Anonymous Takes On a Mexican Drug Cartel 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."
already attacked (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
borderlandbeat.com
I hope that Anonymous has read up on the cartels. They don't play minor league down there. Those sumbitches just cut you up into tiny pieces, and scatter those pieces around the countryside. The average ggek or nerd looking to "do good" in the world would do well to steer clear of this mess. Zeta, like all the other cartels, own police chiefs, mayors, and governors, on both sides of the US/Mexican border. They own representatives in both Mexico City and Washington. And, by "own", I m
Re:already attacked (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think you don't understand 'Anonymous' at all. There is no 'Anonymous', 'Anonymous' is anonymous to itself. You do not join 'Anonymous', you either carry out activities in the name of 'Anonymous' anonymously or you do not.
In any case, when you comes to oppression, you either resist and work to end it or you live in fear and die when others choose to make you a random example anyhow.
The drug war is an insane activity of a corrupted organisation, the US government, designed it seems to promote pharmaceutical profits, allow the CIA a ready source of income, a means by which to destabilise other countries by forcing them to participate in drug war (whilst surreptitiously supporting the drug dealers ie money laundering and of course keeping the drugs illegal), ensure inflated profits for privatised prisons, maintain a massive anti-drug operation to suppress challenges to the status quo, allow intelligence operations to enter foreign countries masquerading as drug enforcement agents or paradoxically as drug dealers and of course the number one to win votes with the 'we're tough on crime' bullshit (of course excluding muggings, house break ins, car thefts, purse snatching, home invasions, crimes that affect the majority because, they are to busy chasing and convicting drug users).
The best war to declare war on violent criminals involved in the drug trade is to legalise drugs, quite simply bankrupt them.
Re:already attacked (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes - I understand who and what Anonymous is. You seem to miss an important point about Anonymous. While the rank and file of Anonymous is indeed very much anonymous, there are some core leaders who are very much less anonymous than the hangers on. The script kiddie who checks the forums now and then, and occasionally participates in an attack, is indeed quite anonymous. Not so with some of the higher profile people. While HBGary made complete asses of themselves, it is NOT an insurmountable task for a dedicated group of IT professionals to identify and locate some of the most active members of Anonymous. In fact, I'd be very surprised if the CIA and/or FBI haven't already done so.
Now, back to my point. To date, Anonymous has mostly gone after corporations, governments, and individuals who are civilized. To attack any criminal organization with no government, church, or social oversight is dangerous. Take a look at what is happening in Mexico today. People are butchered. In fact, truckloads and busloads of people are butchered. Many mass graves have been discovered in Mexico, some holding hundreds of bodies, others only dozens. In other cases, pickup trucks loaded with bodies have been dumped on major thoroughfares. The cartels are as lawless, and as savage as any organization in the world.
The most insane Muslim radicals have nothing on the cartels.
If and when the cartels identify anyone who they think belongs to Anonymous, we will be reading about yet another dismembered body, whether that body be in Mexico or the United States.
Oh yeah - Zeta doesn't have any special burden of proof to meet. If some foot soldier is only partly sure that he has identified an Anonymous member, that's good enough. No burden of proof, at all. In fact, if they are half sure that Anonymous has a member who lives in a subdivision, but can't determine who it is, they may well round up every living soul in that subdivision, slaughter them all, and leave one of their famous messages. Written in the victim's blood, of course.
Identifying what exactly? (Score:2)
Somehow I don't think the Mexican Cartels are too worried about people finding out their names.
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
This one looks pretty accurate [gustavorosario.com].
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, actually, this has a LOT to do with the USA.
The United States' "War on Drugs" is the root cause of all that violence in Mexico. And, NAFTA helped to deprive the common man in Mexico of his livelihood, mostly small farmers, thereby driving more recruits into the cartels. Add to that, the fact that there are now about 20 million lawbreaking illegal aliens in the United States. Some indeterminate number of those illegals are also members of Zeta and other cartels.
Everything drug related has to do with the United States. Everything.
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Be as facetious as you care to be. No other nation on earth declared a "War on Drugs", then spent untold billions persuading other nations to join that war. No other nation imports as many drugs as we do, while at the same time incarcerating everyone caught doing so. We have indeed created the situation in Mexico. The fact that so many Mexican officials are corrupt only makes the problem worse. The situation is our creation.
Got anything constructive to say? Would you like to refute any of my points? Or, would you prefer to make more pointless, inane comments?
