Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Government Republicans Security United States Politics

Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump 365

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Goes After Donald Trump

Comments Filter:
  • That's it? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:31AM (#51104793)

    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:44AM (#51104845)

      "On the heels of..."

      So, they are done with ISIS?

      Sounds like ADD to me.

      • Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TWX ( 665546 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @11:28AM (#51105039)
        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.
        • 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.

          And the fact that they've actually managed to pull of real hacks (as script kiddies or not, doesn't matter......if they hadn't done it, we would all be laughing at them).

        • Re:That's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @12:05PM (#51105201)

          I'm a huge supporter of free speech, and structured or not, they shouldn't go around being the thought police. Don't like what somebody says? Let's chill their speech by doxing them and sending threats their way. Still don't like what they say? Let's silence them entirely by DDoSing their website.

          I could get behind actions against ISIS because ISIS is a violent organization. The KKK isn't (except in very rare cases) and Donald Trump certainly isn't. The best way to let them fall is to let them continue speaking, while making sure anybody else can continue poking holes in their argument. We're already doing that quite well, and we don't need Anonymous silencing them.

          • I could get behind actions against ISIS because ISIS is a violent organization. The KKK isn't (except in very rare cases) and Donald Trump certainly isn't.

            Right, because Trump's vision of how to handle Muslims wouldn't require any force or violence.

            And your comment about the KKK needs no reply.

            • No, because Trump's vision would never come to reality. The more he expounds on it the more repulsive it is revealed to be and you absolutely need other parts of the government in order to implement it - which would be impossible given general discourse and free and open speech.

              It is the secret stuff, the goals you only hear about as a justification when the secret shit is exposed that cannot be stopped with speech. All this is going to do is make crap secret - not because of some unwillingness to prove h

              • All this is going to do is make crap secret - not because of some unwillingness to prove how stupid it is but because of direct action by those claiming to oppose it.

                Could you elaborate? I think this sounds like something I'd agree with, and think important, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. What is the "this" you're referring to? Trump, or the "Anonymous" action against him? And how will it increase secrecy?

                • "This " is the targeting of speech to drive it out of the public eyes so it is only discussed and implemented in secret instead of opposed and defeated . It is what this claim of action by anonymous is.

          • We're already doing that quite well,

            You can claim that when support for him in the polls starts to drop.

        • Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @12:55PM (#51105479)

          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.

        • 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.

          Reading their list of operations, it really looks more like a mob that just attacks whatever villain the liberal media drew up that week to try and sell more page views.

        • "There is no hierarchy, there is no leadership, there is no organizational goal"

          Why is that good for Anonymous but bad for Occupy?

    • If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.

      They're Anonymous, not Wikileaks.

    • If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning

      Like what? Seriously, what could anyone reveal about Donald Trump right now that would actually damage him?

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

      If they wanted to do some real harm they would release private documents showing something damning.

      Like what? Documents showing the anti-immigration Trump marries 2/3 immigrants? That the "successful businessman" has filed bankruptcy 4 times?

      What could they possibly find on that man? His mouth doesn't hold back. He has no secrets. Even if he were found to have committed multiple crimes, it would all be spun into a "they are out to get him" story that wouldn't hurt him in the polls. And I've seen more than one browser plug-in that will replace Trump with Voldemort, for more entertaining news. Thou

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      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.

      I dunno. I think Trump's doing a great job ruining his own chances of being elected the more radical he becomes.

  • Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:31AM (#51104795)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The youtube channel posting it only has this anon action. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1LVWte9KJC1EldmFv2qRw So it seems very likely it is a different group of people trying to 'personal army' anon for this.

      Pretty stupid imho, just makes him talked about more, and it now is backfiring showing his tech team as competent. (In contrast with his earlier remarks, where he showed by naming Bill Gates as in internet expert, that he is pretty out of touch with the net).

      Conspiracy theorists call these kind of

    • Umm no.
      Most of their operations are against targets that are currently drawing loads of legal opposition, like terrorists. They just find ways to apply illegal opposition to whatever the current most hated people are. Voting is legal, therefore outside of the purview of anonymous, they must find an illegal way to accomplish the same objective.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      We have a process to stop Trump, it's called "Voting".

