Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump

HughPickens.com writes: CBS reports that hot on the heels of its campaign against ISIS, the shadowy hackers' collective known as Anonymous is going after a new target: Donald Trump. The latest Anonymous operation — #OpTrump — was announced in a YouTube video featuring a masked activist claiming to speak for the group. In a computer-generated voice, he takes aim at Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, claiming "This is what ISIS wants." He goes on to say that "the more the United States appears to be targeting Muslims, not just radical Muslims," the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers. The video concludes with Anonymous' now-familiar threat: "You have been warned, Mr. Donald Trump. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. Expect us."

After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign has yet to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues.

Comments

That's it?

[Anonymous Coward]

By bringing his building's website down? What a joke. If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning. These are teenagers using a ddos not hacktivists.

Re:That's it?

[sycodon]

"On the heels of..."

So, they are done with ISIS?

Sounds like ADD to me.

Re:That's it?

[TWX]

Anonymous isn't a structured group. It's a label that individuals apply to themselves. There is no hierarchy, there is no leadership, there is no organizational goal, there is no long term plan. Literally anyone can be Anonymous because it's almost a misnomer to apply the Capital-A to the word.

If Anonymous (with Capital-A) is anything, it's a mindset to do something that's not entirely socially acceptable or whose means are not necessarily acceptable for reasons that are not necessarily personally beneficial. As such, people can ascribe their behaviors to Anonymous. That's why there's no stopping Anonymous, because there isn't even a head to cut-off.

In some ways Anonymous is the anti-Borg. There is no structure, there are only ideas and people voluntarily choosing to pursue the ideas that others come up with, or not choosing to pursue those ideas. If it wasn't for the Guy Fawkes masks and black hoodies I don't think that the mystique surrounding the word would exist at all.

Re:That's it?

[thegarbz]

That's why there's no stopping Anonymous, because there isn't even a head to cut-off.

That's also one of the reasons why ultimately there is no fearing Anonymous.

Re:That's it?

[AK Marc]

Define "herd". To a rancher, a "herd" is the sum of heads of cattle. So if you have all of your cattle in a single group, and they are wandering (or driven) towards a pen called "ISIS", that's a herd focusing on ISIS. Now, some of them split. There are now two groups. You can't count the number in each group, but you can see there are two. One is going towards "ISIS" pen, and the other towards "Trump" pen. They are all the same rancher herd. But, to a casual observer, they may be two herds. And the progress of one group towards pen Trump in no way impedes the original destination of pen ISIS.

The problem with you putting them into pigeon holes, is that you are trying to fit round pegs into square holes.

Some cows must be at the front of the herd, but the fact that they are a leader at that moment doesn't imbue them with any mystical or special qualities of permanence. Generally they don't even moo unless they see that there is sufficient other cows around them that they are a herd in and of themselves. Government only works when people agree. And Anonymous is anarchy, which obeys the same rules. So long as enough want the same thing, it is the will of Anonymous. When you have to start spending money to convince people that they like you when they don't, you have modern democracy, not anarchy, and Anonymous has enough cows in the herd that they don't need to pay people to march with them to look stronger than they actually are.

But yes, in a world that ignores anarchy, defining it is hard. In practice (African government) anarchy=dictatorship by warlords, as a power vacuum is filled by evil. Power of controlling the people, there's a zero sum game. You control the people in a village, or someone else does. On the Internet, there is no zero sum game. Billions could follow you tomorrow, or none. And you can follow a billion people, or none. So the absence of power doesn't leave a vacuum. In that context anarchy can exist. And is becomes democracy (the mob rule kind). Anarchy is where everyone does what they want. So lots of people who want the same thing will find they naturally congregate. 5 people who go drinking together because they got in the habit of going to the same bar at the same time doesn't mean that they have to have a leader, or any structure. If one had to change his drinking day, he'd tell the others, and then do it. If the others did or didn't change their day to match would be from their free choice, not from force or coercion. So would that be democracy or anarchy?

Most people can't conceive of such an arangement. The meet-up sites all have to have a "leader" for an organization. Structure is assumed in everything so that people close their minds. Yes, that makes someone "stupid" if they can't conceive of Anonymous.

