Anonymous Says US Senators Were 'Incorrectly Outed' As KKK Members 262
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.
Gay Kay Kay? (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".
Re:Gay Kay Kay? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And my ax!
Re: (Score:2)
Having a deranged stalker is awesome! I don't think I've ever had quite this much power over a complete stranger before.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sane Christians
Uh huh, tell us more about them.
Re: (Score:3)
no true scotsman eh?
you can't pick and choose membership
Re: (Score:2)
So the whole 'No True Scotsman' thing doesn't apply, especially since to be a Scotsman, the requirement is mostly to be born in Sc
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Gay Kay Kay? (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Even if it is correct (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Even if it is correct (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of examples, such as it being illegal to bear a swaztika in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
And Britain's broad anti-slander/anti-libel laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...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 (Score:4, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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... [nytimes.com]
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 Euro
Re: (Score:3)
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: (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.
Or maybe because our constitution prevents naturalized citizens from Austria from becoming president (sorry Arnold ;^)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 some
Re: (Score:2)
Is the Wall Street Journal some kind of Political Correctness bible now?
Or did you mean SJW (Social Justice Warrior).
Re: (Score:2)
OOps...well, you know my motto:
"Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Even if it is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 jus
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Even if it is correct (Score:4, 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/... [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:2)
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 some
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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: (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.
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
How many of them are black? (Score:2)
Wait, anonymous has a fluid identity? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean like that "Anonymous Coward" guy that keeps posting here?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Honest - it wasn't me.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Who to believe? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Imposters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
more incoming in 3,2...
Re: (Score:2)
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 thin
You'll be disappointed (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
A diversion tactic? (Score:4, 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.
"Apart" or "a part" (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.
Who watches the watchers (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it's defamation, don't believe it.
Make people do that.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Parsing error (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
All hail Mob Justice! (Score:2)
yep. nothing to see here.
Where does it say this data is actually fake? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My paranoid thought.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying "I find it amusing that only redheads have red hair."
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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 dis
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is the net. Call anyone a KKK member you w (Score:4, 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 )
Re: (Score:2)