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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government Republicans United States Politics

Anonymous Doxes Trump, But Leaked Info Underwhelms 242

Mic.com reports that the "total war" declared by Anonymous against presidential candidate Donald Trump has resulted in a grandly presented leak of some personal information. Items alleged to be personal information about Trump have been posted to PasteBin; these include a social security number purported to be his, contact information for some Trump business associates (including his agent and his lawyer's office), and some information about his family relationships. As Tech Insider points out, though, the YouTube video announcing the dump seems to overstate its significance, in that none of the information leaked is new or earth-shattering -- most of it could be quickly gleaned from a Google search or a visit to Wikipedia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Doxes Trump, But Leaked Info Underwhelms

Comments Filter:
  • Bullshit video (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2016 @11:19PM (#51719957)

    I don't care about anonymous's childish and sensationalized political views, that's not how democracy works. Hackers shouldn't influence votes any more than the wealthy should. Either they found real dirt or they didn't. It seems they didn't.

    • Only thing it will do is fuel Trump's campaign even more like All the Media has been doing for him so he hasn't spend 1/5th what everyone else does on ad's.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by emazing ( 778569 )
      We don't live in a democracy, especially one that works. Mainstream media has way too much of an affect on people's choice as it is. If some people want to publish a sensationalized video with facts that are true, so be it.
    • Either they found real dirt or they didn't. It seems they didn't.

      Which proves my theory - that he's covering something up. [swivels eyes from side to side]

    • I'm wondering: is this a real doxing, or an intentional feed from the campaign?

    • "Hackers" are what brought to light the fact that Clinton had a private e-mail server.

      Are you saying that we would have been better off knowing she thought she was above the law?

    • Precisely. IMHO, this and the protesting is going to backfire HARD because one of the motivating factors of Trump supporters is that they are sick of "children" throwing temper tantrums to get what they want and the "parents" caving every time. It's not as though there aren't legal ways for them to get what they want but they have to convince a majority of people to go along with them which doesn't happen very often.

  • Enemies of anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DontHackMeBro ( 4499927 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @11:27PM (#51719981)
    By causing trouble anonymously, Anonymous are technically working as agents for those entities (such as Russia) which would like to eliminate anonymity.
    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      That sounds like an awfully circular argument - no one can use anonymity to try and pursue their political views because it might cause anonymity to be taken away. If people can't use anonymity for things like pursuing political views then what's the point in it anyway? Something that's there, but can't be used, is about as useful as something just not being there in the first place.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Being able to be political active anonymously is necessary where those who have to money and power to subvert democracy would subvert the lives of those who are politically active against them. Get them fired by threatening their employers, the employer firing them because the employer prefers government favouring them, get them arrested on spurious charges, government declares them a security risk and denies them or their company employment and that is just for a start, there is also threatening family me

    • By causing trouble anonymously, Anonymous are technically working as agents for those entities (such as Russia) which would like to eliminate anonymity.

      That's like saying that by exercising your right to free speech and offending people you are working as an agent for those who would like to limit free speech that offends people.

  • by Freshly Exhumed ( 105597 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @11:30PM (#51719997) Homepage

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, this has all the hallmarks of an amateurish false flag operation against Anonymous. The track record of the "real" Anonymous shows a level and depth of skill that does not correlate with this lowball drivel.

    • by Archfeld ( 6757 )

      I'd mod the above as insightful if I had the points.
      Will the 'real' anonymous please stand up, and out the amateurs who are parading as them.

      • Not far enough (Score:4, Interesting)

        by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Friday March 18, 2016 @12:43AM (#51720233)

        Come now, if you are going to go the conspiracy route you have to look deeper than a single layer. Trump is being attacked by _everyone_ except the public who is supporting him.

        I find it much more likely that this is a two-for. Try and make Trump look bad and at the same time make Anonymous look bad. The elitist pricks holding power don't like either of them very much.

        All that goodness out in the open, if Anonymous does not come out and declare victimization then it is most likely yet a poor mission by them. Not everything they have done has been successful or grand. I find the latter more likely than any conspiracy. Anonymous also threatened Hillary and did a bit of damage. Nothing that the corrupt media could not cover up, unfortunately.

        • You are overestimating the perceived estimation by the establishment of the intelligence of the average voter.
          • by Chas ( 5144 )

            The average IQ in the US is approximately 98.
            The group IQ of the US populace is somewhere around 0.0000003266666666666667

    • by dmomo ( 256005 )

      This has crossed my mind too. I guess that's what you get with a decentralized (supposedly) action group.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dugancent ( 2616577 )

      Right...So called Anonymous is the lamest group of blowhards on the internet. Lowball drivel is all they know.