Re: (Score:3)
Given that Mexico has acquired a narco culture that tries to give drugs a positive image, the US still has one more step to go it seems.
Also notice that this isn't a new thing in Mexico.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sinaloa-cradle-mexicos-narcotrafficking-industry-jesus-malverde-sinaloan-bandit-their-patron-saint [nowpublic.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That particular article pays tribute to one of many of the narco's "saints". One must understand a bit of history, to understand the myriad other "saints". The Azteca were death worshippers. Their capital was home to that infamous pyramid, atop which captives, slaves, and/or political opponents were killed.
Along came the Spaniards, and the Catholic church. Officially, and openly, people converted to Christianity. Covertly, however, the Azteca pulled off the same trick that others throughout the Caribbe
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
Add to that both the Netherlands and Portugal who have (basically) stopped the war on drugs, and have found that their drug problems drastically decreased. (You can start here if you aren't already aware of what i'm trying to explain: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html [time.com]) and it should be clear that we are definitely partly to blame for these problems. i suppose human nature and greed would be where the rest of the blame falls....
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)
They usually dump raw data that is incredibly hard to fabricate. Whether there are subtle changes within that data is another matter entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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."
That didn't happen in Mexico, which needs another revolution to liquidate organized crime.
Re: (Score:3)
It did happen in the early days of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The Constitution that emerged from that war was very advanced in 1917, and the revolutionary regime worked really well from the 1930's to the late 1950's but a bunch of stupid authoritarians ruined the country. The last batch of mexican presidents from 1982 to date have been far more pro USA than pro Mexico.
Agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Petty rivalry like this will only keep the machine rolling...it will not change anything.
The most effective way to defeat the Mexican drug cartels is very, very simple.
Take away their money.
No money, no power base, and that's that.
The most effective way to take away their money is equally simple:
Legalize their product. Put it under proper federal quality regulation and have legitimate taxpaying law-abiding businesses sell it.
In one action you simultaneously create millions of legitimate and sorely-needed jobs, and also instantly dis empower the strongest criminal segment of our society.
The war on drugs has empowered the worst of humans, and has utterly failed to restrict the supply of drugs available to our children in their schools. This approach to keeping our kids safe is thoughtless and does far, far more harm than good (which is no good at all). This is always the *inescapable* consequence of making highly-desired commodities illegal. More money wasted on law enforcement will only add fuel to the flames.
Keep kids off drugs by educating them about the dangers, not by ensuring that they must share a world full of extremely wealthy and powerful criminal drug lords who have no qualms about lacing food with drugs to get children addicted, or kidnapping and murdering them to get their own way.
Of course, the two biggest opponents of the clear-and-obvious-right-thing-to-do are:
1) conservative religious types who utterly lack the capacity for basic critical thinking
2) The drug lords themselves, who profit greatly from the fact that drugs are illegal
Honestly, I am not sure which is worse....the evil...or the stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Legalization would go a long way towards defeating the cartels. Granting Phillip Morris, British American Tobacco, and the other major tobacco companies licenses provided they take care of the cartels would finish the job and provide employment for a lot of returning OIF and OEF veterans, Mexican police, and marijuana growers in the US and Mexico.
Is it a perfect solution? No.
Is it entirely moral? No.
Does it drastically improve the situation? Yes.
Does it provide needed tax revenue for both Mexico and the
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, clearly does work that way. I can't remember the last time there was a shootout between Philip Morris and BAT over who gets the right to sell cigarettes in JuÃrez. You are arguing that prohibition is better then regulation, which is clearly bullshit, as we saw with the US in the 30s. Prohibition drives a market underground, away from the law, and empowers the most vicious people with wealth and influence beyond compare. The products they sell, due to their illegality, are often low-quality,
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
A slashdotter with a japanese name, quoting aspects of american law, and stating that his family is mexican? Let's face it, you're 16, white, and from toledo...
He has a ID of 1098, so he was around since the founding of Slashdot.
Considering Slashdot was founded in 1997, which is 14 years ago, for him to be 16 now, he would've joined the site when he was 2 years old.
He may be white and from Toledo, but I'm guessing he's at least 30+ in age.
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently you're allowed to choose any username you like on here. It doesn't even have to be your real name.
It doesn't? Aw, damn-- *now* they tell me...
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
So, your bitching about anonymous, using an example that has actually nothing to do with what anonymous is doing, but with corrupt or stupid ass police officals, who decided that a "tip" they received was enough proof to terroize your family.
Sounds to me like your just angry.
