Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Collective Attacks KKK Sites (theepochtimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A KKK web site went offline for several hours Saturday, part of an ongoing attack campaign being attributed to "several hacker collectives, including Anonymous and BinarySec, under a loosely-coordinated operation theyâ(TM)re calling #OpKKK." The Epoch Times newspaper reports that "Over the course of the last couple months, websites belonging to the KKK flicked off and on, members of the hate group have had their identities posted online, and their recruiting efforts have been attacked." Saturday's DDoS attack and others are being chronicled on Twitter with the hashtag #OpKKK, prompting the newspaper to describe the collective as "very active".
"Part of OpKKK is bringing attention to the fact that these groups are not dead and are in fact finding a new life online..." one attacker told the newspaper. "We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals...and there are consequences."
"Part of OpKKK is bringing attention to the fact that these groups are not dead and are in fact finding a new life online..." one attacker told the newspaper. "We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals...and there are consequences."
Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech. I might support a temporary disruption of service purposes of raising awareness of an issue - the online equivalent of a sit-in protest - but I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.
"We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals...and there are consequences."
There is no place for vigilantism in a civil society. Use your words. But first, get a life.
FTA: "Groups like the KKK are protected by free speech. Zombie Ghost said, however, that only the government isn’t allowed to infringe on free speech, and that “We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals and there are consequences.”"
I've been hearing this misunderstanding of free speech more and more. He is right, in that we have a right to pass judgement as private citizens. He is wrong in the part left unsaid. Private citizens do NOT have a right to impose "consequences", especially when those consequences are illegal.
Shocked they haven't tried to change the pages with support ad's for trump to try to push he is racist some more. At this point KKK has been pretty peaceful and certain other group won't say (#blacklivesmatterbutnottootherblacklives) are ones that loot and burn buildings down when they find an something that happens they can protest for even when the something is for a criminal that played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.
I just hope those guys are prepared to face them as well when the cops knock at the door. Or, worse, when some KKK folks get hold of them and the skinning knives come out.
Nothing but haxx0r st0r1ez all day.
"We private citizens have the right to pass judgment"
Sure, when you're acting as a jury in a proper court of law. Otherwise, go fuck yourselves.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
A bit corny, but appropriate
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...... )
Perhaps the modern equivalent is:
First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a racist.
Then they came for the supporters of 'traditional marriage', and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a supporter of 'traditional marriage',
Then they came for the opponents of abortion, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an opponent of abortion.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Attacking all those XXX sites would be a tremendous effort
Oh! KKK my bad.
So to fight people we don't like it's ok to act like Nazis and suppress their rights in a criminal fashion? The KKK is a joke. Racism is such a political industry these days. The word is almost never used to address actual racism. There are so many double standards and hypocrisies. Sometimes people have legitimate reasons to hate each other. Some people hate just for fun and ignorance. How is invoking "white privilege" any different from using a racial slur? Both are used to shame, belittle and insult others. Isn't the point of all of this is to get people stop hating each other and start acting like civilized human beings? Instead, people use it justify and encourage race riots while they blame idiots like Trump who are not even real racists.
How's that working out?
> Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech.
Exactly this.
If KKK (or Nazi, or anyone) are so wrong, you should prove it with ease - and by doing so make everyone hate them. Simple?
But liberalism is afraid some of the things they say might be right. While it it wrong itself.
Fuck liberalism and their hypocrisy.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
and the New Black Panthers? when it comes to racism there is plenty of blame to go around
The KKK don't care about the legal right of minority races, none of you believe in the right of others to say what they want (you're all always trying to get it banned), so why the fuck should the left care to hamstring themselves to their morality and leave you as the only ones "allowed" to lie to silence the free speech and freedom of others?
Don't like this shit? Don't do it yourself.
If government were to suppress KKK websites, that would be unconstitutional. And we uphold the the constitution because giving rights to everyone means that sometimes they will be abused by assholes. For Christians, Pastafarians, and Atheists to be able to talk about their beliefs, we also have to allow Scientologist to flap their evil lips too.
However, in this case, it’s one private group (a loose affiliation of Anonymous and some others) waging a media campaign against another private group. If the KKK’s rights are being infringed, it’s a civil matter, and they can take the matter to court. Of course, it’ll be hard to pin down whom they’re suing, and even the most unblased judges are going to have some trouble sympathizing with the KKK.
In civilized society, we’ve substantially mitigated racism and sexism. We’ve had a “black” president. (Depending on your definition of “black,” he may just be “partly of African ancestry,” but he generally has had some positive impact on racism. Next, we need a female president. (There are male candidates I align with better, but she would do the job adequately, certainly better than GWB.) I was mentioning to a friend that next we need a gay president, but we’re already had a few. :)
My problem with the KKK is not hate speech. They are the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. They *KILL* people.
...and they felt awkward when they realised the KKK was an FBI operation.
By attacking their web sites like that, you reinforce their world view. The only potentially effective action in that list is identifying them; force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters.
