it is correct by Alumoi · · Score: 2

      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?

    6. Re:Even if it is correct by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    7. Re:Even if it is correct by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      ...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.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:Even if it is correct by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Even if it is correct by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

    10. Re:Even if it is correct by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

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

      --

      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.

  3. Imposters? by truck_soccer · · Score: 2

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

  4. A diversion tactic? by dmomo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. "Apart" or "a part" by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. Stuff like this... by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Stuff like this... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Re:Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Honest - it wasn't me.

  9. Re:Well now by shaitand · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Re:This is the net. Call anyone a KKK member you w by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 )

  11. Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  12. Re:Where does it say this data is actually fake? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.