Anonymous Plan Against Zetas is Back On

Anonymous has changed course again and now its plan to release names of supporters of the Zetas cartel is back on. The Atlantic interviewed Barrett Brown, speaking for the group, who said:

After it was cancelled we got to talking about it, and the video got a whole lot of views. [Members of Anonymous] had a vote amongst themselves and decided to go ahead."

The group will release about 60 names on Nov. 5, including that of a District Attorney in the United States. [More...]

"The DA has worked with another organized crime outfit that may or may not be peripheral to the Zetas, but which is probably not connected in any significant way," Brown told us in an email. "That info was provided by a separate informant yesterday and I'm investigating now."

Brown seems to expect a violent reaction to follow the release, but is unperturbed by it:

After the release, Brown says that the cartels things will take these things into their own hands … and in some cases will probably kill the people unmasked by Anonymous.

Brown said, "This is just inevitable." He said it "won't be the first time that Anonymous played a hand in someone's demise."

Brown says the Zetas plan is "like nothing" compared to other operations the group has been involved in such as one in Tunisia.

So now, in addition to threatening the cartel by exposing its supporters, it's insulting them by calling them small fry. Once again, my advice to Anonymous is tread slowly.

I also disapprove of Anonymous' use of "informants" and operating as an "intelligence agency." The last thing we need is to privatize Big Brother or ratting out others. We should be better than them (the government) and not stoop to their levels.

< Thursday Open Thread | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Third point: government action (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by observed on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    means trusting the drug warriors. Is that really a better option than anonymous?
    The drug war is the CAUSE of the crisis.

    the mexican government is notoriously (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:44:43 PM EST
    corrupt, and has been since long before the drug cartels emerged. so are most of the governments in central/south america. again, long preceeding the existence of drug cartels. so, for that matter, is the DEA, which feeds the corruption, via RICO, throughout the US and the world, by giving financial incentives to police forces, to do their jobs. in fact, the cartels are the only honest actors among them, they make no bones about who and what they are, no pretense there.

    that being all said, i am going to assume that anonymous has the ability to hack the zeta hackers, exposing them to the world as well. exploit their ego, and put them on the run, while destroying the very systems the cartels use in their operations. make the zetas pay dearly, by crushing their technological capabilities, and pushing them back to pre-computer era operational capabilities. all done without lifting a finger in violence.

    I've been a programmer and networker (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    for nearly 40 years. There are people in Anonymous beside whom I look like a kindergartner at it.

    Anonymous could, I am sure, do what you just described to the entire global economy and financial system in a few hours, almost like flipping a light switch.

    Imagine no clearing house transactions, no stock and commodity exchange systems, no checking, savings or credit card transactions, no industrial supplier orders made, received or fulfilled, no electronic financial transactions.

    Even no telecommunications if they wanted to. No dial tones. Even no electricity.


    yep. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:36:43 AM EST
    the world has become so dependent on technology, powered by electricity for the most part, if you took those systems down, everything else would fall with it. on the other hand, losing the ability to create robo stock trading programs might not necessarily be a bad thing.

    who is "we"? (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:07:44 PM EST
    I think Anonymous is more represenative of the people than the Mexican government, especially the police and army.
    Also, I suspect that calling the Zetas small fry is a calculated move.

    Also, it is just wrong to say that (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    Anonymous is in any way taking the law into its own hands. They are only dealing in information.
    They are threatening no physical action at all.
    In essence, they are simply reporting. Agree or disagree with their move, I think it's important to categorize it correctly.

    Pretty cavalier about anticipated (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    loss of life.  Can't support that.

    I understand your point, but (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:56:33 PM EST
    Anonymous is making no threats against anyone's life. What they are doing is refusing to be bullied.
    I'm not sure I agree with what they are doing, but it is a far, far cry from simple vigilantism.

    you assume that all the names would (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:43:08 AM EST
    be innocent civilians, involuntarily caught up in the cartel's activities. i don't. being outed is a risk you run, when participating in criminal activity. presumptively, they knew and accepted that as part of the deal.

    do i want anyone hurt or killed? no, of course not. however, if you play the game and accept the rewards, by definition, you also accept the risk that goes with them. anonymous is simply going to expose them, much as the police and courts would do. what happens after that is the fault of those who chose to involve themselves, not anonymous. they could always turn themselves in to the police, if they fear for their lives.


    I want to preemptively (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:50:10 AM EST
    add to your point:
    If you object that the police themselves are corrupt, then why do you prefer police action to Anonymous's?

    show me where i did first, (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    then perhaps i'll deign to respond:

    If you object that the police themselves are corrupt, then why do you prefer police action to Anonymous's?

    The Argument... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    ... is that many have not 'chose' to be associated, but were dragged in through fear of violence against them or their families.

    Doesn't matter, damned if they do, damned if they don't.  the reason the Cartels operate so boldly is because the fear of reprisal.  Standing up is the only way to cure that disease, unless of course you are the one in the cross-hairs.  

    But on the other hand knowingly leaking information that will get people killed is hardly reporting, they aren't doing it for philanthropic reasons, it's out of frustration and and at some level they are doing what the Cartels do, threaten people with violence that they have stated will occur because of their actions.

    Hopeless, and no one wins either way.


    Yep (none / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    In the "War on Drugs" everybody loses.

    What's that saying about a road (none / 0) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:28:30 PM EST
    and the best of intentions?