Do You Support Anonymous's Actions in #OpKKK?

[Candor]

Seeings as though they have no substantial evidence, and that it's extremely unlikely multiple Congressmen are KKK members, (which number about 3,000-5,000 these days based on estimates): no; it's ludicrous.

 

[Peter King]

Anyone can release information of what club you belong to..... I have no immunity of people releasing private information of my associations.

Excuse me? If someone belongs to a club then why would anybody be able to access that information? Clubs should have a duty to keep such information private.

And there is a big difference between a club releasing his/her information, there is a big difference between someone breaking/hacking into a computer and then posting such information without any legal permission. But that is not what I was talking about, I was talking about it being morally wrong to hack information and post it like that without approval of the person that information belongs to.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Excuse me? If someone belongs to a club then why would anybody be able to access that information? Clubs should have a duty to keep such information private.

And there is a big difference between a club releasing his/her information, there is a big difference between someone breaking/hacking into a computer and then posting such information without any legal permission. But that is not what I was talking about, I was talking about it being morally wrong to hack information and post it like that without approval of the person that information belongs to.

Someone just going to the club is going to have privy to your doings. A club cannot protect my right for people not finding out I'm working there if they are at the club. Also, there is no evidence that they hacked. The only thing I've read is they got the information via public information on social media sites.

 

[jet57]

You bring up another very real problem from this release of names. There are generally going to be undercover agents working within these groups with various objectives. They may very well have established themselves enough to have been identified by Anonymous. This release puts them and their objective at risk and there is little way for the general public, for anyone who might know those people "unhooded" to know who is acting as a member to stop things from happening.

There are just way too many issues with this being done. This is not something that should have been done.

Names and agents change very quickly. That won't be a problem.

 

[jet57]

Well so far this has been a dud.

Have you seen the list?

 

[Peter King]

Someone just going to the club is going to have privy to your doings. A club cannot protect my right for people not finding out I'm working there if they are at the club. Also, there is no evidence that they hacked. The only thing I've read is they got the information via public information on social media sites.

Anonymous is a hacking society/club, I think it is much more likely they broke into a computer somewhere.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Anonymous is a hacking society/club, I think it is much more likely they broke into a computer somewhere.

If they hacked, it is a legal issue and it would be investigated. Currently, I see no proof of this whatsoever. I think this whole argument has been turned into a strawman for obvious reasons.

 

[Thrilla]

Well so far this has been a dud.

of course it's a dud... the release wasn't a means to an end.. it was the end.

it pretty much goes like this

" hey, these guys are assholes, we're totally going to screw them over big time"
" yeah?.. how?"
"we're gonna say "screw their privacy" and identity them in public... social justice , bro.. SOCIAL JUSTICE!!"

<releases names>

" "Now what do we do?"
" I guess we just go play Call of Duty ...say, can your mom make us a some pie or something.. i'm hungry?"

 

[Fiddytree]

of course it's a dud... the release wasn't a means to an end.. it was the end.

it pretty much goes like this

" hey, these guys are assholes, we're totally going to screw them over big time"
" yeah?.. how?"
"we're gonna say "screw their privacy" and identity them in public... social justice , bro.. SOCIAL JUSTICE!!"

<releases names>

" "Now what do we do?"
" I guess we just go play Call of Duty ...say, can your mom make us a some pie or something.. i'm hungry?"

Except that last part is way too social. More like all of this was happening on Xbox Live.

 

[JANFU]

Names and agents change very quickly. That won't be a problem.

The point RN made is valid and the reply in my opinion was rather dismissive of facts. Many agents spend years undercover. I fail to see how this cannot be a problem?

 

[jet57]

The point RN made is valid and the reply in my opinion was rather dismissive of facts. Many agents spend years undercover. I fail to see how this cannot be a problem?