      That's cute [huffingtonpost.com], but the real scary thing is not that you have a process as simple as voting to stop trump, it is that there may actually be a small chance that this process could fail. I mean the only thing scarier than some of the things Trump is saying is the current polling results showing that a percentage of Americans agree with him.

      At least when one of Australia's bat-shit-crazy-business-men decided to enter politics we only gave him one seat, and I think that happened as the result of excess consumptio

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I mean the only thing scarier than some of the things Trump is saying is the current polling results showing that a percentage of Americans agree with him.

        What's actually scariest to me, is how many Americans accepts whatever the mainstream politicians and commentators say without question.

        I suppose it's rare for Slashdot, but I actually have some Muslim friends that I've accompanied to US consulates for their in-person interview to try to get a tourist visa. And what I've seen was a Kafkaesque nightmare of incompetence and indifference - not just a lack of any basic human decency in the treatment of the applicants - but also a total lack any motivation to id

      • The polls are a bit misleading in that if Trump has 30% in Iowa it doesn't mean he has 30% of all voters, or even registered Republicans. He has 30% of those likely to vote in the primary; a demographic that is generally more conservative than the average voter. That translates to maybe 6% of the general election's voters; and is why the Republican Party is scared to death of him. He can't win, given his lack of broad appeal,but a third party run dooms any hope they have of winning the Presidency. He'd peel
    • by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      If the US would be a true democracy then this would work. However, lately all western countries including the US decided to become more and more anti democratic states where the masses get well indoctrinated by the media. Don't get me wrong. This is not a conspiracy theory with Lizard people controlling the public. It is about fat elites which are unable to address the problems on earth and which decided that their personal short term interests are more important than the big picture. Of course there is med

    • Most people outside the USA can't vote for or against Trump. Some members of Anonymous are non-Americans, and while misguided, this may well be their way of trying to "convince" those who can vote not to vote for Trump.
  • by vivaoporto ( 1064484 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:41AM (#51104827)
    Anonymous declares war on city of Orlando [dailymail.co.uk] (28/Jun/2011)
    Anonymous vs. Zetas: Hackers Taking On The Drug Cartel [huffingtonpost.com] (02/Nov/2011)
    Anonymous wages war on Westboro Baptist Church [nydailynews.com] (17/Dez/2012)
    Anonymous Declares War on Singapore [slashdot.org] (06/Nov/2013)

    Given the fallback on the last weeks hoax declaration of war on ISIS by Mexican cartel leader 'El Chapo' [independent.co.uk] 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).
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seriously, this bunch of retarded brain dead script kiddies believe they have a right to attack anyone else's website because they do not agree with him? They should all be catched and jailed as far as I am concerned. They are totally anti-democratic and equivalent to any evil dictatorship in this world. They do not deserve the media attention they get. Even their attacks are lame.

  • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:45AM (#51104853) Homepage

    "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.

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:48AM (#51104865) Homepage

      Welcome to the modern face of "social justice" where if they don't get what they want, they'll make shit up or attack people. With that, social justice is no different then a mob of people who would rather ignore the rule of law and take it into their own hands.

      • Welcome to the modern face of "social justice" where if they don't get what they want, they'll make shit up or attack people.

        The "modern face"? When in history has there not been an organization that made shit up or attacked people in order to get what they want?

        Of course, you're not just using this as a pretext to attack your favorite boogeyman of the moment, the mythical "social justice warrior", are you? Because that would be stupid.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          The older face of "social justice" wore white hoods and burned crosses. Enforcing their ideals of a social justice.

          Or those feminists wanting the vote and such.
      • by Minupla ( 62455 )

        I find it interesting that when I see people on the right talking about these sort of 'solutions' - which I'm not implying I support - I see language like "Use in this order: Voting Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box", yet I see this type of post in reaction when the left suggests using the same 'solution'.

        Min

        • I find it interesting that when I see people on the right talking about these sort of 'solutions' - which I'm not implying I support - I see language like "Use in this order: Voting Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box", yet I see this type of post in reaction when the left suggests using the same 'solution'.

          Min

          "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order." It's intended to make clear that violence the last resort, and the assumption is that the previous boxes have failed not because the majority disagrees but because democracy has broken down and the government is no longer listening to the people at all. It's pretty obvious that if the majority decides against liberty the ammo box isn't going to be any more successful than the other three.

    • 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?

