Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Twitter Politics

Hacker Collective Attacks KKK Sites (theepochtimes.com) 191

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."

This discussion has been archived.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

Hacker Collective Attacks KKK Sites

Comments Filter:
  • Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday April 24, 2016 @01:49AM (#51976321)

    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.

    • Dangerous Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 24, 2016 @02:01AM (#51976333)

      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.

      • by Bearhouse ( 1034238 ) on Sunday April 24, 2016 @02:08AM (#51976341)

        Mod up.
        As private citizens we cannot "pass judgement" - that's for the courts.
        We can have an opinion, and should respond to this kind of crap by voicing it.
        Legally.

        • the courts have failed us and don't work anymore.

          so, whatever we want to do, I'm all for it. chaos, anarchy, I don't give a fuck anymore.

          its clear as day; the legal system is useless for regular people and its gamed by those in power. and yes, the kkk has power, oddly enough. in some dank southern towns, they have scary amounts of power. and did the legal system do anything? of course not; in some towns, the legal system is overlapped by kkk membership!

          no, the legal system has failed us. it would be g

          • by Mr.CRC ( 2330444 )

            "in some towns, the legal system is overlapped by kkk membership!"

            You have effectively proved a conclusion I've been converging on for a long time--we humans cannot self-govern in a manner that is "fair" to all sorts of people. This should be obvious of course, considering our evolutionary upbringing. Indeed, all social/political problems are intractable.

            This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, however, as we have to do *something*. But, we continue to approach everything from ideological perspectives mould

      • they do have right to free speech problem is some people think they don't deserve that right while they spout racial messages all day.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          they don't deserve that right while they spout racial messages all day.

          You're aware that's what Social Justice advocated do, right?

      • by swb ( 14022 ) on Sunday April 24, 2016 @07:15AM (#51976967)

        I've been hearing this misunderstanding of free speech more and more.

        There's free speech, which is normally a shorthand for the right to free speech, which is constitutionally protected at the Federal level and often at the state level and the former is often used to enforce that right nationwide where government attempts to limit it.

        Then there's freedom of expression, which is the philosophical concept of the moral right to express one's opinion free from arbitrary constraints and reprisals.

        Pedants who use the limitations of constitutional freedom of speech as a justification for attacks on freedom of expression I think are somewhat dangerous. If you believe that freedom of expression is good, I don't think you should ever endorse private reprisals against the expression of unpopular opinion. Censorship and repression of speech aren't good qualities just because they are exercised by private entities, especially when implemented as hostile attacks designed to limit the freedom of expression of others.

        I think this leads to a mob mentality that justifies repressive behavior against unpopular opinion. If hacking KKK sites is justified because you believe their ideas are reprehensible, why doesn't that give the KKK moral justification for hacking Black Lives Matter? "Black Lives Matter is good and the KKK is bad" isn't sufficient.

        Freedom of expression should hold that everyone should be able to express their opinion without fear of reprisal. People may decide not to like you or support you based on your opinions, but this is a the natural outcome of the marketplace of ideas. But if you endorse affirmative attacks on unpopular speech makers, you are only relying on the winds of popular opinion before you may be subject to those same attacks with the same moral weight you claim to have.

        • If I'm on a board of directors and the CEO comes out as a KKK member, there's going to be a reprisal; and that is that the CEO is going to be out on his ass. In fact, in the organization I'm working for right now, with the ethnically diverse client group, a KKK member at any level would do the organization harm, and they'd be out. The forms would be obeyed; they would given severance, but they simple could not work there any more.

          There really is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Even the Founding

          • by Alumoi ( 1321661 )

            So you'll kick him out because it could be damaging to your company image, not because he's a member of KKK.
            Now tell me, would you do the same for an anti gay/lesbian? Or for a pro-abortion? Or for ... (insert not PC actions here)

            • If someone in my organization's employ was making homophobic remarks, then I'd say they're on tenuous ground. If they go to the level the KKK does, then yes, they're job is finished. Considering the number of LGBT clients, the organization simply could not tolerate someone like that.

              • by Alumoi ( 1321661 )

                Just as I figured, you don't give a damn about people's convictions, you only care about being seen as PC. Let me guess, American or western european? Working in a multinational company?

                • People can have all the convictions they want. When they work in organizations whose client base is made up of the very populations that this hypothetical person is publicly espousing bigotry against, then they can take their convictions with them along with their personal effects. We will not lose clients because some asshole decides to publicly start making racist or homophobic declarations. Clients and customers come first... always.

                  • by swb ( 14022 )

                    So what you're saying is that it's not *really* the content of this hypothetical employee's opinions but whether or not they espouse those opinions in a public forum where your customers may hear them and link them to your business, therefore costing you business.

                    So really it's the controversial nature of the opinion. If the employee came out with an opinion that was factually true but controversial to your customer base, would you still fire them? Let's say you have a large number of single mothers as cu

                    • The first opinion, while unpopular, does not really target any individual group, except broadly those who live in poorer economic conditions, so no, I can't say as he would be dismissed. In the second case, no, I probably wouldn't seek dismissal, but the employee would be under some degree of scrutiny. You're not going to fire someone for privately held beliefs that they keep quiet, or at least I wouldn't. But really it's situation specific. What if the situation was as you described, and you discovered, sa

                • by dave420 ( 699308 )

                  LGBT: "I want to be treated as a normal person"
                  KKK: "Black people should not be treated as normal people"

                  Sure - they're precisely comparable! Yay for you!

                • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
                  Failing to act on such homophobic comments is criminal. Making an illegally hostile workplace is illegal. Even in places where homosexuaity is illegal, it's still generally illegal to make a hostile environment.
              • Let's flip it around though: Rather than a multinational corporation, the business is a more local affair operating in a small part of, say, Alabama. Word gets out that you have a gay CEO, and the local church groups start putting out scare stories attacking his morality, claiming the company is somehow endangering children and seeks to destroy churches, the usual - fringe homophobic stuff, but this is the deep south and the majority of the local population love that kind of thing. Their boycott is actually

        • by KGIII ( 973947 )

          I think the clarification actually needs to go a bit further. It's not the freedom of speech, not really. It's the right to free speech.

          To put this in perspective, I have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. I do not have a right to do so. Or, if you prefer, I am not at liberty to punch you in the mouth.

          You have a right to free speech. That right, like any other, can be limited. As I may not be able to reply, I will to make it clearer. Try to communicate with a certain class of prisoners. Try saying somet

        • I think this leads to a mob mentality that justifies repressive behavior against unpopular opinion. If hacking KKK sites is justified because you believe their ideas are reprehensible, why doesn't that give the KKK moral justification for hacking Black Lives Matter? "Black Lives Matter is good and the KKK is bad" isn't sufficient.

          It isn't without a certain irony that you should talk about mob mentality in the context of KKK. a group that was notorious for forming lynch mobs and committing the most loathsome atrocities - which still rank up there with the actions of the likes of Daesh, the only major difference being that where their crimes were a sort of cottage industry and not quite so organised.

          Maybe they have mellowed out over the years, maybe they are now just about family and nostalgia and wistfully slagging off those of the w

          • by swb ( 14022 )

            Should they be allowed the freedom of expression? Of course, like everybody else, but I think it is the duty of everybody with a bit of decency to speak loudly and clearly out against that kind of things.

            They key phrase here is "speak loudly and clearly against it" -- you of course should speak out against it. But regardless of the vile nature of their opinion, you don't have the right to destroy their printing press, for example.

            I'm a cynic, but I still think that American society as a whole is mostly rea

      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Sunday April 24, 2016 @08:56AM (#51977299) Journal

        Can you define "consequences"? While I agree that no one has the right to do anything illegal, there is no right to be free of the consequences of your speech. If you publicly and openly espouse racist beliefs, then there will be consequences; everything from shunning by friends and neighbors to even potentially losing your job. The state cannot punish you for your beliefs, but society is not limited to state action.

      • by tuxgeek ( 872962 )

        Define "illegal".
        I watch every-single-day as the US gov does all sorts of "illegal" bullshit claiming any-and-every form of "executive privilege".
        CRAB violated every law they chose to on bullshit premises, .. and got away with it with the support of every republican moron in the land, .. citing the current bogeyman of "war on terror" as their excuse to get around every protection the US Constitution affords.

        Forget islamic state, the US gov, (House, Senate and supreme court) which are now under total contr

    • Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech.

      nobody has been jailed, which is the only thing the first amendment guarantees. what the first amendment does not guarantee is your ability to spread your message regardless of its value.

      I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.

      *gasp!* are you calling Donald Trump a liar?! [npr.org] ;)

      • what the first amendment does not guarantee is your ability to spread your message regardless of its value.

        But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.

        • But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.

          and i never claimed it did.

          • Re:Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by jafiwam ( 310805 ) on Sunday April 24, 2016 @07:02AM (#51976931) Homepage Journal

            But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.

            and i never claimed it did.

            [Sigh]

            By asserting it's just to take down someone's web servers because you don't believe in their message, you did assert exactly that.

            The provider could take the web sites down because they don't like the site's speech, outside parties don't have a right to interfere with the consensual transaction of third parties. And that's exactly what you are advocating.

            • By asserting it's just to take down someone's web servers because you don't believe in their message, you did assert exactly that.

              i have made no such assertions nor were they implied. you however have incorrectly inferred it.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          Define "harm". The sensitive conservatives get offended any time someone tells them they are offensive, and claim being offended is harm, but only if it's them being insulted.
      • Other pro-censorship post....

        People have a right to say what they please, and nobody any right to silence them.

        Try reading the amendment some time. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." It does indeed protect the right to spread a message regardless of it's content. Nothing in there backs up your claim.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      > 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.

  • meh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Sunday April 24, 2016 @02:13AM (#51976347)
    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.
  • "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.

  • 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/... [wikipedia.org]... )

    Perhaps the modern equivalent is:

    First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out

  • 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 t

  • 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.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      "force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters", they'd only be preaching to the faithful. These ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they exist because of community support, birds of a feather and all that. Racists are generally not born, they a groomed from a young age. By the time they are 18-20, it is almost impossible to get those ideas out of their heads.

      There's a reason religions get inculcated in the young, why Communist parties have youth leagues, why gangs prey on the y

      • by sribe ( 304414 )

        "force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters", they'd only be preaching to the faithful.

        Having grown up in the Deep South, I can assure you that the KKK is a tiny, and generally despised, minority. Sure, they have close friends and family who share their secret, but outside of that tiny subculture, in the broader community, they are subject to scorn and ridicule. Why do you think they're not public with their membership???

      • by KGIII ( 973947 )

        > These ideas do not exist in a vacuum ...

        I need to say this *really* carefully lest I be completely misunderstood and you (or anyone else) ascribe things to me that I did not say nor even hint at.

        And that is this:

        Nor do stereotypes exist in a vacuum.

        Yup. I said it. I'll point out, again, that I'm part black and very clearly not white. The problem is that ignorant people believe that stereotypical folks, those belonging to that group, are *all* like that and are that way because of some genetic make-up.

  • This should prove interesting
    CCC = Chaos Compter Club, a German hacker collective.

  • 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?

  • 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 [sortocracy.org]

  • 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...

  • 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.

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...