Because agents work as alises. They come and go and being exposed is part of the game. I don't think I'm being dismissive at all, but a realist, and with so few members, according to Anonymous, some 5000 nationwide, there's really not much that they can be up to that isn't known and tracked as it is. So, as I've said previously, this is one of the best things that can happen with the KKK. With any luck, this exposure will bring the count down to 4,000.

 

[Peter King]

If they hacked, it is a legal issue and it would be investigated. Currently, I see no proof of this whatsoever. I think this whole argument has been turned into a strawman for obvious reasons.

again, I have issues with the morality of exposing people in such a manner.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

again, I have issues with the morality of exposing people in such a manner.

So, it is moral for them to expose their hatred as long as they hide their identity from their targets?

 

[JANFU]

Because agents work as alises. They come and go and being exposed is part of the game. I don't think I'm being dismissive at all, but a realist, and with so few members, according to Anonymous, some 5000 nationwide, there's really not much that they can be up to that isn't known and tracked as it is. So, as I've said previously, this is one of the best things that can happen with the KKK. With any luck, this exposure will bring the count down to 4,000.

Well yes they do. Many spend years infiltrating the orgs. and the run under many names, people moving between this to another. And many are involved in a number of different criminal activity.
So the point is valid, and I do not think you gave it the consideration it is due.

 

[jet57]

Well yes they do. Many spend years infiltrating the orgs. and the run under many names, people moving between this to another. And many are involved in a number of different criminal activity.
So the point is valid, and I do not think you gave it the consideration it is due.

Again, I don't think so in this instance, moreover a list of "names" is only going to show an alias as it is. You should see the list, there are lots of names listed as "alias" because those people have chosen to use one.

 

[JANFU]

Again, I don't think so in this instance, moreover a list of "names" is only going to show an alias as it is. You should see the list, there are lots of names listed as "alias" because those people have chosen to use one.

I do realize that.

 

[jet57]

I do realize that.

So, then I don't get your point. Anonymous announced its intention a long while before the released the list, so it's not like any sensitive people would be in any danger.

 

[Peter King]

So, it is moral for them to expose their hatred as long as they hide their identity from their targets?

Sorry, but what are you talking about, I am (and will remain) of the opinion that it is wrong from Anonymous to post the private information from KKK members online. I don't know what you are talking about, sorry, but you have to make it at least somewhat clearer what you want to know from me?

None of what I said speaks to the morality of the KKK because let's be honest, they are a racist backward moronic evil organization that the world can easily do without, but that does not mean that what Anonymous does is morally upstanding.

 

[JANFU]

So, then I don't get your point. Anonymous announced its intention a long while before the released the list, so it's not like any sensitive people would be in any danger.

Anon stated they found the information in a variety of ways. Could be they did, most likely not. They are not planning to leave an open trail for the Govt to follow.
And how would Anon know if it was or was not sensitive?

 

[spud_meister]

No. Vigilantism is wrong. Who knows who these arseholes could target next?

 

[Mason66]

At times it is applicable

At times?

Either it is or it isn't.

Which is it?

 

[Mason66]

Now that is a real fine question. The Klan is a multi cultural association who reach out to others regardless of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or color.

What are you going on about? Do you want to try to answer the question now?

 

[roguenuke]

Names and agents change very quickly. That won't be a problem.

It could very well be a problem.

 

[ecofarm]

I support both this action and their prosecution.

 

[roguenuke]

Because agents work as alises. They come and go and being exposed is part of the game. I don't think I'm being dismissive at all, but a realist, and with so few members, according to Anonymous, some 5000 nationwide, there's really not much that they can be up to that isn't known and tracked as it is. So, as I've said previously, this is one of the best things that can happen with the KKK. With any luck, this exposure will bring the count down to 4,000.

And many of those members are undercover agents who have worked years to get there just to keep tabs on the organization and basically castrate it to the point of being inept as it currently is. They shouldn't face potential backlash from the public.

Even beyond that though, there could be many completely innocent people "exposed" because we have no way to know how Anonymous vetted the info they are putting out or even if they are really trustworthy enough to not use this situation to try to harm people who they don't like.