Anonymous Cancels Drug-Ring Attack 397
snydeq writes "Anonymous supporters have backed off threats to expose Zeta drug gang collaborators, an operation launched in early October as a retaliation for an alleged kidnapping of an Anonymous follower by the Mexico-based drug gang. Members of Anonymous had posted a video claiming the group could identify journalists, police officers, and taxi drivers who collaborate with the Zeta crime syndicate. Zeta has not shied away from targeting its online critics. In September the crime group hung two people from an overpass warning bloggers and 'online snitches' to beware. The decapitated body of another social-media reporter was found later with a similar warning. Worried about the impact on both misidentified people and Anonymous followers, other supporters of the Anonymous movement worked to dismantle the operation over the weekend. In effect, the group canceled the attack, according to online news site Milenio."
Tough guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Their "we can do anything, beware us!!" pissing contest quickly turned around when they realized shit just got real.
Re:Tough guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Their "we can do anything, beware us!!" pissing contest quickly turned around when they realized shit just got real.
...when they stopped messing with the FBI and defense contractors and moved up to Mexican drug cartels.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And here I thought those two would be about on even ground in terms of power, ruthlessness, and lawlessness. But clearly the Zetas have the FBI beat on overall intimidation. Guess that's the difference between getting dumped in prison vs hung from an overpass?
Re:Tough guys (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI will not come to one's house; rape and kill one's wife, girlfriend, mother, daughters, and/or sisters while making one watch; and then torture one to death, cut off one's head and leave it in one's lap for the police.
Comparing the FBI to the drug cartels is a text book example of one' foolish hyperbole undermining one's argument.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I believe Jose Padeilla would see things differently.
And although not directly the FBI, I am sure there are many other the US has disappeared to black sites, Abu Ghraib and Bagram who would support the claims that there isn't a whole lot of difference between tactics of the cartels and the US government.
Re: (Score:3)
While many might feel Jose got the short end of a stick, I don't think that it's at all accurate to imply that his family faced troubles like the OP mentioned. He might have been sent to Gitmo (since released, and actually got a trial -- that's good!), but his family wasn't raped or murdered or disfigured. That's a level of scary where the drug cartels are (from what I've read) far worse than the FBI/CIA are.
The FBI and CIA at least purport to behave in a manner consistent with the law. In the cases where
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI will not come to one's house; rape and kill one's wife, girlfriend, mother, daughters, and/or sisters while making one watch; and then torture one to death, cut off one's head and leave it in one's lap for the police.
No instead they will come to one's house; rape and kill one's wife, girlfriend, mother, daughters, and/or sisters while making one watch; and then torture one to death, Then frame you for the rape and killing of your family and have the world think you committed suicide over your horrible crime.
It's a suicide. Looks like she caught herself by surprise. /police-squad
Re: (Score:3)
Well but don't forget the low actual suicide rate of thos trying to commit suicide by jumping into the river...
Re: (Score:2)
Citation of course needed.
Re:Tough guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more that the FBI has to make criminal charges, the drug cartels indiscriminately kill everyone involved. That makes it a lot more dangerous to give leads for a hacker to hack. The actual hackers get punished pretty good by the FBI too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure thing:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2504320&cid=37912938 [slashdot.org]
Re:Tough guys (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, if you're crossing illegallly....you're an invader...*BOOM*.
Might that not cut down traffic a bit?
And heck...good target practice for picking off terrorists in other parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones ARE in use along the border, but while I'm all for capital punishment, and Texas certainly is, even Texans don't want to randomly kill people, capital punishment is reserved for people who have taken the lives of others intentionally. While they're ALL ABOUT hang'n 'em high, thats only when its actually justified.
The drones now are used with Infrared and other support features like cameras to direct officers into catching illegal crossing so they can send them home.
For the most part these illegals a
Re: (Score:2)
Movie suggestion for you: Crossing Over - Harrison Ford and boobies, how could you resist?
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler did less than this
What history books have you been reading? Hitler did much, much more than the Zetas could ever do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's not literally at random, there's some method to their madness, but their track record looks pretty [wikimedia.org] random [wikimedia.org] to any outsider.
And there are many more innocent people who have been tortured due to cases of mistaken identity and misplaced suspicion. You'd think they'd check those things before they start the torture, but you'd be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Hummm I guess they don't have the guts to face real evil. Maybe they will go back to attacking kids that put up websites about using bad words again.
