#HoodsOff;Anonymous is exposing members of the KKK!

Draygoes

Fully Optimized
Messages
1,663
Location
United States
This is beautiful!
Can doxing be used for good? It seems like an odd question in a year when the prominent outing of personal details about women in gaming has become major news; of course we should oppose doxing! No one should be threatened with the release of personally identifying information! But that changes when the target of said outing is a booster of a major hate group: the KKK, an organization that has thrived in no small part because of its secretiveness. It's easy to make racialized threats from the comfort of a white hood, but the story changes when that hood comes off.
After tangling with Anonymous over a controversial and racist flier distributed in and around Saint Louis County in advance of anticipated protests surrounding a possible grand jury indictment over the Michael Brown shooting, the KKK got thoroughly spanked on Twitter when Anonymous seized control of the national account operated by the organization.


I dont wish to steal the entire article, so if you want to read the whole thing, you can find it here: Anonymous is doxing KKK members (and I'm OK with it)




I thought this would be worthy of its own thread, as it might provide some interesting conversation.


Now, my beliefe is simple. The KKK does nothing but harm people, and I have no mercy on people like that. The author of that article believes that a line was crossed when anon spilled the location, phone number, and other information that was related to the KKK's members. I disagree, and fully hope that the internet gives these pricks the thrashing they deserve.


I am fully open to anyones opinion (this is the internet, and this is a forum after all...), so please feel free to express your opinion on this subject if you wish.
 
Good article. A good read that made my day. ^^


While exposing people as members of a racist hate group is indeed an act of service to the public, providing information that could make them targets of aggression is not.

Even members of the KKK deserve to be safe in their homes, even if they believe that people of color do not deserve to be safe in their homes.

:blink:
I completely disagree. Treat others like you want to be treated yourself.
I believe if one throws a rock at someone that somewhat should be allowed to throw one back.
 
Same. That writer is a bit sketch in the way that they write the article. "You can do this, and they deserve it... but dont go too far."
 
Politics & religion, crazy subject matter. I support free speech. I dont agree with stifling speech even when I dont agree with it.
 
Fair enough. :)
What I do not agree with is violence. And they do a lot of that.
I will digress, because you do have a good point. Perhaps anon was just pushing some pent up aggression on people they do not like. In this case, I cannot blame them.
 
Last edited:
Police that may not deal with it fast enough?
Although, again, you do make a good point.
Still, I believe that a preemptive response is a good solution for a problem like this. I mean, would you prefer a war in the streets? (Although, that could happen anyway, its harder for them to do when everyone knows who they are and runs them off.)
 
So because police do deal with an issue "fast enough" we can now take care of it ourselves? Some people would love the names and addresses of women who had abortions published. Others would like gun owners to be outed. I prefer to let people do what they want until it interferes with my/your freedom.
 
So because police do deal with an issue "fast enough" we can now take care of it ourselves?
To a point, I believe that we should police others if we can. Should we rely on authority figures to do everything for us?

Please note that I am singling out that statement for a reason. I read your entire post, and just wanted to address that one issue with one statement.

Speaking of everything else, I really dont see why people that get an abortion, or any single person that is not a threat to anyone else in the community could be held up against the KKK or Black Panthers or other groups like that. The only reason that Anon is still Anon is because they can protect their identity well enough. A lot of their members have still been found out.


(On a slight up note, I wanted to thank you for providing this wonderful debate. Not many people can do this without it devolving into an argument, so its nice to actually have a real discussion. :) Its actually quite refreshing.)
 
Last edited:
Police that may not deal with it fast enough?
Although, again, you do make a good point.
Still, I believe that a preemptive response is a good solution for a problem like this. I mean, would you prefer a war in the streets? (Although, that could happen anyway, its harder for them to do when everyone knows who they are and runs them off.)

We have a rule of law in a civilised world for a reason.

If I say that you're a paedophile, and publish your home address it'd make your life hell, you may come to harm, you may even be killed.

If I tell the police that you're a paedophile, then they investigate in due course, it might not be quick enough for the liking of a lot of victims of crimes, but when the police eventually clear you, it'll be clear and obvious exactly why the rule of law and due process exists.



Just putting stuff online is dangerous, there can be cases of mistaken identity.

I have what you'd think was a very unique name,

in fact if you look at this site that uses census data to track the spread of surnames over a century

Great Britain Family Names

You'll find that my family name existed in only 1 county 130 years ago, and only exists in about 3 counties (in the same area now).

Yet someone entirely unrelated, who I have never met, and never had anything to do with:
shares the same name (first name, and surname) is around the same age and lives about 15 miles away.

With such a unique name, someone from anonymous would feel fairly confident that they had gotten the right guy, even when they actually have the wrong guy, who happens to share a very unique name, living in a small country etc as someone else.



Anyone who supports this is a bit of an idiot, who hasn't thought it through.
I can only hope that when (not if) the first time a crime is committed using these details that the people who published those details are also on trial as accessories to those crimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom