Anonymous Begins Publishing Ku Klux Klan Member Details Online 546
An anonymous reader writes: Anonymous has begun releasing the personal details of members of the Ku Klux Klan, escalating its cyberwar against the white supremacist group. Last week the hacktivist group promised to reveal the identity of 1,000 members of the KKK after getting possession of the private information through a compromised Twitter account. A press release from Anonymous reads in part: "After closely observing so many of you for so very long, we feel confident that applying transparency to your organizational cells is the right, just, appropriate and only course of action. You are abhorrent. Criminal. You are more than extremists. You are more than a hate group. You operate much more like terrorists and you should be recognized as such. You are terrorists that hide your identities beneath sheets and infiltrate society on every level. The privacy of the Ku Klux Klan no longer exists in cyberspace. You’ve had blood on your hands for nearly 200 years. You continue to inflict civil rights violations, commit violent crimes and solicit others to commit violent criminal acts. You seek to intimidate and/or eliminate those that are different from you and those that you dislike by any means possible. You seek to terrorize anyone and anything that you feel is a threat to your narrow view of the 'American way of life'."
Rednecks Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rednecks Anonymous (Score:5, Funny)
The real fun will be to see how many of these people are active politicians.
Re:Rednecks Anonymous (Score:5, Interesting)
and active law enforcement officials too.
Re:Rednecks Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there's no possibility that there will be any names released who aren't actually KKK members.
Re: Rednecks Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous isn't a set group of people who will learn from mistakes, because it's most likely not the same people. Also, since the list was disseminated to others, any individual can add names, claim it's the unedited original, and spread it under the umbrella of "Anonymous."
Re: (Score:3)
The real fun will be to see how many of these people are active politicians.
Or match with Ashley Maddison accounts who were looking for a non-white girl to hook up with. That would be seriously funny.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a few [cbs46.com].
"Redneck" is a racial slur. (Score:4, Insightful)
The names of a thousand hateful red necks.
"Redneck" is a racial slur. It insinuates that the target is, not just from a rural culture (especially - a poor white southern farmer), and not just sunburned on the back of his neck due to working outdoors with a short haircut, but also that he may be part American Indian. (It originates in a time where this was considered to be extremely "poor breeding", and many so-called "sundown towns" had laws requiring people with any American Indian genetics to be out of town by undown.
It currently has an implication that the pepole it is applied to are unintelligent and uneducated. (The space program proves the lie of this: Note the accents of the people involved. A substantial fraction of real rocket scientists are, and were, rednecks.) This slur dates at least to the Scopes Monkey Trial (which was largely a propaganda piece fomented by the mining interests to brand the miners, who were trying to unionize at the time, as igorant idiots in the urban east coast's public perception.)
Rule of thumb: If you don't self-identify as a redneck, and wouldn't use the "N" word, don't use the "R" word.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and not just sunburned on the back of his neck due to working outdoors with a short haircut,
That makes no sense, rednecks have mullets.
Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you just make all of that up? I can't find a single source that connects "redneck" with Native Americans, every definition I've seen ties it specifically to white people. Many today claim it as a badge of pride. And the Scopes Monkey Trial? That had nothing to do with unionizing miners, and everything to do with a publicity stunt to draw attention to the town of Dayton, TN. Mr. Scopes was even unsure whether he had ever taught evolution but incriminated himself anyway so that the trial could have a defendant. The miners that you're referring to were trying to unionize 5 years before Scopes and they wore red bandanas around their necks and self-identified as "rednecks" to help themselves organize and have solidarity. That label was not given to them by outside interests, they chose it.
Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. (Score:4, Informative)
Did you just make all of that up? I can't find a single source that connects "redneck" with Native Americans, every definition I've seen ties it specifically to white people.
I got it from my wife - trained as a historian, a member of Phi Alpha Theta (the historical honor society), redneck, and raised as a part American Indian.
I'm not where I can consult her for references right now. If I think of it before this is off the front page I'll see if she can come up with some.
Yes, the term is used on rural whites. As I said above, the bit about insinuating American Indian admixture is one of the several allegedly derogatory slurs embedded in the package.
Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. (Score:5, Insightful)
German?
Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think you have any idea what it is like to work in the sun, your neck stays pretty much untanned as getting the sun on it really heats you up, pretty much the reason why you should wear a wide brimmed hat. The red neck comes from when certain people with very pale necks lose their temper and they become flushed and as a result of having those pale necks they turn bright red. It is not red neck via race but via behaviour. Please do not include the majority of pink skins in your red neck assertions because by far the majority of pink skins are not red necks, this not because of some new assertion of further variegations of pink skin race to define more shades of pink but based upon intellect and behaviour. Red neck is a behavioural classification. Me and my lilly white butt take offence at your associating of red necks with all people of European ancestry, nope you get your red neck tag based upon the way you behave and choose to express yourself, nothing to be proud of either. They are found pretty much all over the globe, unfortunately. Bogans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is another name for them, perhaps American red necks might prefer it, it definitely has a more descriptive ring to it.
Re: (Score:3)
"he [a redneck] may be part American Indian"
Can you give a citation, or is this just a pigment of your imagination?
Re: (Score:3)
That seems unlikely considering that around the world the term is used by people of Dutch and German ancestry to refer to people of British ancestry and has been that way since the early colonial days.
Here at the South End of Africa "rooineck" is still a common slang term for "Englishman".
Re: (Score:3)
The progressives have been very clear about trying to destroy the roots and symbols of rural culture in America. Religion and Guns? Clearly must be suppressed.
It's particularly significant when you realize that:
- The country was formed by and for "religious nuts with guns".
- The separation of church and state was both:
- Central to the beliefs of the Plymouth colony settlers (the "Separatists" - often conflated with the "Puritans" who settled a few t
Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF, really?
Remember, it's not genocide if it's the enemy. The progressives have been very clear about trying to destroy the roots and symbols of rural culture in America. Religion and Guns? Clearly must be suppressed.
I'm strongly opposed to gun control, but the arguments made by the other side are not without merit. A few gun owners have made their hobby/obsession a problem for the rest of us. Decent gun owners would be better served by reminding the rest of the population that they're not all a bunch of nutcases. Are you sure you're helping?
Same for the "religion" half of your argument. Keep your guns out of my face and your religion as well, and we'll get along juuuuust fine.
Deep family ties? Must financially punish marriage.
Yeah, for definitions of "financially punish" that include "Stop subsidizing specific peoples' personal relationships at everyone else's expense." I'm all for that.
Economy? The war on tobacco continues to destroy cash crops
Of course, tens of thousands of cases of heart disease and cancer don't have any economic consequences at all, am I right?
the war on coal decimating employment
I'm not a global-warrming alarmist but you don't have to be one to recognize that digging up coal and burning it is a stupid, inefficient, wasteful, and generally harmful way to generate power. The sooner we get away from coal the better off we'll all be, and that includes the rural areas.
and turning the education system into a proxy for the propaganda war has destroyed the education system there.
Yeah, when we took Jeebus out of the classroom and started teaching evolution, I guess that's when things really started to go to hell, huh?
This is exactly why sane people are starting to gang up against religion. Don't want a "propaganda war?" Don't start one.
Re: (Score:3)
Well they did try to prove each members' membership to the clan by gathering DNA evidence, but they found it was all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want privacy dont be a politician.. seriously.
Re: Hurray for suppressing dissent (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhh that seems unrelated. These ppl are assholes who harrass/intimidate/etc others using their privacy.
Why? It's one thing if they're a terrorist organization, but it's a whole other thing if they're just groveling among themselves about how much they hate x. Unless you can prove somebody has done something beyond simply being bigoted, then doxing them is an evil thing to do.
Re: (Score:3)
and, it's troubling that it makes use of the "200 years" line.
Unless you've got some highlanders under them there hoods, we generally, in the civilized world, don't hold people responsible for the sins of their fathers. Probably a vanishingly small fraction of the membership has ever taken part in a lynching. And there are laws to go after those people... you know the ones against murder.
This is a troubling thing, going after americans for their associations.
Re: (Score:3)
We should never allow people with unpopular opinions to have any privacy at all.
Although I agree with you that this isn't a case where the violation of privacy is warranted, handwaving it away as an "unpopular opinion" is disingenuous and, frankly, betrays your credibility. You cannot behave as though free speech is more important than the safety of lots of people, then turn around and suddenly it's just a few inconsequential mutterings and any response shows just how petty one side is.
Either free speech is powerful or it isn't, pick one and stick with it, you don't get to have your
Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent (Score:4, Interesting)
What are the odds that those published will end up losing their jobs and such? You think that will end up causing more problems?
This might be a better way to deal with things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Those with whom we choose to associate say a lot about our character and about our choices. Choices are one thing that an employee can be judged-on. I see no reason for any employer to be compelled to retain anyone that is affiliated with an organization like this.