Re:Tough guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Paedophiles and Scientology aren't evil? Christ, you must be from a rough neighborhood.
Re:Tough guys (Score:4)
Belgium? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Pedophile IMHO are evil. Scientology is at best annoying and a scam.
People that use the Sony Playstation network for the most part not evil and McKay Hatch the 14 year old kid also not evil.
Like I said maybe they will go back to picking on little children now since they lack the guts to go after really evil people that can strike back.
Re:Tough guys (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientology is at best annoying and a scam.
Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the people they have brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally), tortured (and yes, I mean that quite literally), killed, or bankrupted through intimidation using the legal system.
And they are infiltrating centers of power, a secret society beyond government bounds.
But other than that, they are 'at best annoying and a scam'.
Regards.
Re: (Score:3)
brainwashed (and yes, I mean that quite literally)
Actual cranial lavage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depend on the amount of time they feel like, torture is only the start of the problem. They might feel extra motivated and go after anonymous' family member just to be on the extra vengeful side.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again xkcd has a comment.
From Verse 849:
http://xkcd.com/849/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder why nobody else is considering the alternate explanation here?
It's possible that the Mexican drug cartels backed down or paid Anonymous off handsomely. Which is more pragmatic in the short run? Antagonize a bunch of people that do have information that can hurt you and your revenue.... or just pay them off and use them?
The Mexican drug cartels strike me as very very ruthless, and yet pragmatic in some cases. A more ordered evil than one might think. These are the same people that are probably g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tough guys (Score:5, Insightful)
wrong (Score:3)
the fact that anonymous is actually taken by the drug cartels as a serious threat that requires this much action basically tells that anonymous is on the same league with them in regard to impact now.
and someone will leak the data eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
They took "Anonymous" about as seriously as they take any snitch. Do you actually think that Mexican drug cartels consider Anonymous a serious threat? Are you fucking retarded?
Yeah, they go through the trouble of killing someone and displaying their mutilated bodies as foreplay. Are you fucking retarded?
They kill snitches and display their mutilated bodies because snitches are dangerous to the organization. They harm the families of snitches because snitches are dangerous to the organization. The more public the execution and the more those around the victim are harmed, the more dangerous they were to the organization.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous: We are going to release information about corrupt politicians and officers and reveal sensitive data about your bank accounts and properties.
Slashdot: NO! DON'T DO THAT! THERE WILL BE BLOODSHED! YOU ARE NOT WORST THAN TERRORISTS!
Anonymous: Sigh, fine, we won't.
Slashdot: HUR HUR not so tough now, are you?
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, its not just kids, its a lot of socially inept 40 year olds living in their parents basements as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Would have been much funnier if you had logged in to post it.
Bullies. (Score:5, Insightful)
They pick on the vulnerable for lulz. That's about it.
And just as anonymous was starting to make a diff (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been happy to hear lately about anonymous's campaign against child pornography distribution. I was even more happy to hear that they were taking action against Zeta. But this withdrawl makes me question the mettle of the group. Any time you fight against organized crime, there will always be fallout. But the only way these groups have been pushed further underground or quashed is by taking action, and typically through infiltration and exposing the key players. If they have it in their ability to expos
Re:And just as anonymous was starting to make a di (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because you'd do it if you could.
I mean, clearly you're risking your life fighting Mexican drug cartels right here ... as you call them cowards ... in the safety of your own home ... while you post on slashdot.
I think Anonymous is a bunch of idiots, but you're fucking retarded for calling them cowards.
Take your computer courage and STFU, you're EXACTLY like them. Big talk behind a computer, and I'm certain you'll shut up and cower in the face of actual danger.
Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Anon is short on balls, I think they probably didn't have as many damaging names as they implied, better to turn tail and collect more names rather than shoot off a pop-cap and get a bunch of people killed in return. I mean, if they had real damaging info that could threaten Zeta's future ability to operate, they could out it without taking credit.
Re:And just as anonymous was starting to make a di (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect what happened here is that a lot of members said "we're going to take down the cartels", the cartels didn't like that and responded by killing people. So now you're left with a bunch of shit-talking idiots and a few good hackers. The hackers aren't exactly useful here because I'm pretty sure the drug cartels don't go around storing details of their crimes on insecure servers. MAYBE some cartel member has an email account that might be of some use, but good luck hacking into a gmail account that you don't have any prior knowledge of. The rest of the anonymous members decided that maybe they should stop poking a hornet nest and tried to play it off as "well, we don't want anyone else to get hurt" rather than "we threatened some bad people, couldn't back it up, and got someone killed so we're not doing that anymore".