    • by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Friday March 18, 2016 @12:50AM (#51720265)

      Anyone can be Anonymous. It's not possible to have a false flag.

      If it seems like goobers did this, then probably goobers did this. And some past Anonymous operations have also been seemingly done by goobers.

    • lol [theguardian.com]

    • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Friday March 18, 2016 @01:07AM (#51720333)

      And if you want a Trump elected, this sort of thing helps him out a lot. Other things that help him:
      - any negative comments from Bush or Romney
      - any negative comments from Mexican government leaders
      - protests like the ones in Chicago. The more disruptive the protests, the more it helps Trump.
      - any big business CEOs or Chamber of Commerce leaders speaking out against him
      - any negative comments from Obama.
      - any other foreign leaders or celebrities speaking out against him

      If you want him to win easily, keep it up.

      • Although I was not born in the United States of America, I am still an American, and I am sick and tired of what has happened to my government for the past 30+ years !

        It is time we kick out the D.C. establishment and get somebody else in

        I am not saying that Donald Trump will be a great POTUS, but at the very least, compare to what Obama has done (for the past 7 years) and to what George W. Bush did (during his 8 year tenure) no matter how hard Donald J. Trump tries to screw up, he won't be as bad as Obama/G

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Well you might be old enough to remember when the media, and left-wing groups were doing the same thing against Regan. The only thing they did was hand him the presidency, and it looks like they're doing it again. Which is okay with me, since the amount of benefit to Canada that came from his presidency was enormous.

          And considering the amount of stuff up shit's creek these days with the media fawning all over Trudeau Jr., we're going to need all the help we can get. With luck, it'll be enough to head off

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by tehcyder ( 746570 )

            the media, and left-wing groups

            You don't really have a left wing in the US. Even someone like Bernie Saunders is only a moderate social democrat by world standards.

            And the media is left wing in the same way that a piece of rocks is left wing, i.e. it's not a raving right wing lunatic.

      • So basically any one who criticises Trump is helping him win? And any one who praises Trump is helping him win?

        So the only way not to help Trump win is to remain silent, which helps Trump win too. So Trump is bound to win whatever anyone does.

        There seems to be a logical flaw here somewhere.
        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          If a well-respected person criticized Trump in exactly the right way, it might be bad for him. But this is America and we don't have any well-respected people.

      • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
        I hear Vladimir Putin kind of likes the guy. [thepoliticalinsider.com]
    • It's weird how nobody ever accuses an Anonymous operation of being a false flag while it's in the early boasting phase. Then it's always "Anonymous is going to fuck them up good this time". After that operation turns into a huge failure, then it was clearly a false flag from the beginning.

      • I am on record here with concerns of a false flag operation back when the very first word of this so-called operation (your "early boasting phase) started.

    • That is the problem with anonymity, it is impossible to protect your reputation if you are anonymous (even if they were not childish twits half the time). Anyone can do wonderful or horrific things in the name of anonymous and there is nothing anyone else can do about it. In fact people can even take credit for what anonymous does by letting themselves "get caught" then claim they are the real anonymous and that all the new actions are by imposers. How could you prove they were not the original anonymous?
      • Perhaps IT'S A TRAP! Maybe the goal is to goad the "real" (notice the quotes that imply some ambiguity) Anonymous into a very big action with the purpose of outing them?

    • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Friday March 18, 2016 @03:33AM (#51720687)

      I've said it before and I'll say it again, this has all the hallmarks of an amateurish false flag operation against Anonymous. The track record of the "real" Anonymous shows a level and depth of skill that does not correlate with this lowball drivel.

      It's the same thing with the user on slashdot called "Anonymous Coward". Sometimes, "Anonymous Coward" can be super insightful and eloquent, the rest of the time, I feel the FBI is trying to run a false flag operation against its reputation by spouting off spammy, racist, and idiotic comments under its handle. The FBI truly has no shame.

    • The track record of the "real" Anonymous shows a level and depth of skill that does not correlate with this lowball drivel.

      That's a load of crap. Anonymous attacks come and go all the time. On the odd occasion the kids managed to get someone skillful to actually boost their credibility and help do something stupid online. That doesn't make them any more or less "real".