As to your point about dialogue, that only works when the group being addressed is either well enough organized or small enough to be cohesive and for its members to operate as a single voice. Look at the fragmentation of the IRA during The Troubles, there were an uncountable number of splinter groups such that establishing a dialogue with one was no sure means to deal with all, an if anything could incite violence by the others.
Re: (Score:3)
Ob (Score:5, Funny)
The crux of the matter comes down to this: is it a burning issue?
Re:Ob (Score:4, Funny)
Kkknock it off!
What's with the .ru accounts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at the Pastebin data, seems almost all the E-mail addresses in the pre-release come from a Russian site. It would be interesting to have some confirmation before people listed in the data get the dogs of war sicced on them.
Re: What's with the .ru accounts? (Score:2)
You mean an anonymous hacker site if not the gold standard of reliability to be used in developing a list of people to persecute?
Re: What's with the .ru accounts? (Score:5, Funny)
A buddy and I were going to go to one of their rallies. We were too drunk to drive and unable to actually figure out how to make the pointy hats with sheets - and his girlfriend, at the time, was not impressed with what we did to the linen. It is at this point that I should also share that I'm mixed, racially, and that one of those mixes is black and my friend, whom I was in the Corps with, was so black his nickname was "The Grape Ape" 'cause he was almost purple black - from the Dominican Republic by heritage. We were late to our Klan meeting.
This is probably for the best. We were in Virginia at the time. We'd probably have been lynched or at least had a good brawl on our hands.
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
One anonymous criminal organization exposing another. For transparency no less!
Re:Irony (Score:4, Informative)
Time for our bi-yearly reminder:
Anonymous is a generic group-heading that refers to multiple cells of groups.
Many of these groups hate each other, but they all fall under the same heading of Anonymous since it is where their roots began.
Occasionally they work with each other for a common goal, but it is rare.
There is no singular Anonymous group and hasn't been since 2006.
Re:Irony (Score:4, Funny)
I like how you made it a trifecta by posting that as anonymous coward.
Re: Irony (Score:5, Funny)
the ironing is delicious
I feel this comment left me a little flat.
Re: Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as you don't get hot under the collar...
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, don't leave it on a back burner
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to claim that Anonymous is sanctioned by the government? Because if not, then there is no comparison.
Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no journalistic controls in place. They can put whoever they want on that list.
Re: (Score:3)
What specific journalistic controls are you speaking about?
Re: (Score:3)
I have documents that show you are not only a member of the KKK, but also a pedophile.
What controls do you think should have been applied to that statement?
Re: (Score:2)
What controls are there?
Re: (Score:2)
Victims can use defamation law to (try to) prosecute a publisher.
Ofc the point behind anonymous is that arent accountable if they arent identifiable. Which itself is needed because whatever "controls" you can think of that are intended to protect people can also be abused and used to persecute people.
Maybe people shouldnâ(TM)t be judged based on which lists they are on, and we should only judge people we know.
Re: (Score:2)
Now now, there's no evidence he's in the KKK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they wore Guy Fawkes masks and everything! They must be the very same Anonymous...
I'm wondering when the Black Panthers leak is coming, as they are just as much a hate group.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> We know Anonymous has political bias...
So does the KKK.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, so does any group of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are aware that almost all KKK members were democrats, right? And that the "party of Lincoln", also known as Republicans, fought a civil war to end slavery?
Please go ahead and continue to shout the lie...
Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're misquoting and hiding behind historical details.
The Southern establishment switched from Democrat to Republican in the 1960's in response to the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson (Texas) supporting Civil Rights. The parent post was not about party affiliation 50 years ago. It was about today's party affiliations.
Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? (Score:5, Informative)
Robert Bird was a democrat and KKK member. One of the more famous cases of liberal bias against their own hate. He got a pass for being KKK because he was a good liberal.
Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? (Score:5, Informative)
Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait... we hates the KKK so it's just "publishing" informaiton.
Information we don't even have decent proof as to the nature of the source.
Like Dan Rather's proof that Bush got preferential treatment - Until the documents were proved as forgeries - That's ok, he said, the documents are fake but what they said is true!
So which is it? Do Slashdot's editors now agree that doxxing is good?
Re: (Score:3)
So if your name shows up in this dump, will that be a public service too? Because it most certainly could. What possible mechanism do you think exists to unequivocally verify whether any of these names denote actual members of the KKK before their reputations are irreparable tarnished?
