Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anonymous Takes On a Mexican Drug Cartel

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-know-they-have-guns-right dept.

Crime 548

New submitter NarcoTraficante writes "After one of their members was kidnapped in Veracruz, Mexico by the Zetas drug cartel, Mexican Anonymous members have issued an ultimatum to the Zetas in a recently posted YouTube video. The video demands the release of the kidnapped member and threatens to publish information of cartel members and affiliates in Veracruz if the victim is not released by November 5. The Houston Chronicle article warns that there will be bloodshed if Anonymous publishes information on the Zeta's operations, either perpetrated by rival cartels or reprisal attacks by the Zetas themselves."

cancel ×

548 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

already attacked (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880838)

There's already been one politician web page defaced denouncing him as a Zeta.
http://sdpnoticias.com/nota/216899/Anonymous_hackea_sitio_de_presunto_funcionario_involucrado_con_el_narco

frist poast (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880842)

Anonymous draws its roots from an online forum dedicated to bringing sensitive government documents and other material to light.

lol what?

Re:frist poast (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881154)

lol what?

What? You're a cretin, that's what.

Identifying what exactly? (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880844)

Somehow I don't think the Mexican Cartels are too worried about people finding out their names.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (5, Informative)

Daniel_is_Legnd (1447519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880920)

They claim to have the identities of corrupt police officers and journalists. That could prove more useful.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (2)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881136)

Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

Re:Identifying what exactly? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881200)

Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

This one looks pretty accurate [gustavorosario.com] .

Re:Identifying what exactly? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881210)

Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous?

Well, yeah. That's similar to what we've been doing so far with WikiLeaks, right?

Re:Identifying what exactly? (4, Informative)

Calibax (151875) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881232)

This has nothing to do with the USA (assuming that's what you meant by "we"). The threat is that they will publish a list of police officers, politicians journalists, etc. aligned with the Zetas. The competing cartels then kill them in the hope of weakening the Zetas - I don't think they are strong on needing proof.

Anonymous is threatening the Zetas with exposure to get their member released, they aren't threatening all the cartels.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (1)

ThePangolino (1756190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881326)

Last time I heard someone threaten a bunch of people with having a list, a dude named Robespierre I think, ended up dead quite fast.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881156)

The list would be so much shorter if they listed the honest ones.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (5, Informative)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881360)

You can pic any issue of Proceso magazine to read about corruption in Mexico, the Anonymous list will be used or can be used to falsely flag people in the payroll of cartels. We have already big troubles with the anonymous report of innocent people as members of cartels or kidnappers, we don't need a list made by script kiddies. My grandmother was falsely accused of being a kidnapper and had her house stormed by the army, my uncle beaten and my cousin sent to the hospital. In the end, it appeared that the ones doing the tip were the actual kidnappers to make a big fuss in my grandmother's small town were she is a loved and respected citizen, the kidnappers got away. Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880934)

If the fund any (US) politicians, they might be worried. Who benefits the most from prohibition, and who keeps prohibition going? Yeah, a bit tinfoily, but I've always wondered if there is a connection...

Re:Identifying what exactly? (5, Insightful)

todrules (882424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881370)

Of course there is. The anti-drug establishment is huge. Not only does it employ tons of people in law enforcement, but it allows a lot of otherwise law-abiding people to be incarcerated, which supports the penal system, which is a huge industry and has a lot of influence on our legislature.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (5, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881146)

So why are they getting their panties in a bunch over what a bunch of nerds publish about them? And kidnapping people that they believe to be part of Anon?

Given the PR that they like to generate about themselves, I'd say they are very sensitive about both details concerning their operations and their public image. Perhaps Anon can hurt them in ways that the Mexican authorities cannot. Anon doesn't give a sh*t about which politicians get taken down with the cartels, so that's one factor in their favor. Anon isn't constrained by laws the same way the police are. There are no rules of evidence, court issued warrants, civil rights, etc. that they have to concern themselves about. As long as they can keep themselves physically secure, its game on for the cyber war. Keep in mind that Mexican Anon doesn't necessarily have to be located in Mexico. Its going to be tough for the Zetas to reach out and touch someone posting from Boise, Idaho. Unfortunately, the person they have kidnapped will probably have to be written off as dead.