I know who'd be on my priority hit list
This should prove interesting
CCC = Chaos Compter Club, a German hacker collective.
There's another aspect to this as well, a simply practical one: If the hateful and socially extreme are forced into silence, then society will know less (or nothing) about them; then they will fester in silence, having no outlet for their outlook; they are much more likely to do something *else*, which, given the fact that their ideas are inimical to the general outlook (the KKK is a very good example of this), isn't likely to be pleasant.
Better to let them speak, let them vent; to know who they are and be aware of them; to know their opinions and intent; to know how to "step around them" as it were.
Finally, if you kick someone more than is allowed generally in society, no matter if they are good or evil, there is a distinct human tendency for them to kick back.
--fyngyrz
anon due to mod points
I am guessing that groups like the KKK are monitored by federal law enforcement.
Could such hacking muck with ongoing investigations?
Not long ago, the feds told hacktivists to stop trying to take down ISIS communications. These actions interfere with the people who can actually do something to stop terrorist organizations.
BTW: what has the KKK done in the last 50 years? A few pointless marches?
Watch out these people took a few websites offline for a few hours for an organization almost nobody supports and has not done anything of any relevance or actually physically victimized anybody in decades.
ISIS you better be quaking in your boots!
The "attack" DDoS requires pool of hijacked computers. So those "great" hackers are first stealing someone else computers to later show how righteous they are. What a joke.
In the fight against supremacists, choosing one's battles is as important as it is in any other war. I would suggest that the kind of supremacists that are currently imposing social theories from central government, regardless of how benign or "beneficial" we might, personally, believe those theories to be, are far more dangerous than "hate" groups. After all, "hate" is the emotion of the powerless.
Toward this end, I would suggest that sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them is a much nobler objective.
This would include permitting those individuals who believe a "white" (whatever that means to them) society is better for them, to enjoy, or suffer, the consequences of that social theory so long as they are willing to accept the testing of other social theories. Sure, there are reasons to believe those calling themselves "KKK" believe not only in "white" supremacy, but in slavery. However, until proponents of alternate social theories cease imposing them on these "KKK" members, it is quite plausible that many of these "white" supremacists would actually be quite happy to see a fair, empirical, comparison of social theories put in to practice by mutually consenting adults.
Indeed, given the present power structure, those who are attacking the "white" supremacists rather than the on-going violation consent by central government imposition of social theory, are moral cowards, hypocrites and supremacists deserving of even more intense counter-attack.
Seastead this.
The fact that the quote applied originally to one set of thugs that happened to be the legal government of Germany doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate for another set of thugs who aren't a government.
Well said. Wish I could mod it up - /sarcasm and shoot the people who moded it down... /sarcasm off
I am guessing that groups like the KKK are monitored by federal law enforcement.
At this point, most of the members are probably FBI agents.
Could such hacking muck with ongoing investigations?
Yup.
BTW: what has the KKK done in the last 50 years? A few pointless marches?
Indeed. This is just pointless if not counter-productive moral preening by SJWs high on over-hyped racism/"white supremacy" bullshit. It's the modern version of '50s McCarthyites seeing a Commie under every bed. It's the same mania that recently led college students to mistake a priest with rosary beads for a KKK member with a whip.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
We talking about black people or republicans? I'm confused.
Teh republicans hate us. That's just how they be.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've skimmed through all one-hundred-and-something comments; I'm surprised no one has made one joke about whether these guys should be considered black-hat or white-hat hackers...I thought the KKK had priority when it comes to white hats...
The truth is 'hate' to those who hate the truth.
Where did the term "hate speech" come from? Did the 300 million American citizens come up with it, and demand that it enter common usage, and then become part of LAWS?
Obviously not. The JEW media came up with the phrase, and it means "Anything that the JEW doesn't want you to hear, or talk about".
Oh, the evil KKK! How dare white people simply have their own countries! How awful that is! What a terrible concept! Imagine, all those poor, hard done by non-whites won't get to LIVE AROUND WHITE PEOPLE, which apparently is their most important goal in life. Why? Why don't non-whites want to live around their own kind? Why can't they leave us white people alone? Why is EVERY white country on the planet being FORCED to open its borders to millions of non-whites?
http://kukluxklan.info make up your own mind
Those without maturity worry most about what others say about them. Experience proves that it is often simplest to let the hate-filled mind vent until their folly is self-evident to all. Repression of speech will often serve as validation to some audiences.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Its for everyone, not just people you agree with.
They wrote this about you goyim/gentiles, biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less, hypocrites known as thieves all thru history):
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
22. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
23. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."
Really nice people guess all nations are nazis (france, spain, egypt "despoiling" robbing it, poland and more kicked them out) but those ovens fired up proving what is what and germans did what they did as jews surrounded a baker in a village by underpricing him funded by many jews putting him out of business. They warned the jews, get out of THEIR nation. They didn't. You're not told that. They control the presses (
Oh, they're not related to the Circle-K food stores are they?
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Comment removed based on user account deletion