You know, the police in your grandma's town probably are working with the kidnappers, and used it as an excuse to beat some sense into your family. Because by your post, you need it.
ARMY, ARMY moron. The police in the town was used to deal only with domestic violence and the occasional brawl in the bar, not to face tugs with RPG's, AK-47 and Barret guns. The next door neighbor was kidnapped 7 months ago, a honest hard working man, leader of the real main opposition party in that municipality. His family now only expect to find his body. I can't visit my sick grandmother because the road is too dangerous to do that trip, so please go and fuck yourself. You don't know nothing.
The only proof that Anonymous will show if only they show a list with names will be their word. For less than that people as died at the hands of the army, the police and criminal gangs. The problem in Mexico is systemic, we have a impunity rate in crime of 98-99%, more than half of the population below poverty line and half of the nation's wealth in the hands of less than 40 families that monopolize all the economic life in the country. For a big percentage of our population the only chance to ever improve their lives is to emigrate to the USA or join a crime cartel. The first step is to break the monopolies, end the impunity at the top and send to jail all the corrupt politicians that rule the country, but, since they are allies of the USA like that SOB of Musarraf or Pinochet is hard to make it happen, even more when the DEA and ATF send happily thousands of guns to the criminal gangs and the US DoD even more weapons to the army.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm perfectly aware of that documentary, a coworker's brother was unjustly jailed because he had a difference with a investor and the guy used his friends in the police and courts to jail him. He spend 18 months inside jail, but he didn't had a chance to thank his lawyer because the lawyer was murdered a few days before his liberation. We don't know if the murder was related to this case or not, but this was really shocking. Laws to the letter are good, a lawyer here will say that our laws are more sane tha
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Has anyone else noticed how CyberPunk [wikipedia.org] the world has gotten in the past couple years?
... just checking, chummer.
Re: (Score:3)
And the disadvantage is that if Anonymous gets names of innocent people on the list by accident, they've given them a death sentence (also all the non-innocents as well). The Zetas' rival gangs will probably kill (or at least try to) everyone on the list. Anon better be damned certain about those names they release, or they're no better than the drug gangs themselves, and will have bloodshed of innocents directly attributable to their actions. (Which will make it easy for the US government, among others,
Re:Identifying what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Police (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
The guy in question was leafleting for Operation Paperstorm when he was kidnapped. Here's a quick tip, Anonymous: online, you have a better chance of remaining anonymous.
HAL.
Spaniard accent !!!?? (Score:2)
LOL.. the guy its using a text to speech program.. !!!
Drug Cartels (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)
You have an interesting definition of "let the Cartels get away with it". A more accurate definition might be "actively aid and abet these activities via material support and large quantities of funding".
A truly ridiculous aspect of the drug traffic issue is that the United States hasn't managed to control the infiltration of people across the border; the illegal immigrant problem has apparently reached epic proportions! Can the US actually expect to be able to control the movements of much smaller packages that drugs and money can be smuggled back and forth in?
As for your "less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place" plan, I agree wholeheartedly. Legalizing marijuana would be a phenomenal step in social management, as well as reducing the financial support we give to entities we can nearly all agree should not be profiting from us. I don't think it will "drop the value of all those illegal [drug] runs to zero", since we have pharmaceuticals crossing both the Mexican and the Canadian borders on a daily basis - apparently, it's orders of magnitude cheaper to ignore the patent-based monopolies in the US and acquire (supposedly) the exact same chemicals quasi-legally over the border; at least, that's what the spam in my inbox seems to indicate. Not just for "V1@GR@", but a wide array of prescription medications, everything from pain pills to antibiotics.
Marijuana has been clinically proven to be less physically damaging than either tobacco or alcohol (both of which are legal, albeit age-restricted), even with long-term usage. It keeps the (consuming) population docile, and it's incredibly cheap. Taxing it sounds like a great idea, but even just decriminalizing it would hit the drug cartels harder than sending 100,000 troops down to shoot at them, and it would hurt them where it matters: in the wallet. Why import it from Mexico, when it's so much less expensive to get it (literally, even) from your own back yard?
Marijuana grows in just about any conditions, that's part of the reason for the nickname "weed". Outlawing it is akin to outlawing carbon dioxide; how do you stop it? It has taken decades of strenuous effort to get rid of most of the "naturally occurring" cannabis growing alongside our nation's highways, never mind in a planter on someone's back porch. Criminalizing marijuana has simply given the cartels a (in effect, government-granted) monopoly on its production and distribution.