Undercover Brother(s) (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Anonymous would have (did?) discovered undercover moles inside the Zetas...... so the real question is who didn't want to be discovered by Anonymous?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it's because they are a bunch of cowards. It has nothing to do with the fact that they could have discovered undercover moles, or because they could accidentally damaged innocents, or any of the other reasons Slashdot was hysterically opposed to they doing anything. No, it HAS to be because they are a bunch of cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
Cowards wouldn't have initiated a challenge in the first place. Cowards don't throw down a gauntlet in front of the Zetas, and then walk away quietly. Something else is awry.
Re: (Score:3)
Cowards wouldn't have initiated a challenge in the first place. Cowards don't throw down a gauntlet in front of the Zetas, and then walk away quietly. Something else is awry.
I have no idea whether anonymous are cowards or not, but you are dead wrong, the behaviour exhibited is exactly how the classical cowardly school yard bully works, pushing people around and making demands until confronted and then finding some excuse to back down. whether they are cowards or not, backing down in this situation I think was probably smart, the moronic thing was getting into the situation in the first place, what sort of retard attacks a gang of people with money, resources and a complete lack
There was no other possible outcome (Score:2)
ANONYMOUS: we are basement-dwelling computer nerds who will attack you by hacking your web server and posting your info on the net!
DRUG CARTELS: we will kill you with AK-47s and cut your head off with a machete.
Any guesses to who would win?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would never back down from some mexican with a machete.
No, you'd die. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And Darwin smiles....
Re: (Score:2)
Who's Anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But I am part of Anonymous! Just look at my name!
Are they attacking /.? (Score:2)
I'm glad they didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing they backed away. Anonymous usually attacks organizations that are somewhat bound by law and fear of PR disasters, so their retaliation is quite limited. Drug cartels care for neither of them. That's why being a reporter in Mexico is a very risky thing to do.
Had they gone ahead with their attacks, they could have unleashed hell for all bloggers in Mexico. A lot of blood could be in their hands.
Re:I'm glad they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to stand up to bullies like the drug cartels is to exterminate them
Fixed. Standing up to bullies has never worked. Stopping bullies from bullying does.
Re: (Score:2)
They already know it works. It has been working for hundreds and thousands of years.
Re:I'm glad they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to stand up to bullies like the drug cartels is to defy them
Re: (Score:2)
Or, worse, your mutilated corpse is found along with those of your wife and children. Thus sending the message: "Oppose us and we'll not only go after you, but we'll go after the ones you care about." Many people might be willing to stand up to Zetas at the risk of their life, but when you factor in the lives of those they care about, it becomes harder to stand up to them.
In the end, I agree. Individual bloggers standing up to Zeta stand no chance. They need to be hit and hit hard by a military-level fo
Re:I'm glad they didn't (Score:5, Informative)
We are past the point of standing up to the Zetas with blog posts and words, the only way to deal with them is with military force
Or legalizing drugs in the US, removing the lions share of funding for the Mexican cartels.
Re: (Score:3)
They are already moving on from drug-related businesses to other ways of obtaining income. Not so long ago, they have started "taxing" the people in some locations - simply demanding that a certain amount of money is provided monthly, or else they will "punish" you.
Re:I'm glad they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
They can be if they are levied against the entire population (and not just businesses), which, of course, is only possible when organized crime is more powerful than the state.
Keep in mind that, historically, governments have evolved pretty much as organized crime that managed to stomp all its competition within specific borders. When you think about it, peasants giving their produce to a feudal lord who uses it to feed and otherwise maintain his own private army that lets him stay in power, is not really any different than school teachers paying to Zetas who uses that money for exact same purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
you say it sarcastically "Because once most of the money is gone, they will all just stop killing and go get real jobs....." and then you step on your argument "The reason so many people go to the drug gangs is because they money is good". if you stop the money and the guns pouring from the US to mexico, the gangs will have far less money. less money = less people involved.
there is not the same money in human trafficking. There just is not the same demand in the US for that service. without the demand
Re: (Score:2)
You would think a group called anonymous would avoid getting caught... In fact I'd be surprised if many of them were living in Mexico...
This is not some schoolyard fight.
Which is probably why they are backing down (I'm not saying anonymous are kids), but rather that you should choose your fights, and given what they have been fighting so far. This is probably not their fight.
Besides, drugs aren't transported over the internet, they can't attack their primary interests.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Attacking them with military force is exactly what sparked the current bloodbath. Felipe Calderon campaigned for the presidency of Mexico with a promise to go to war against the drug cartels, while his predecessor, Vicente Fox, suggested that drug legalization would cut off their source of funding and limit their power and influence. Drug cartel violence was a problem when Fox was president, but the situation was at least under control before 2006. When Calderon launched his military campaign, he found o
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. No it is not. But I have said this already so here's a link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2499980&cid=37885206 [slashdot.org].
Please excuse my grammar.
Re: (Score:3)
The other way to deal with it is to legalize drugs and the drug cartels and crime will go away. Have the govt subsidize it like corn if we must.
Re:I'm glad they didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Er, the cartels already know that.
And the discussions between different Anonymous-affiliated factions that I've seen reported didn't focus on fear of retaliation, they focussed on whether an action that would mainly reveal low level people who had been blackmailed into cooperation by the Zetas so that they could get murdered by rival drug gangs was in any way consistent with the ideals Anonymous wanted to advance, or productive in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is attacking people who are bound by law and PR, the people who are at least complicit and at worst corrupted by the gang. In particular, they claimed to have knowledge of police officers who are collaborating with the gangs, that alone is reason enough they should take the step and release the data. Hide yourself behind every proxy service you can think of and bite the bullet. They almost certainly won't be able to find you, and if they take out their anger on innocents that is, for better or worse
Re: (Score:2)
No, the blood would be on the hands of the cartel, and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Blood on the hands have never stop anonymous and wikileak one bit. Hell, it's what gave them street credential. Their own hands and heads bloodied after a long torture session is a different story.
Anonymous's actions never resulted to direct in loss of lives. When you outed people who are killed as a result, there is a direct consequences from your actions, instead of some theoretical debate if you indirectly put lives in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Constraints (Score:2)
POSEURS! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm at it, we've INVADED countries for lesser atrocities than these barbarian Zeta motherfuckers have committed. WHERE'S YOUR BALLS NOW, U.S.? Send a few dozen cruise missiles up their asses!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure your xenophobic neonazi ass won't care but please stop calling my country a shit-hole. Yes Mexico has problems in its backwater towns. But then again backwater towns are the stuff of legend even in the US. The big cities are still here, have always been, always be. They are for the most part safe. People go about their business as usual. In 2006 Monterrey was rated the safest city in Latin America for perspective. This last 5 years have been an uncomfortable bother, but we are far from the "civil w
summory (Score:5, Insightful)
Anon; "We'll expose you if you harm him."
Zeta, "Go ahead. We will kill every man, women, and child wearing a guy fawkes mask."
Mistaken Identity (Score:3)
You can throw out all the police state, abuse of power crap you want, the bottom line is in the end the FBI is accountable to SOMEONE and subject to laws and public outrage. There IS a limit to what they can and will do to you. The cartels have no such limit.
Like many said ages ago about them (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As the saying goes, you mess with the bull, you get the horns.
Nah, sometimes you get steak.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgetting what "Anonymous" means (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymous isn't a person, it's a meme. Even when you identify the people who participate and hold them responsible for the actions of the group, you're doing nothing to define what it is or keep it any less intangible. "We are legion" is another Christianity, another Patriotism, another The 99%, and it is indestructible because it has no body. It is only by the elimination of any memory and evidence that this kind of thing can be destroyed.
Even when governed it has no nature or goal. It is exactly as what each person who is aware of it decides it to be. The way those who call themselves Anonymous see themselves is just as much authority as the way those who do not call themselves Anonymous see them. It is the Ship of Thesius incarnate, My Grandfather's Axe in practice.
Don't bother judging the supposed declarations you see today. Just because you saw one collective of "Anonymous" back off doesn't mean another won't act differently. But still, we'll call them all the same. Every time they do something we appreciate or find unforgivable we'll still blame that same meaningless word.
Zeta made the mistake of having a name.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I'd like to see the headline "Anonymous Takes Down Zeta, Infamous Drug Cartel In Tatters", I really don't think Anonymous threatens Zeta. If Anonymous reveals names, Zeta will just start killing people associated (even remotely) with Anonymous until they stop. Zeta doesn't seem to have any moral issues with blood and gore. Besides, if Anonymous reveals names, what will it matter if Mexico's often corrupt politicians don't act on it?