The other advantage that Anon has is that they can tailor their releases of info to instigate inter-cartel warfare. The Mexican police may be unwilling or unable to act. But the competition next door will be more than happy to take their enemies out.

Re:Identifying what exactly? (2)

znerk (1162519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881302)

Has anyone else noticed how CyberPunk [wikipedia.org] the world has gotten in the past couple years?

... just checking, chummer.

Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880860)

After all of the money spent fighting them, it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down. (Also a hoot) :-)

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880894)

Also extremely unlikely.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880904)

After all of the money spent fighting them, it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down. (Also a hoot) :-)

Also a miracle.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880940)

After all of the money spent fighting them, it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down.

If Anonymous releases info, they will be lucky if they are the only ones that are killed. These cartels don't just go after you. They go after you, your family, and your friends. They are extremely ruthless, and extremely smart. The prisoner they have, if he's not already dead, is getting worked over pretty good right now, and they will get him to talk. Then they'll kill him. Anonymous is in over their heads. It's one thing to deface some websites, or DDOS some banking websites. It's different to go after a group that is well armed and not restrained by morality and laws.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881000)

And these cartels can also magically track your ip address (even if you were using a VPN or proxy).

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881034)

They have one person. You can bet that a lot of these Anonymous members in Mexico know each other in real life, or have other identifying information. If you think stuff the US did to prisoners (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc) is bad, then you don't want to know what these cartel members will do. If they want you to talk, they will make you talk. Remember, there is a real world outside of computers. And it's painful.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (3)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881074)

You can bet that a lot of these Anonymous members in Mexico know each other in real life

Why do you bet that? I've observed several communities similar to Anonymous where the members not only have never met in real life, but they have no inclination to do so. Their entire relationship plays out online in relative or total anonymity.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881118)

First, you can be sure that they're smart enough to have a policy of "spill everything you know because we're going to assume it's been compromised anyway", same as the CIA and the military.

Second, most such groups are organized around cells of 2-3 members. You might know the other one or two, but you don't know anyone else. Your cell-mate knows you're gone, and has already gone down the rabbit-hole. They are assumed to be burned as well as the one who is missing. The druggies won't get anything useful.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881312)

Yes yes there certainly is, but do understand the computer one is a black box for you based on the context of your post, so you cannot bridge the two. The cartels would have to start an IT department lmfao. Also, the person they have if they have a person might just be a publicity stunt for them or a poser, one thing the cartels actually ARE known for is their indiscretion in their brutality and they might just be killing someone to show that they can and this is what will happen to you. I'd need a full server log and identity trace to believe otherwise, not even close.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881078)

And if Anonymous were primarily operating in or near Mexico, that would be a grave cause for concern. Given that Anonymous is primarily European or from the northern parts of the US, they're less of a physical threat. I highly doubt the Mexican cartels can easily strike at people living in Boston, or Washington, or Vancouver, or London, or Moscow. They're very powerful within their domain, but they don't have much reach.

Additionally, Anonymous is generally pretty good at remaining anonymous. The prisoner they have probably doesn't have much more information on the others than aliases, perhaps vague geographic areas.

Still, I don't think Anonymous has all that much ability to strike at the cartels, either. They're decent at taking down websites, but the cartels don't have any. They're good at digging up embarrassing information, but drug lords aren't public figures that can be shamed out of office. It's a classic stalemate - neither side can seriously affect the other.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (5, Interesting)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881138)

International drug trade is pretty high-tech these days. If Anonymous was able to strike Freedom Hosting for child porn, they'll at least inconvenience places like Silk Road.

The drug lords are sitting unashamed and well-armed in Mexico, but the infrastructure that finances them is all over the world, on the internet, and likely tied to people who can be shamed and arrested.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881340)

By making the identities of the cartel leaders starkly obvious, it draws world attention and thereby pressure on the mexican government from the world, so yes information is worth money and power to anybody.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

mkraft (200694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881084)

That's one of the benefits of the way Anonymous works. Even if the prisoner gives up the names of the few members he knows about (assuming he does), the prisoner would have no idea who the vast majority of members of Anonymous are. That's the way Anonymous is designed.