      Anonymous is and always has been a group of randoms. In that group will be some professional hackers, and some 12 year old racists thinking they're internet tough guys hoping their mothers don't realise their favourite website shows nasty pictures. Today we got th

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Maybe you missed the whole #GamerGate thing... The problem with Anonymous is that since anyone can use that flag and it's impossible to verify, sometimes you get great good and more often you get childish asshattery and criminality.

      Anonymous and it's offshoot GamerGate need to recognize this and form some kind of organization, because other simply disclaiming the actions of those using the name for malice is meaningless. The only way to protect yourself from people using your name for bad stuff is to have s

    • I thought Anonymous could be anybody/everybody.

      Now we're going to start classifying who is and isn't a member of a completely faceless organization?

      Do you see the irony/stupidity?

  • Trump is untouchable (Score:4, Informative)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @11:31PM (#51720001)

    This just goes to show that Trump is untouchable.

    Most people have something to hide. But Trump has been so public for so long, that anything even vaguely interesting was discovered and unveiled long ago.

    This is exactly why "trumped" up reports of things like racism don't hold water and don't affect Trump in the polls - because most people in America know his history with things like choosing a black woman as w winner on the Apprentice (someone who supports his candidacy now BTW), or his supposed hatred of immigrants when everyone knows he married a few (and probably slept with many more).

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Most people have something to hide. But Trump has been so public for so long, that anything even vaguely interesting was discovered and unveiled long ago.

      So utterly clean and free of crime connections despite wallowing in cesspits like New York property development and Nevada casinos? Maybe he can sell you a bridge?

      • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Friday March 18, 2016 @12:05AM (#51720123) Journal
        Is he undergoing an FBI investigation like another candidate?
        • by dbIII ( 701233 )
          So arguing for the lesser of two evils? I was expressing an opinion that I do not think Trump is "untouchable" and your lesser of two evils argument is not relevant to that in any way at all. Please try something less boring than noise for the purpose of distraction.other
          • by kuzb ( 724081 )

            All elections are essentially arguing for the lesser of a group of evils.

          • Well. Yes.

            IF it comes down to a Clinton/Trump general I'm voting Trump. Short of them reforming the vote laws so we stop doing 'first past the post' and a legitimate 3rd candidate showing up.

            I don't like Trump. But I loathe Clinton. Her family has continually shown that they think they're above the law. The "Clinton Foundation" is little more than a slush fund. 6 out of her top 10 contributors are banks she voted to bail out while in the Senate.

            And is "Slick Willie" the guy you really want as First Gentlema

            • Wait. So you honestly believe that the guy who has bankrupted several of his own companies, the guy who is encouraging physical violence at his rallies, the guy advocating for targeting Muslims, and the guy advocating for spending billions and billions of dollars on building a wall is the LESSER of two evils? I'm not saying the Clintons are without sin, absolutely they've got some dirty laundry. But man, it's a real stretch calling Trump the lesser of those two "evils".
              • Yes, and that says more about how Evil I find the Clintons than anything else.

                It's my vote, I get to do with it what I want.

                • Dude, you need therapy. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a smart strategy. But, hey, maybe you're into that kind of thing. It's OK. He has no chance at winning the General Election anyway.
                  • Look at the polls of him vs Clinton in a theoretical general. He most certainly does.

                    That said, there is a lot more in play if Trump wins.

                    For example the GOP already hates him, meaning they might actually have to create a new party to leave him behind (and run in 2020). Congress might actually work together against the president, something that certainly won't happen with Clinton.

                    I would take 4 years of Trump over 8 years of Clinton. Additionally if you look past what he says to get his core voters he doesn

                    • Look at the polls of him vs Clinton in a theoretical general. He most certainly does.

                      He most certainly does not [realclearpolitics.com].

                      And no, he does not have good ideas. It's been pretty well documented [forbes.com] by some pretty smart folks that his policies would be financial suicide for our country. His ideas go beyond protectionism and instead veer out into utter fantasy.

          • Nope. Just pointing out the obvious. You implied he's dirty, and yet he's not the one undergoing an FBI investigation. I wonder why he's not under any criminal investigations - maybe he is clean?
        • by dbIII ( 701233 )
          There's been a lot of stuff like this for years:
          http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/memory-lapse-trump-seeks-distance-advisor-past-ties/story?id=34600826
          http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/trump-mob-mafia/
          http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news1222_trump.html

          That's just what google turned up today so don't blame me if you don't like the politics of any of those sites.