Re:Forgetting what "Anonymous" means (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I'd like to see the headline "Anonymous Takes Down Zeta, Infamous Drug Cartel In Tatters", I really don't think Anonymous threatens Zeta. If Anonymous reveals names, Zeta will just start killing people associated (even remotely) with Anonymous until they stop. Zeta doesn't seem to have any moral issues with blood and gore. Besides, if Anonymous reveals names, what will it matter if Mexico's often corrupt politicians don't act on it?
Well, it's true for anything. That's the problem with even trying to consider "Anonymous" as any kind of entity with any involvement, and even the qualifications for membership is shaky, philosophically or otherwise. Do I stop being a member if I say I am a member? If I say I'm a member of Zeta, it's the majority of that community that has the right to say I'm not or just cleverly show me I'm not with a bullet to the face. The majority of Anonymous can't make that decision so easily because there's no validity in membership because then... well, they'd no longer be "Anonymous" if they could at all identify each other not would they have any way to verify how many members there are and who are the originators.
That's where the power is. Zeta can try to kill anyone they think is Anonymous but, for all they know, they'll have to kill every person on Earth or even their own membership to annihilate those people who've chose to associate with Anonymous. Even after eliminating with any certainty every member of Anonymous, because it is an idea it would be entirely possible for another person to take up the vague title again.
As for naming the members of Zeta, anyone can just do what Zeta does to others. There's nothing barring a person who thinks they're following the will of Anonymous from murdering someone. For both groups, they may rely much in their lack of identification to persist, but Anonymous is at much less risk of actually being identified.
This is a serious question that's due for an answer, and I fear most people haven't begun to realize that.
For the lulz, indeed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I hope you're trolling. The accusation that it was rape was retracted immediately by a senior prosecutor. The facts have surfaced that it turns out to be regarding a condom that broke, a matter which was politically labeled rape by a feminist police officer who was a personal friend of the accuser and also member of the same socialist party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the Mexican government, but the US government must be in favor of the drug cartels. They could shut them down with the stroke of a pen, the same way Congress put the bootleg gangs (Capone et al) out of business in 1933.
More people die from alcohol overdose than all other drugs combined. Should it be illegal? If not, then why are all the other drugs illegal?
The US government shares the blame with Zeta for the headless corpses. Sell the stuff in liquor stores and the cartels have no custome
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't buy pot from cartels, buy from domestic "hippies". We can hurt the cartels far more than anonymous by not sending our money to them.
People could just stick to the meth they get from the toxic house down the street, it'll kill faster the customer and producer both when the product is in greater demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Meth is highly addictive and will ruin your life, but it doesn't kill many people; afaik most deaths from meth is from when their "labs" explode and burn.
You must not know the difference between amphetamines and opiates. ODing on heroin is easy, ODing on meth isn't.
ODing on pot is impossible. There may be arguments for meth and heroin to be illegal (although I believe the laws against them harm society more than the drugs themselves), but there are no valid, rational reasons for pot to be illegal, except to
Re: (Score:2)
"No repeat offenders (you can't do it again if you have no money to buy more drugs)." They'll just start mugging naive folks, like yourself. Most junkies don't have a nest egg they're drawing from. They lie, cheat, steal, prostitute, and pimp people out to make that money.
It gets worse from there as you suggest we just set up an authoritarian regime that can rob
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a bit of a slippery slope in terms of the government taking private property, but did you read the shit the drug cartels do? I fear my government like any good American, but I'm way more afraid of the drug cartels, And I don't live anywhere near the Mexican border.
You know that stupid argument people use to justify pot... like, "well, alcohol and cigarettes are way worse so weed should be allowed, too!" Just because we let one bad thing go on doesn't open the door for every other bad thing, even if it's objectively demonstrable to be less bad.
So, if drug cartels do horrible things without consequences, does that mean the next step is to allow the government to do terrible things because the alternative has the potential for being worse?
Re: (Score:2)
There is also such a thing as unreasonable punishments which our legal system is (supposedly) designed to protect against as well. Just imagine I can fuck your life up permanently just by slipping a joint into your coat pocket and calling the police. Matter of fact I would be tempted to do this to anyone passing such a law if it ever happened.
A policy change would certainly be a good thing, namely removing marijuana from your list of offending substances (make it legal, but only if grown in the states and w
Re: (Score:2)
I followed all the links and I have found no evidence that those Anons have changed their minds.
There's no way to be certain that it was even "Anonymous" as we've come to know them who were responsible for the initial threats.