I would be like trying to stop a swarm of army ants by stepping on a few of them.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880954)

Heads will literally roll over this.

At best, any Anonymous outing would create a vacuum that will be quickly filled.

Americans want their drugs, pay for their drugs and our own government can't stop it, let alone some third worlders with much less resources.

Why any government or 3rd party institutions would put themselves between Americans and our drugs is beyond me.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (2)

steppedleader (2490064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880958)

Cartels don't work that way. Even in the unlikely event that Anonymous disrupted one cartel's operations, another will simply take its place, exactly like what happens when the police do the same. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881098)

You missed the point - anonymous isn't trying to end the drug cartels - they want the release of a certain person or they'll expose all the cartels "partners" - the crooked cops, politicians, newswriters, etc., who are enablers.

Then the other cartels go after that cartels partners-in-crime - either by co-opting them, or eliminating them if they don't play ball. The problem with co-opting them is they're not all that useful once it's known they're crooked.

Another side effect is that's one cartel less to worry about.

So anonymous takes out kiddie porn rings, exposes crooked politicians and cops and drug dealers ... someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (3, Insightful)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881236)

someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

It's a philosophical question of vigilantism. Is it morally right to take the law into your own hands when you perceive that the police, judges, and juries aren't doing their job? We can probably come up with scenarios that all but the purist will sit back and snicker about (e.g., CP) -- and we can come up with scenarios that fewer people support (remember Bernhard Goetz [wikipedia.org] ?). We might even come up with scenarios that almost no-one supports (e.g., road rage -- yes, road-rage is a form of vigilantism where a person goes berserk over a perceived crime and seeks their version of justice).

When these unelected, unaccountable, <ahem> anonymous people do something you agree with is one thing; when they do something you disagree with, now what?

Note: I'm not passing judgement. I'm just answering your question.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881318)

Dark Knight story line, part 3.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881240)

I think the point that is trying to be made is that the taking out of this particular group will simply result in a small hole in the overall problem, which will quickly be filled by another existing group, or a new group.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881258)

So anonymous takes out kiddie porn rings, exposes crooked politicians and cops and drug dealers ... someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

Exactly the fact that they do the jobs the cops and politicians won't touch makes them especially bad guys. Because it draws public attention to the fact that cops and politicians won't touch them.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881336)

I think it's obvious they are crooked once you know they are cops, politicians and newswriters.

Adding the fact they are Mexican doesn't make it any more certain. They're no such thing as 110% crooked.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880962)

I have to say, I also kind of love this idea. I wonder, however, how much information technology might affect a drug cartel. I've always imagined their operations to be conducted largely in meatspace. Surely anonymous can stir up some antagonism between the gangs and also provide information to law enforcement in the process.

Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881104)

Denying them access to communication and organisation via the internet would be effective in it's own right. Unfortunately, Anonymous gets bored easily, ruling out any persistent denial of service.

Police (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880882)

So why do the police not have this information? Or do they make up the majority of the people on the list?

Re:Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880912)

Better quesrion is how did the cartel know who is a part of Anonymous? Is the cartels online presence that significant?

Re:Police (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881224)

More likely, the cartel kidnapped the family of somebody in Anonymous because they owe them money or something stupid like that, and the person decided to organize a posse. Kidnappings like that are common place in the parts of Mexico affected by the drug war.

Re:Police (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880914)

What a dumb question.

Re:Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880928)

Because most likely some of the people in question leaking said information is equally part of it.
Also probably one of the reasons for the kidnapping.

Or possibly that they never paid up and they were just one of many people who were caught, this time it just happened to be one of the people part of one of the sub-groups of Anonymous.

Re:Police (2)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880956)

So why do the police not have this information? Or do they make up the majority of the people on the list?

And if they had the information, what would happen then? Heh. That's not how things work in Mexico.

Re:Police (4, Insightful)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881012)

because the police make a %^&*( ton of money off the drug trade. they don't want to stop it either. a lot of the police districts in the south near the Mexican border when they seize drugs going north they get money from the feds. when they seize cash going south to the cartel's they get to keep it and add it to their budget.
if they solve the problem they will lose money, and they don't want that.