Re: (Score:3)
How is it no malicious? They intend for these people to be mobbed, it is the whole point of releasing the names.
a real false flag (Score:2, Insightful)
The data in this one makes no sense.
This isn't Anon, this is someone else trying to discredit Anonymous before the real data comes out.
Re:a real false flag (Score:5, Interesting)
4 US senators named so far, yet no denials or complaints by the senators in question yet. If this was fake, why wouldn't someone whose name is on it expose it as a fake?
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to the ISIS publication.... (Score:2, Informative)
Oh wait, they are not doing anything to expose actual terrorists, because that might actually be dangerous?
I don't think much of the KKK but to call them "terrorists" seems a pretty big stretch at this point because they've not really done anything, or been relevant for some time. They probably talk a lot of shit on private mailing lists, but as we all SHOULD know that doesn't mean much.
Not dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
When was that again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cases of arson, lynching, beatings, killings, cross burnings and voter suppression in an organized manner against a specific segment of the population?....The frequency is down but it still occurs or is overlooked.
But when was the last time any of that happened? I have not seen stories about anything like that for many years - the most recent stuff being black churches set fire to, which it turned out was not don't by the KKK at all (who would seem to have been a primary suspect).
I'm not saying the KKK has not been a horrible organization in the past, or even that they are in any way an organization that should be supported today. I'm saying that they have become essentially irrelevant, and the resources used to combat the "terrorists" of the KKK would be far better spent on real terrorists - but they aren't because the real terrorists can bite. Attacking the KKK like this is lame because it's pretending to help people while actually helping no-one.
The KKK is dying, why even give them the publicity these attacks grant? It can only help the KKK at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Racism is alive and well. KKK is just not the most boisterous brand right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't heard much from Al Queda in a few years. Does that mean they're back on the Xmas card list?
Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is a terrorist?
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
So are you saying that the KKK does not use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?
Re: (Score:2)
No, not as far as I know. Well, not lately.
I find the notion of the KKK abhorrent, an I despise anybody that would join such an organization. However, if they have not broken a law, there is honestly not much that you can or should do to these people, from a legal perspective. Feel free to shun them, and call them names. But having an ideology (no matter how stupid it is) and joining a group is not, by
Re: (Score:2)
They do, but they're not remotely the threat that they used to be. The various non-KKK white power groups are more of a problem.
I despise the KKK and what they stand for, but as long as they're not using violence or threat of violence, they have the right to undertake their actions anonymously. The ACLU has sided with them several times on free speech and anonymity points. Publishing this list is a form of presumed guilt, and as others have mentioned, there's little way to prove that it's accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think much of the KKK but to call them "terrorists" seems a pretty big stretch
The KKK has done some pretty bad things over the past decades. On equal with what ISIS and other terrorists have done.
Indeed the definition of terrorism is "the use of violence is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
http://withoutsanctuary.org/ [withoutsanctuary.org]
Tell me that was not violence for political purposes. Try me.
Just because the lynchings aren't widespread anymore doesn't m
Re: (Score:2)
The KKK is by definition a terrorist organization. The intentional try to instill fear in people for their own personal agenda.
Which ... Ironically ... Is EXACTLY WHAT ANONYMOUS DOES. They just don't have the balls to do anything other than hide in moms basement and run scripts someone else wrote while they hide. The Internet is the silly named groups white hoods, they are just too stupid to realize how idiotic they make themselves look
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, they are not doing anything to expose actual terrorists...
Oh really? [thehackernews.com] The only people that seems to have scared them off are the drug cartels.
Questionable Accuracy: Include Gay, Latina Mayors (Score:5, Interesting)
An alternative theory - a lot of these individuals may have signed up for these mailing lists simply to monitor these groups, and some of them may have just been signed up by other people as a prank. Just pulling information from a mailing list hardly represents membership.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the kind of thing they would do "for the lulz" based on previous exploits.
Dicks v Assholes? (Score:2)
I'm with the dicks.
The Reason for the Russian (Score:5, Insightful)
So, a lot of people have been asking about this...asking why so many of the addresses end in ".ru"
Fundamentally...think about it. Russia is a haven for a lot of different things, including bulletproof hosting that is beyond the reach of the FBI and other Western LEOs, either via direct raids, wiretaps or by more procedural means (subpoenas, etc.). So it entirely makes sense that people who are, in the truest sense of the word, interested in the overthrow of the US Government as it exists today should use email accounts that are hosted in Russia, far from the reach of the organizations that are out to get them.