Patty Hearst and the paper industry were responsible for outlawing marijuana in the first place, because it was an economic threat - it's cheaper to make paper from marijuana than from trees. An acre of cannabis produces more paper than an acre of trees, because you can harvest every month instead of every few years. An acre of cannabis also produces more oxygen per year than an acre of trees - and it grows faster than the trees, with much less maintenance required, making it a much more renewable resource with a smaller carbon footprint. Add in the fact that you can grow hemp in a field with other plants, whereas trees pretty much exclude anything except grass, and the hemp seems (from an objective view) to become much more economically viable and environmentally friendly than many other products.
Hemp fiber is extremely versatile, and can be used to make all kinds of things that are currently made from less renewable resources - paper, clothing, rope, and even plastics and bio-fuels have been made from hemp. For example, replacing cotton with hemp would increase production by several orders of magnitude - cotton requires an entire growing season to become usable, whereas hemp is mature and ready for harvest in a much shorter time, allowing multiple "growing seasons" in the same amount of time; in addition, the cotton is confined to boles, whereas nearly the entire hemp plant is useful for its fibers.
As for its use in "self-medicating", it is interesting to note that "industrial" hemp has so little THC in it that it's barely measurable - you could smoke an e
You're not Listening (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking why we're pursuing the imperial option stupidly and inconsistently doesn't mean he's justifying the imperial option itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're not Listening (Score:4, Interesting)
Mexico is different. Firstly, it's close to America, so a real war would spill over into the southern US straightaway. Secondly, America is full of Mexican-Americans and illegals, who would take sides immediately. The result is that an imperialist adventure in Mexico would cause actual, real attacks on American soil everywhere, with actual, real consequences to people, actual real economic damage, and actual, real social upheaval and political crises.
Basically, the war in the Middle East is not a "real" war. The Second World War was a real war, and Vietnam was a semi-real war. Mexico would be a real war, and nobody wants that.
Re:You're not Listening (Score:4, Interesting)
why do we ignore that option when an immediate neighbor has paramilitary uprisings in border territories?
Because we have a wall and a heavy military presence to keep it from getting out of hand, and as long as we keep supplying arms to keep the balance of power between the cartels even, they won't become a threat to us. That's how MOST countries deal with this problem in countries they share borders with.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true on either count.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck you.
We have a stupid drunken moron for President because our oligarchs and the USA imposed him. This is documented. We held mass demonstrations far bigger than the ones in the Arab spring against him but you never saw us in CNN. Calderón, to hide his weakness, started his government with a show - I use show in the sense of spectacle- of force against the drug cartels in his birth state, Michoacán, but instead of running away the cartels held their ground. The conservative policies that protec
Re:Drug Cartels (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 populatio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ooooh.... snap! (Score:2)
I will BUY TICKETS to that EVENT!
Wonder if Vegas is taking bets?
-AI
Well, THIS should be entertaining (Score:2)
Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining (Score:5, Interesting)
The Zetas will have to worry about the other cartels coming for them and their allies if the names are released.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous is screwed now (Score:2)
Holder will be sending the cartels even more guns.
This is all well and good but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson (Score:2)
The drug cartels are not playing Anon's little kids game of doxing people. :(
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Brilliant Plan, Sherlock (Score:4)
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.
Zeta Response (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it's a sweet move. Let me explain. This is a drug cartel that is camped right on our border. They make tons of money, and chances are they are infected with the "need for high tech toys" that comes with that pile of easy money. Being that these are drug cartel people and not rocket scientists, this means they are probably exposed to the same technology holes in security that the rest of us are. These guys aren't Sony, and Sony got their ass handed to them in the tech security department. I doubt th
Re: (Score:3)
My question is, why aren't you people hunting these fuckers down? Just how fucked up is it there that you haven't just collectively cut their throats in the night? Is your entire society too scared or afraid or just apathetic and stay away from the entire area? Without doubt I am sure we have something to do with it. We seem to have no problem burning our own society down with a different kind of ruthless cartel. Ours is on Wall Street and Washington DC though and play for higher stakes.
What policies have w
After December, this is a self solving problem. (Score:3)
After December the wolves come home. Meaning this, our Military will be home, and there aren't a lot of jobs. But across the border are cartels, loaded with money and generally being a pain in the ass to the world.