Re:Police (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881192)

In mexico, the police are running scared. The gangs are better armed, better equipped, better trained, with people who want to make money at the cost of their lives. It also doesn't help when the cartels string people up from bridges, skinned alive. Generally makes people lose their nerve to fight.

Re:Police (3)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881268)

In mexico, the police are running scared.

Only the honest cops. The rest are on the cartels payroll. And it also doesn't help that in many cases the Mexican army has also helped and protected the cartels as well. Of course, this comes more into play in protecting the cartels at the border from ICE.

Spaniard accent !!!?? (2)

bzImage8 (676865) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880884)

It won't be difficult; we all know who they are and where they are located," says the man, who underlines the group's international ties by speaking Spanish with the accent of a Spaniard while using Mexican slang."

LOL.. the guy its using a text to speech program.. !!!

News For Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880888)

Please, how in the fuck is this news for nerds?

    Please stay in your lane, editors.

Re:News For Nerds (2)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881006)

Please, how in the fuck is this news for nerds?

    Please stay in your lane, editors.

Oh, so just cause you're not interested means you must deprive the rest?

Interesting... tell me more about your childhood. No sibs, or youngest child?

-AI

Re:News For Nerds (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881054)

An online group wants to take on a real-life drug cartel. This is definitely news for nerds you dumb fuck.

Re:News For Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881184)

And how is it not?

Information wars, my friend.
Information is Knowledge.
Knowledge is the tool of the nerd.

Please, go back to wherever you came from. You don't know what /. is.

Drug Cartels (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880892)

Can I just say that I think it is fucking ridiculous that we send troops all over the world, even just lately to Uganda, but yet we let fucking Mexico turn into New Afghanistan before our eyes. Oh wait. I know. Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up. More drugs more problems more need for daddy DoD to swell and swell and enforce and strip rights way.

Nevermind Mexico. As you were. We'll come knocking when you actually threaten our financial interest. Until then, keep up the good show. We won't bother.

Re:Drug Cartels (5, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880918)

Politicians cannot stop the war on drugs. Too many votes, I mean jobs depend on it.

Re:Drug Cartels (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880936)

I think you're worried about the wrong issue here.

The real issue that's, as you say, fucking ridiculous, is that Mexico has sent troops to the United States.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/mexican-troops-conduct-vehicle-search-on-u-s-soil.html

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/24/seal-equipo-seis-united-states-objects-to-mexican-troops-briefly-entering-u-s/

Et cetera. Do some light Googling.

Well. Despite being fucking ridiculous, I guess I can understand the reasons why we haven't done anything. Our government can't protect us from people bringing full-sized bottles of shampoo onto planes; they certainly wouldn't be able to stop the fifth column of illegals they've happily let into our country, were it to come to blows.

Re:Drug Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881026)

US doesn't send troops to their puppet governments...
US Companies and government are already making money by selling weapons to the Mexican army.
Also, guess where the cartels get the majority of their weapons from.

Re:Drug Cartels (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881128)

The total percentage of weapons coming from the US into cartel and mexican civvie hands through US civvie or .gov channels is less than 14%(of which US civvie sourced weapons are between 5% and 7% of the total weapons held by mexicans). That means 84% of the weapons in Mexico are never present in the US at all. Try whipping up a more pertinent taking point next time.

Re:Drug Cartels (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881042)

The last time US troops were sent to Mexico, we took over half their territory. Sending American troops to stabilize Mexico would be like German troops stabilizing Poland.

Re:Drug Cartels (5, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881050)

Mexico is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything? We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies. What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

The US government sold the cartels thousands of guns, which have been used to kill hundreds of people including police officers and politicians. I'm sure the Mexicans would be just as happy not to have much more "help" from the US.

Re:Drug Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881220)

Wait, so it's OK to invade a country on the other side of the world, but attacking on drug cartels just below the border isn't? Those countries are also sovereign and US has nothing to do with them (except the love of oil), so what's the big f*cking difference?

Re:Drug Cartels (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881254)

Invading Mexico to stop the cartels makes more sense than invading Iraq for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Drug Cartels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881284)

We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies.

[Citation Needed]

Seriously. Unless we have on the order of 100-150,000 troops, agents, or personnel tasked JUST to combat the cartels, it's a joke.