You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
The Klan as a mainstream group, even in the deep south, peaked in the 1920's. It had a brief minor resurgence in the 1960's during the civil rights movement, but for the most part it's a fringe-of-a-fringe-of-a-fringe movement and has been for most of its existence. Exposing them isn't even fighting racism, since their membership rolls today are made up of a tiny handful of disenfranchised rednecks who don't have any power to oppress or intimidate anyone. Hitting them today is like stabbing Julius Caesar several decades after his funeral. It's a pointless feel-good exercise that doesn't help anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm pretty much in agreement with you (though I wouldn't discount the idea that politicians were part of the rank-and-file, they'd just be more clever at hiding it), if I were in law enforcement, I'd be very careful about a resurgence of the KKK if race is going to be a hot topic during the next year and for election season.
Not that I advocate arresting people for thought crimes. I'm just saying that if there's going to be a resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the form of Black Lives Matter (w
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just saying that if there's going to be a resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the form of Black Lives Matter (we'll see if that hasn't calmed down within the next year), there IS going to be a counter-movement as a reaction.
I think that more or less, the general intensity of racism is less than it used to be. It's debatable what the reasons are, but because of this I think the kind of open, militant racism of the 1960s or earlier Klan or any other racist groups just won't fly, regardless of whe
Re: (Score:3)
Unless of course the 4 Republican Senators so far listed are indeed KKK members. If so the rednecks aren't quite as disenfranchised as one might hope.
First they came for (Score:2, Funny)
First they came for the pedophiles. I was not a pedophile, so I did nothing.
Then they came for the Klansmen. I was not a Klan member, so I did nothing.
Then they came for the Anonymous Cowards who post on Slashdot.
There was nobody left but me and my buddy CowboyNeal and we were no match for The Legion.
What, not you too CowboyNeal. Nooooooo!!!!!!!
Unfortunately-- (Score:3, Funny)
Who? (Score:2)
You are abhorrent. Criminal. You are more than extremists. You are more than a hate group. You operate much more like terrorists and you should be recognized as such. You are terrorists that hide your identities beneath sheets and infiltrate society on every level
Are they talking about themselves or the KKK ?
They have a "point" to make (Score:2)
Oh great, now their hat sewing pattern is all over Interwebs. Thanks alot.
Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed (Score:4, Funny)
There are dark times ahead for the KKK.
Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger (Score:5, Informative)
In Freakonomics, they delve into one man's 30 year war against the KKK, where he broadcasts things like their secret rituals and so on, on radio shows, effectively turning them from a serious organization to a laughingstock few people (relatively) wanted to join, in the early part of the century.
The vast bulk of damage to them is already long done. The point of the article was mockery, rather than outlawing, seemed to be much more productive.
Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger (Score:5, Informative)
The usefulness of your post notwithstanding, I heard in a news broadcast a few months ago (to my recollection) that the Klan's membership used to numbers in the millions at its peak and is now measured in tens of thousands. Happily, it's a club apparently on the decline.
The clan has had many rises and falls throughout history -- it hasn't been one continuous organization. This is the third Ku Klux Klan active. The first arose (and fell) during Southern Reconstruction after the Civil War, the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people), and the third arose post-World War II. Who knows if a fourth will ever arise. At first, I thought it would be more difficult in today's world of hyper-connectedness, but one of the side-effects is that it's now far easier for geographically-distant radicals to band together and enjoy their echo chamber.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't like the Tea Party either, but there's plenty of legitimate stuff to complain about, we don't need to assign negative traits to them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's because they're so abysmally low, that two people joining today probably is a 10% bump.
and, the Anonymous statement above "You seek to intimidate and/or eliminate those that are different from you and those that you dislike by any means possible" could equally be applied to Anonymous, just sayin....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm not defending the Klan or anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Being a passive racist is not the same as joining a racist organization.
Re: (Score:2)
As your first idiotic comment was corrected by WhiplashII above, here you go:
You are aware that almost all KKK members were democrats, right? And that the "party of Lincoln", also known as Republicans, fought a civil war to end slavery?
Please go ahead and continue to shout the lie... /quote.
Re: (Score:3)
So, what you're saying is as long as the accusation is "KKK" it is okay to be guilty until proven innocent.
Accusations are all you need? I think you might be a child molester and domestic terrorist.