      This is exactly the question Julius Cesar considered himself to be facing when he crossed the Rubicon.
      It is also the question Brutus faced when he stabbed Cesar. It's an old question.

      Consider though, if someone has enough votes to win an election, they have more people on their side than opposing them, so if you start a war against them, you're probably already in a losing position.

      • Consider though, if someone has enough votes to win an election, they have more people on their side than opposing them, so if you start a war against them, you're probably already in a losing position.

        Votes only determine number and not power. I'd rather fight 5 angry hippies than 1 armed to the teeth trigger happy Texan.
        Heck with the American system voting doesn't even really determine the number of people on a side. Otherwise you wouldn't have ended up with Bush the first time.

  • Something tells me that this probably isn't the first time that people have taken shots at Trump. He's made a lot of enemies over the years so his staff have probably learned to shore up their defences as well as they can.

  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @11:10AM (#51104971) Homepage

    There seems to be a bit of a disconnect with regards to 'Anonymous', the idea that "activist claiming to speak for the group", is false. Anyone can and does speak anonymously for 'Anonymous" if they so choose, there is no 'claim' about it, it is fact. The only time people make claims about 'Anonymous' is when they do it publicly and not anonymously 'Anonymous'. Do it anonymously and they are just as 'Anonymous', as any one else ;). Donald Trump certainly is becoming a famous lesson for what not to become, hmm, chemical cocktails to an excess?

  • None of the usual rules apply to Trump. He's said so many stupid things that would have ended most campaigns that Anonymous won't be able to stop him, either. If Anonymous wants to make a difference - and not just hand the election to anyone with a (D) after their name (as it is known that all three of the leading democrats poll vastly above Trump in general polling) - then they need to work on building up a republican opponent of Trump.
  • by dfenstrate ( 202098 ) <dfenstrate@gmai l . com> on Saturday December 12, 2015 @12:22PM (#51105271)

    Trump's playing by the rules Obama set, plus a few of his own.
    Trump's rules include a fairly standard negotiating tactic- demand 3x what you want, so when the dust settles, you've got about what you wanted. He's also 'assuming the sale.' I don't wish to see him as president, but he's giving a (admittedly bombastic) voice to legitimate concerns many Americans have. The American left is used to being able to shout down politically inconvenient discussions by shouting "RACIST!", Trump simply says 'F you' and moves on. People love that.
    As for following Obama's rules, I'll just quote a recent article: [wsj.com] (Paywalled; my apologies)

    Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

    Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

    On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

    For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

    Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I agree with this. The best part of Trump is he is causing honest discussions about issues important to US citizens (funny to hear someone say that?)

      Before Trump talking about closing the border to Mexico was not allowed. If you even suggested deporting a single illegal you were branded a racist. Now we are talking about if it is possible to close the border, if it is possible to deport the illegals, how much it would cost, what are the repercussions, etc. Before Trump you couldn't see a debate like tha

    • I don't like rule by diktat, however, at least on immigration, Obama is doing a better job of removing illegals than Bush ever did.

      http://dailycaller.com/2014/02... [dailycaller.com]

      There's plenty to criticize about Obama's administration and policies without making up lies. Please don't do it. it discredits and drowns those who are have legitimate beefs.

      --PM

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by swillden ( 191260 )

        Obama is doing a better job of removing illegals than Bush ever did.

        This is actually normal. Republicans complain about illegals but don't actually want to keep them out. Democrats speak supportively of illegals, but deport them. From a political perspective, illegals are good for Republicans to use to rally their base, while Democrats get more mileage from speaking supportively to rally the minority voters who identify with the illegals... but Democrats don't actually benefit from having illegals in the country because they can't vote, and deporting them helps to take the

    • That's not an article, it's an opinion piece. The WSJ exercises no editorial oversight over opinion pieces and does no fact checking. You can claim anything you want in a WSJ opinion piece.

      You can frequently find the facts to refute the claims of opinion pieces in the actual news sections of the very same edition of the WSJ.

  • First they are disrupting terrorists, then disrupting somebody else who wants to disrupt the terrorists. Maybe anonymous should go after anonymous next.
    Of course, I always figured they went after ISIS because they didn't like the competition.
  • We all that it is only a matter of time before the Trump mask comes off and we find out that it has really been Andy Kaufman all this time. Wake up people!

  • Anonymous are occasionally useful idiots, but most of the time they are not that useful.

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Working...