The southern US border is almost 3000 miles. My above number, would be anywhere from 33 to 50 people per mile for monitoring, and disruption of the cartels as they're crossing the border. That's on OUR side of the border.Having been to and driven along the southern border from TX to California, I have yet to see THAT kind of density of said agencies.

I say OUR side of the border, because we shouldn't be crossing into Mexico unless we're explicitly asked to by their Government. Trying to keep things sovereign and all, right?

Re:Drug Cartels (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881330)

I get that. But we let the Cartels get away with it. We send them guns. We keep the region unstable. Sound familiar? Stability in Mexico apparently is not financially beneficial to the United States. Otherwise I believe we would be working with their government in a different way. Not that there are not good border patrol agents and good people working to fight the corruption and drugs and all that, but doesn't it seem like we should be doing more at the border to stabilize that region in our own country? Our border counties in the US are not the safest places in the world. There are safer provinces in Afghanistan. We are letting Mexico turn into new Afghanistan. Yes it is shameful. Sure it sounds condescending. But can you honestly say that we are sending more money to stabilize Mexico than we are the middle east? Where's the priorities? It is a damn sad shame what is happening to their government, and no I do not think we should impinge on their sovereignty or their people, no more than we should middle eastern nations, but the fact of the matter is immediate borders are important. I'm not talking about just rounding up all Mexicans and shooting them back across the border. I'm talking about smarter border policies and less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place.

The second drugs are legalized across the board in the US, you can bet your bottom dollar that the value of all those illegal runs will drop to zero. But the political circus would never do that, nor anything else productive other than stay in gridlock lockstep to protect the old guard and keep things the way they are.

You're not Listening (4, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881338)

I don't think you're reading his statement correctly. I'm not sure you can read any justification for sovereign manipulation into his statements. He's simply saying that if we insist on putting troops in other countries to suit our interests (which includes nations we like, by the way, such as Japan, Germany, and Turkey) why do we ignore that option when an immediate neighbor has paramilitary uprisings in border territories?

Asking why we're pursuing the imperial option stupidly and inconsistently doesn't mean he's justifying the imperial option itself.

Re:Drug Cartels (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881066)

Are you unfamiliar with the "Mérida Initiative"("Plan Mexico" to skeptics)? For reasons, um, wholly unrelated to that incident where the border between Mexico and the US shifted abruptly some time back, Mexico takes considerable offense at the idea of US troops on its soil. We've settled for rolling out just about all the various instruments of policy-by-proxy we have available there and elsewhere in Latin America(Plan Columbia, Central American Regional Security Initiative, Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, likely the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in some capacity)

We've carefully avoided doing anything terribly effective; because Prohibition 2.0 is Going Just Fine Thanks For Asking; but unless our plans involve a shooting war with Mexico, an overt military presence in the area seems unlikely(and dubiously productive, most drug production is protected by means other than brute force, which makes soldiers less useful than they might be).

Re:Drug Cartels (1)

Dragon Bait (997809) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881332)

but unless our plans involve a shooting war with Mexico

Extending your argument, can you imagine how stupid a shooting war with Mexico would be? I'm not saying that Mexico could "win" (everyone would lose), but look at the negative impact on the economy if the people who hail from Mexico suddenly went home. What if instead of going home they decided to take out a few neighborhoods.

No, I'm not saying that Mexicans are inherently violent. I am saying that if the United States were stupid enough to start a shooting war with Mexico, some portion of the population that is currently here would not choose the American side.

When all the cost is counted, the Mexican people have paid a far higher price for the "war on drugs" than the Americans have. It would also appear that the Mexican government is more committed to the war on drugs than American politicians are.

Re:Drug Cartels (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881358)

nah- youd just declare mission accomplised after a few weeks and still be losing the war 2 years later.

Re:Drug Cartels (3, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881196)

"Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up.":

During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999. However, in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29 [wikipedia.org]

Of course in October 2001 the US and allied forces invaded Afghanistan.

Despite the [2009] decrease, Afghanistan is still the world's leading producer of opium. (...) In 2009, Afghanistan cultivated 123,000 hectares of opium compared to 157,000 hectares in 2008 (...) In 2009, 6,900 tons of opium were produced compared to 7,700 tons in 2008.