          Trump talks like a gangster due to practice talking to the real thing.
      • Are you talking about Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

      And yet people claim he's a great business person despite the actual evidence of all his failures.

      • He had a bunch of failures in the 80's but came back from them, what's more successful than taking a lot of risks and surviving?

        That's why you will never understand Trump, nor those who support him (not saying I support him, just that I understand those that do).

        • We only have his word that he's successful though. He's also being sued by relatively recent bad deals, forget the Taj Mahal fiasco he's been sued over casinos 12 years ago. He points out he never had personal bankruptcy but that's just passing the buck that his biggest deal was a flop which he was primarily responsible for personally. More recently, Trump Mortgage, Trump Travel, Trump Magazine, and other flops where he was more interested in pushing his name than making sound business decisions. And Tr

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Just being nice to black people or marrying an immigrant doesn't mean you can't still be racist. Racism isn't just a blind hatred of other races, it's doing things and making policies that disproportionately affect certain racial groups.

      Similarly, just because he has hired women and married some, doesn't meant he can't have sexist views. It's not like there is a shortage of sexist things he has said. I'd also point out that it's pretty obvious that being attractive (to Trump) was a massive advantage for wom

    • Most people have something to hide. But Trump has been so public for so long, that anything even vaguely interesting was discovered and unveiled long ago.

      He still won't admit the truth about that poor creature that lives on his head.

      • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
        I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually born in the USA. I think he was born in Loompa land. It's pretty clear that he's a Ooompa Loompa.
  • And save it for when they actually have something. They are starting to sound like Best North Korea. They "exposed" Hillary recently, but all they did was mention public knowledge. I guess you get what you pay for.

  • No shit, sherlock (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gman003 ( 1693318 )

    The man publicly advocates war crimes, jokes about shooting people in the street, and managed to turn a televised debate into a literal argument over his dick size. If he managed to keep anything *worse* than that secret, it would have to be something like sacrificing babies to satan, or orphanage arson, or maybe being literal Hitler with a bad wig and a spray-tan.

  • by ichthus ( 72442 )
    Does the social security number originate from a state in which Trump never resided? Because, if so, that would be news worthy. Amiright?
    • i remember seeing a bit about if you knew which hospital and time they were born you could get first 2 sections of numbers of his SSN. just figuring out last 4 is the thing. But really knowing Trump's gonna really mean you can steal his identity? I bet Trump has a team of professionals probably protecting his name and his # at all times like his own personal LifeLock company.
  • Hillary can beat Drumpf without working too hard. Sanders can beat Drumpf without even needing to open his mouth. Frankly the democrats could run a ficus tree and almost certainly defeat Drumpf.

    The only person who has anything to gain from having Drumpf defeated before November is Cruz as he is the only GOP contender left who could possibly win the nomination if Drumpf was run out.
    • by skipkent ( 1510 )

      Hillary can beat Drumpf without working too hard. Sanders can beat Drumpf without even needing to open his mouth. Frankly the democrats could run a ficus tree and almost certainly defeat Drumpf.

      The only person who has anything to gain from having Drumpf defeated before November is Cruz as he is the only GOP contender left who could possibly win the nomination if Drumpf was run out.

      Hillary has no chance. Trump can work the show and has owned beauty pageants. It wouldn't be beneath him to run a Ms. Bill Raped Me USA and the woman would proudly participate to have their stories heard. How can the SJW rally against rape culture then Hillary is an enabler to the extreme. Debates he can have rape victims font row, have them at rallies, etc.

    • Not the only one, Cruz and Kasich are dead even right now in terms of chances.
    • by Princeofcups ( 150855 ) <john@princeofcups.com> on Friday March 18, 2016 @02:43AM (#51720595) Homepage

      Hillary can beat Drumpf without working too hard. Sanders can beat Drumpf without even needing to open his mouth. Frankly the democrats could run a ficus tree and almost certainly defeat Drumpf.
       

      That's what we said about George W., and look what happened. Agreed, it took some ballot stuffing to make it official, but it was not the landslide for Gore everyone predicted. People voted for that dumb fuck. They will vote for Trump, in droves.

    • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      Ficus tree leans a bit too far left for my liking.
  • A loudmouth who speaks before he thinks. You honestly thought there's something left he didn't already blare out himself? Embarrassing? What's embarrassing to a man that has no shame?

  • Did you DOX his friends, family, and business contacts?

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".

Working...