Anonymous is billions of cows. Some are off grazing by themselves. Others are moving in an identifiable direction. That they aren't all moving together doesn't make them not a "herd" in the eyes of the ranch owner. That they don't have a head cow doesn't make them disorganized. They are Legion. They are Everywhere, and Nowhere. They are Cow.

Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anonymous usually attack groups that legal processes can't/won't stop? We have a process to stop Trump, it's called "Voting". Maybe anonymous should stay out of it.

Yellow journalism at its best

[vivaoporto]

Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando (28/Jun/2011)
Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel (02/Nov/2011)
Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church (17/Dez/2012)
Anonymous Declares War on Singapore (06/Nov/2013)

Given the fallback on the last weeks hoax declaration of war on ISIS by Mexican cartel leader 'El Chapo' the media is showing that the powers of "the fourth state" given to them is not being used to inform the public but to entertain them, distracting from more important issues (and of course, to sell advertisement).

An interesting concept

[DNS-and-BIND]

"The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, 'This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.' They're not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there's always force..."

If all the polls are saying that the side of justice is going to lose, then should you resort to force? After reason has failed, what else can you do against such reckless hate? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment quoted above?

By the way, this is a real quote, posted by an ACLU Board Member. He was forced to resign but will face no legal issues from his incitement to shoot people who disagree with his political opinions.

Re:"what terrorists want"

[Barsteward]

its quite simple. if you get your enemy to fight amongst themselves and demonise the the ordinary muslims, you can create instability and hatred. they are hoping this will convince the ordinary muslims to turn into fundamentalists and start the fight within. All Trump is doing is giving the closet racists a voice and a chance to re-enforce their bigotry under the cloak of "so called" acceptability. Unfortunately the bigots don't quite understand this tactic, a bit like the ordinary germans didn't understand the same scare tactics of their leaders until it was too late..

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
by: Hermann Goering :- (1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich. [Göring]

Re: Documents that made him look like an stupid je

[nehumanuscrede]

" Uneducated supporters " Allow me another explanation if I may. Perhaps Trump supporters are well versed in what the status quo politician does once in office. Perhaps they are tired of voting for what is supposed to be different candidates, only to realize that, yet again, once in office their candidate is merely a clone of the previous administrations ideals. The only way to shake the system up, is to start by not voting in the very same people that want to keep it that way. Nothing scares the two parties more than a potential third party candidate since it effectively says " We the people are quite tired of your bullshit games. " I read on /. all the damn time about how it's the voters fault for re-electing the same clowns that are responsible for where we are today. Yet, when folks are considering deviating from that course, they get nothing but a ration of shit from the very same people because they're not voting for candidate X or Y. Considering the candidate field and past experience with the typical bought and paid for politicians we currently have, I'm more than willing to give Trump his shot. Seriously, do you think he can possibly to any worse than another Bush ? Clinton ? or Obama ? I don't care if hes arrogant, condecending or otherwise unpleasant in how he deals with people. If he gets the job done, that's all I give a damn about. To do so, you have to be direct and to the point. Kissing everyones ass for re-election prospects is how we currently do business and that, more than anything else, needs to change if this country ever wants to be taken seriously again.

Re:Documents that made him look like an stupid jer

[SuricouRaven]

The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to abortion, prostitution, pornography, government-sponsored events to tell citizens who, how and when they should be worshiping, gambling, and a ton of others. They used to push hard for action at the federal level to prevent states from recognising gay marriage - until the supreme court ruling on the issue, at which point they declared that marriage was a state matter and the federal government was overstepping its bounds by regulating that.

The real republican position is almost identical to the democrat position: Politics is expensive. Appeal to voters where possible, but exercise caution not to upset the wealthy and corporate donors that provide the money for political campaigning.

uneducated is a fact

[raymorris]

It is a fact that Trump does poll very low among Republicans with college degrees, somwhat better with Republicans who have a high school diploma, and very well among those who do not have a diploma. This is not an opinion. His supporters are in fact the uneducated, by and large.

Re:Documents that made him look like an stupid jer

[ShanghaiBill]

The republican position says that small government is the American ideal - except with regard to ...

Also ethanol subsidies, fossil fuel subsidies, farm subsidies, massive funding for the military industrial complex, massive funding for the War on Drugs, etc. In other words, they don't actually support small government at all. That makes sense, since small government rhetoric wins votes, but small government policies do not.