-- http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/02/us-afghanistan-drugs-factbox-sb-idUSTRE58144M20090902 [reuters.com]

/b/ takes no prisoners (1)

flanders_down (2424442) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880906)

They're behind seven proxies. The Zetas are phucked.

Re:/b/ takes no prisoners (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880994)

The Zetas are not constrained by secrecy, they are constrained by a lack of resources and will on the part of the government.

Re:/b/ takes no prisoners (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881064)

The Zetas are behind fully automatic AK-47s, armored plating, and millions of dollars. I would say Anonymous is fucked.

Re:/b/ takes no prisoners (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881160)

The Zetas are behind fully automatic AK-47s, armored plating, and millions of dollars. I would say Anonymous is fucked.

And those AK-47s, armored plating, and millions of bucks is useless against a target you can't even target who threatens to out all your crooked connections, like the identities of the cops and politicians on your payroll.

Re:/b/ takes no prisoners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881170)

For some reason this XKCD comes to mind

http://xkcd.com/538/

Some people seem to think because they are 'anonymous' on the internet that they really are anonymous...

Gangs like the Zetas back up their vendettas with the butt of a gun and reign of bullets...
Gangs like Anonymous back up their vendettas with putting dirty laundry out for all to see and DOS attacks.

In many ways Anonymous brought a twig to a machine gun fight.

One way to try to get in the US Gov's good books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880926)

These Cartels are a big thorn in the side of the US and especially the FDA.
If Anonymous succeeds here can the US Gov really continue its witch hunt of them?

Sadly the answer is yes. Anonymous has done far too much 'bad stuff' to get the US Gov to say, 'all is forgiven'.

Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37880980)

There's also the fact that they won't take down the drug cartels by revealing a few people on their pay, that Anonymous is not a single person or group that can be legally dealt with, or that being in Anonymous is not a crime. Basically, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881048)

"Anonymous" isn't a single group, it's whatever the fuck people want it to be. "Anonymous" has been responsible for hacking kiddie porn sites, yet at the same time trolling sites for people with epilepsy by putting flashing images on them. Those two "anonymous" groups are clearly not the same. Anyone can do whatever and say it's anonymous, there are even groups that don't frequent /b/, it's just a free for all and an excuse to do whatever.

Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881092)

For the love of all sanity mod this insightful/informative!

Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881250)

Maybe we should hack some random server and leave a file behind saying "Anonymous 2.0". That'll scare the hell out of them ;-)

Ooooh.... snap! (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880932)

I will BUY TICKETS to that EVENT!

Wonder if Vegas is taking bets?

-AI

Well, THIS should be entertaining (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880946)

I suppose the outcome of this is going to depend on which faction of Anonymous we're talking about here. Any of the Mexican drug cartels are definitely not Amateur Night. I have to wonder if the Anonymous in question here really understands on a visceral level that these people (if you can refer to any of these drug cartel animals as "people"), if they find them, will kill them, likely in the most hideous and painful manner possible.

Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining (5, Interesting)

Kindgott (165758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881038)

The Zetas will have to worry about the other cartels coming for them and their allies if the names are released.

Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881052)

please keep in mind that Anonymous fails far more frequently than it succeeds.

Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881076)

Oh, believe me, I'm taking that into account here, it's just that in this case "EPIC FAIL" may make work for the local coroner's office.

Anonymous is screwed now (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880966)

Holder will be sending the cartels even more guns.

This is all well and good but... (4, Interesting)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37880986)

This is not exactly the first online community that has been victimized by the Mexican drug cartels lately. ...So if Anonymous has the muy macho cajones, and it seems they do... I wish them well in their endeavors. http://www.npr.org/2011/09/23/140745739/mexican-drug-cartels-now-menace-social-media [npr.org]

Re:This is all well and good but... (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881014)

The thing is Anonymous are not 'idealistic' bloggers. This is where they have the advantage. The hard core Anonymous that is.

Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881010)

The drug cartels are not playing Anon's little kids game of doxing people. :(

Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881292)

But who can the cartels retaliate against? Isn't that the whole principle of anonymous, the anonymity?

Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881334)

But who can the cartels retaliate against? Isn't that the whole principle of anonymous, the anonymity?

They have one guy already, right? They kill him. They kill his family. They kill his dog. They kill his neighbors. Then, just in case, they give his old high school buddies the same treatment.

won't help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881088)

one goes down another takes its place, with a little bloody war in between to sort things out.
Just drop the freaking war on drugs and it will all go away over night, no more gangsters with
enough money to corrupt whole countries

but the police prison system etc. etc. all make too much money to do that

Hard to Hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881094)

While these online hooligans are often nothing more, they seem to trend towards social justice....but my question is, if they could have all this info, when did they have it, and could they have done this sooner?
Are they responding in kind (having recently acquired the information in response to the situation)
are they bluffing (have faint leads but essentially have revealed all they know so far)
Did they have this info all along and could have published it, but did not for fear of reprisal?

Some of this we may find out on nov 5.

what I'm really wondering though, is if they could have done this all along ?years ago? , or if they only began to gather the information when they "needed" it.

remember remember (1)

verdent (2366320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881120)

the fifth of november...just sayin.

Brilliant Plan, Sherlock (3)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881142)

The person reportedly kidnapped is not named...

So your organization is called Anonymous and when one of you goes missing you threaten the suspected culprit while still not naming the missing guy?

It's not like the Zetas only 'disappear' a couple guys a year; they're a massive paramilitary threatening the public safety of entire states. How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return? Furthermore, this splinter of Anonymous is already at war with the Zetas. If they believe they can damage the Zetas so heavily with their supposed cache of information why didn't they do so weeks ago?

It all seems like weird internet posturing, although of course hacker groups and drug runners aren't exactly paragons of transparency. There may be so much back story missing that it's pointless to comment on.

Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881276)

It's not like the Zetas only 'disappear' a couple guys a year; they're a massive paramilitary threatening the public safety of entire states. How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww, they don't know which guy to return. What a personal disaster.

Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37881282)

How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

The anonymous one, of course. :-)

Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881368)

This is only to generate publicity prior to the release. The info's probably going to be released anyways unless the zetas return every single person they have kidnapped.

Not real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881252)

This is fake. It's not Anonymous. The bad thing about the Anonymous collective is that their very nature makes it very easy for anyone to masquerade as them.

The top most voted comments in the Youtube video confirm this.

And yeah, I live in México.

Re:Not real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881356)

There is no such thing as "Anonymous Collective". It is a blanket label that refers to hundreds of sub-groups that follow the same basic mentality: anonymity.

Many of these groups constantly in-fight, sometimes they come together for a single cause greater than their own disagreements with each other.

There is no, and never was an "original Anonymous", I know, I have been on the site where the whole mentality evolved from the very first post.
There was just a bunch of people throwing around stuff, which eventually evolved completely separate multiple roots of groups doing their own thing, be it taking on Scientology, spamming sites, hacking Myspaces, raiding that kids game Habbo, or attacking not particularly nice people like Hal Turner.
And none of those groups really knew of this existence either, until after a while where the whole "script kiddy" nonsense became very apparent that it wasn't at all script kiddy nonsense and was in fact actual custom tools and scripts. (For the idiots who don't know this, a script user isn't a script kiddy)
The only ones who are the script kiddies are the people recruited on those particular sites, the generic people who think they are part of a bigger cause, they are sheep following the trail of people higher up.

There, hopefully now this will dismiss some retarded myths about Anonymous. Shits annoying to read every god damn time an Anonymous article is posted.

Blood on their hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37881350)

Yes, because there is no way that a multi-million dollar cartel, who kills thousands of people, bribes thousands more, and controls a large stake in the drug running business could possibly have someone(s) from Anon on their payroll. Or people that are extremely proficient with computers and the such to find these people making the demands. I know Anon is careful. I know they have their systems and their secrets. But really, they are a small group of people, and the cartel is more than capable of dealing with them. The only ones they threaten with this list is the people they would expose (maybe a journalist is working for the Cartel because if they don't the Cartel would kill their family) and themselves. I certainly hope that they aren't foolish enough to actually go through with this. There will be blood on their hands.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?