Anonymous Backs Off Plan to Name Zetas Associates

Smart move by Anonymous: They are backing off plans to name and publish details about supporters and associates of the Zetas cartel (Details here.).

According to Stratfor Intelligence Group (which automatically plays a video when you click, I hate that):

Since we have seen evidence of cartels employing their own computer scientists to engage in cybercrime, it is logical to conclude that the cartels likely have individuals working to track anti-cartel bloggers and hackers. Those individuals involved thus face the risk of abduction, injury and death — judging by how Los Zetas have dealt with threats in the past.

Anonymous is no match for the Zetas or any cartel. [More...]

Their plan to reveal information about those doing business with the Zetas unless two of their members believed to have been kidnapped by the group are released strikes me as a kind of vigilante justice. And we all know that vigilante justice is no justice at all. If someone is kidnapped, call the police and file a report and let them handle it. This plan was dangerous not only to themselves, but to anyone they publicly identified.

The Government doesn't need Anonymous' help. With all the electronic surveillance and privacy-intrusive techniques at its disposal, it's unlikely the group would turn up something not already known to the Government.

Anonymous' information may or may not be accurate or reliable. What if the group is mistaken about someone they identify as a supporter of the Zetas and a rival cartel acts to harm or kill the person based on Anonymous' posting?

Memo to Anonymous: Stay out of the law-enforcement game. It's not your expertise and too many people could be hurt.

< Another Jail Sentence for Lindsay Lohan | ACLU Releases Guide to Protesters' Legal Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And when law enforcement is on the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by observed on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    side of the cartels, what do you do?

    Anonymous Plan Back On (none / 0) (#2)
    by Michael Masinter on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    Given people who dissed the cartels (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 06:32:27 PM EST
    on Facebook have been murdered, this doesn't seem like a wise plan.

    Sure, but I think this talk about (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by observed on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 10:06:17 PM EST
    Zetas' reach sounds overblown.
    I don't believe they can reach hundreds of people in difference countries around the world---even if they can trace them.
    Furthermore, people are already dying by the thousands in Mexico over the drug wars.

    By the way, I"m curious if any drug money can be shown to have reach staunch drug warriors in the US (or Mexico).


    Does Wachovia count? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    They were doing well laundering drug money for the cartels.

    I'd imagine all the big banks are doing it, it would explain why we're still living under prohibition when all logic says its a bloody failure.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#4)
    by Makarov on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 06:43:44 PM EST
    is some people were likely to go ahead with the operation anyway, and it became a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.



    please put your links in html format (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 08:06:22 PM EST
    long urls skew the site and I have to delete the comment because I can't edit them.

    Please repost so I can delete this one.

    Use the link button at the top of the comment box or instructions below.



    Link changed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Makarov on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:22:37 AM EST
    My understanding is some people were likely to go ahead with the operation anyway, and it became a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

    updated link to story:


    Side question: (none / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    Why does Stratfor, which is run by a man who predicted in 1990 that the US would have a hot war with Japan during the next 10 years, have any credibility?

    Here's what Stratfor offers (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:33:12 AM EST
    and why people read them. I don't know anything about the founder, and I don't always agree with their viewpoint, but I'll take them over the Doogie Howser of Terrorism shills the Government trots out any day.

    as well as the (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:35:34 AM EST
    ex-DEA agents now working for "global secucrity firms" who keep claiming the sky is falling and we're as likely to find a cartel member as the milkman on our doorstep in the morning.

    The founder's record matters a lot. (none / 0) (#10)
    by observed on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 01:08:20 AM EST
    His prediction about Japan  ---as I recall, he wrote a book on the subject of the coming war with Japan---was worse than Jeanne Dixon level.
    I would also like to know how accurate Stratfor was in the run-up to the Iraq war.

    I first (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Makarov on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 02:24:26 AM EST
    read something from them around the time the second intifada began in 2000. They were reasonably accurate about conditions and predictions between Israel and the Palestinians.

    It seems to me that some things (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    the Stratfor brainiacs attack they do well with, but the other 50% of the time it seems like they are out of their skulls.