This is where you take finely honed soldiers fresh from the combat zone, and start up some "private Black Ops". The combination of possibilities one can play here are limitless. You can make quick fast scores to finance bigger operations. Dig in, set up intel operations until you map out the players. Then it's a matter of figuring out the most elegant and effective low footprint means of eliminating them. Of course you capture their cache of money, dope, weapons, etc, but more importantly, you establish your own replacement system. You grease the right palms, don't abuse the locals, and bring everything back down under the radar, out of the news and everything becomes a ghost.
Too much attention has been brought to this region, and it's really bad for "the trade". It's sloppy management, as everything is a "management problem" if there is a problem. This is low hanging fruit for young mercenaries home from the dried up tit called Iraq. Any "mercenary operations brain" will recognize this as a golden opportunity. I don't think it's a matter if it will happen, but a matter of who will get the prize.
Personally, if I were conducting these ops, I would eliminate the meth production there and keep it eliminated. Frankly, it's rat poison for people, and America has been dosed enough with it. You would even put the squeeze on and shut down the sex slave traffic. Just focus on making money with weed. It's a cash crop that will make everyone more than enough money, giving you enough muscle in the region to keep things civilized. To make it really easy, you get the locals to farm it for you, and give them a taste of the pie. This keeps them at home, and from swarming across the border. It's a win/win/win situation except for assholes.
Of course this is very illegal and full of wet work, and it has to be done intelligently. Which makes it perfect for Americans. Well, the right kind of Americans that is. Usually this means the kind that not only survive, but thrive in war. Many of the dear gentle readers here have no clue what I mean or think I'm insane or creative. That's fine with me, they are right.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like I owe you a deep explanations.
Mexico is nothing like Iraq, and the cartels are nothing like organised militia. The situation has been greatly exaggerated over the border. They talk about paramilitary groups and insurrection and it's really nothing like that. These are gangs. They are surprisingly well armed gangs. But they are nothing but small fry. They like to be flashy, with beheadings and other scare tactics, but they lack staying power.
Their disproportional arsenal means that internal frict
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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.
From what I understand Anonymous just attacked Freedom Hosting and the various CP sites on Tor through Tor itself. That only takes knowing the site's .onion address, which were apparently all listed on the Hidden Wiki. It doesn't take much high-tech knowledge to read a URL then DDoS it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to Hollywood, these qualities don't always play well together. The personal risk involved in getting to the top of this pyramid is insanely high. A certain kind of smart person settles into a comfortable and infinitely less risky niche. Ruthless animal smarts describes the guys who can't figure out how to become Hesh Rabkin.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering modus operandi of Los Zetas, I would fully expect the person in question to be released - as a set of disjoint parts, and probably with a video detailing the process.
Remember, when they call them "ultra-violent", it's not an overstatement. It's a cartel that thrives on violence and terror it begets to control their areas.
Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anonymous is already aware of that. So, when doing nothing is going to result in your aforementioned scenario, why not try something different, if only to make them - and everyone else - think twice about jacking a member of Anonymous.
Anonymous is just using the same logic as the Russians did - and if you recall, it worked. And they're in a better position to do it than the Russians were, because it's not like the drug cartel can target other members of Anonymous. So the cartel really has only two choices - release the hostage, or lose a lot more than "an eye for an eye."
Re: (Score:3)
On the kiddie porn thing, it was the list of users on the servers, so it was accurate.
On the current list, there's no more guarantee of accuracy than, say, your stupid no-fly list. Or wrongfully-convicted murderers on death row. So, to paraphrase you, does that help you understand why for several decades your government has been at war with you, citizen?
To quote you - "Getting people murdered isn't how the good guys act" - why do you put up with such things? Isn't it time to end the war on drugs, as
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Anonymous gets bored easily, ruling out any persistent denial of service.
... unless one were to attempt to alleviate one's boredom by writing a quick script to keep up a DoS attack - just because they're "Anonymous" doesn't mean they're retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
The Zetas are not constrained by secrecy, they are constrained by a lack of resources and will on the part of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
An online group wants to take on a real-life drug cartel. This is definitely news for nerds you dumb fuck.
Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2)
For the love of all sanity mod this insightful/informative!
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we should hack some random server and leave a file behind saying "Anonymous 2.0". That'll scare the hell out of them ;-)
Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK, the bodies were never identified. No one is quite sure if they actually were bloggers or if they were merely used to create fear among bloggers. If they were bloggers, there's no way to know what kind of precautions they took, if any. Given the large numbers of bloggers still criticizing the cartels, it doesn't appear that the cartels truly have the ability to identify and kill anyone who posts things they don't like. For people outside of Mexico, which I assume is most of Anonymous, the risk seems to be minimal to nonexistent.