EPTAnd why don't they simply release that information?
What good will it do to withhold it? Are they hoping that those criminals will become nice guys because they know that their identities could be released?
I don't understand that situation... :-/
Anonymous takes on mexican drug cartel - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
And why don't they simply release that information? What good will it do to withhold it? Are they hoping that those criminals will become nice guys because they know that their identities could be released? I don't understand that situation... :-/ | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:08 Morfildur wrote: Wait, they have information about criminals but are withholding that information? Isn't that already a crime in itself? And why don't they simply release that information? What good will it do to withhold it? Are they hoping that those criminals will become nice guys because they know that their identities could be released? I don't understand that situation... :-/ It could full well be a bluff that gradually becomes reality, that seems to me Anonymous' style. Atleast.. you think it is a bluff at first. I hope they can stirr stuff up a bit, wouldn't mind seeing them in the news as something other than the stereotype nerd that they copied right out of some 90's movie. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
| ||
|
BarbieHsu
574 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:08 Morfildur wrote: Wait, they have information about criminals but are withholding that information? Isn't that already a crime in itself? And why don't they simply release that information? What good will it do to withhold it? Are they hoping that those criminals will become nice guys because they know that their identities could be released? I don't understand that situation... :-/ It appears, after taking great pains to closely read the OP, that they're using the threat of releasing the information to ensure that no harm comes to their fellow hacker who was kidnapped, or that he is released. My first feeling after reading this is that they are bluffing, using their mysterious and ruthless hacking reputation to get the guy released. Also, doesn't the threat to hack significantly lower the chances of success? | ||
|
MLG_Wiggin
United States767 Posts
As far as Anonymous as a whole goes (the hacking group, not the kids), I don't really have any problems with them. Considering the world we are living in now, a group that epitomizes anonymity that occasionally shakes things up non-violently might be a blessing to the populace, not a curse. | ||
|
minisockey
99 Posts
| ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:08 Morfildur wrote: Wait, they have information about criminals but are withholding that information? Isn't that already a crime in itself? And why don't they simply release that information? What good will it do to withhold it? Are they hoping that those criminals will become nice guys because they know that their identities could be released? I don't understand that situation... :-/ Well people who release information about Los Zetas end up dead hanging from a bridge. Withholding this kind of information helps you stay alive  | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
They seem like they're actually trying to be the cyber police. It started with a bunch of games and now it's getting into the more serious area. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 31 2011 19:27 ypolt wrote: If they do that though and Anonymous does release the information then the other cartels will have wiped them out in a week. Mexican stand off I highly doubt that the cartel would actually respond that way, but if they did that would NOT be the right choice for anonymous to make because they'd then have the blood of 10 children on their hands. It's nice they're actually trying to help now instead of troll people but unless they've got a SWAT team, escalations of situations like this will be entirely out of their control. Odds are the kidnapped person was already killed anyways. Also, it's pretty funny that it has basically crossed no one's minds that it's possible that they're bluffing about actually having names of cartel members =/ | ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I highly doubt that the cartel would actually respond that way, but if they did that would NOT be the right choice for anonymous to make because they'd then have the blood of 10 children on their hands. Though I kinda agree with you that I think they're in over their heads I just dislike that way of thinking in general. I don't really think the blood's on Anonymous' hands because they're not the ones pulling the trigger. I mean I see where you're going with this, you don't want to provoke this group. But what the hell are they supposed to do? Somebody's gotta do something. | ||
|
veQ
Poland339 Posts
But anyway I'm with them, I dont think they'll really get facebook down forever but for atleast few hours. Just to make sure OP_facebook wasnt a bluff :D | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:43 Paperplane wrote: Though I kinda agree with you that I think they're in over their heads I just dislike that way of thinking in general. I don't really think the blood's on Anonymous' hands because they're not the ones pulling the trigger. I mean I see where you're going with this, you don't want to provoke this group. But what the hell are they supposed to do? Somebody's gotta do something. You're right that it would obviously be the actual individuals who are directly responsible for pulling the trigger, but they definitely would share in the blame for acting so irresponsibly. If I were to enter one of the drug cartel's "houses" and start talking shit about how immoral and wrong they are and destroying their goods and ended up shot and dead, you wouldn't say I killed myself, but I don't think anyone would object to the claim that I was acting wrongly or didn't have any blame in my own death. Somebody doesn't have to do something, in fact it would be better if they did nothing if the situation we just described ends up happening (although it's highly unlikely as already mentioned). Action for the sake of action is not a good thing in itself, and bad action is even worse than no action at all. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
The fact is that the cartels don't give a fuck and don't need to give a fuck. You cross them, they kill you. There is no subtlety, there is no code of honour. You get in the way, they kill you. It's about as straightforward as it gets. They allready own the government to such a degree that it can't mount a serious offensive and the police is to weak to crush them. Mexico is well on it's way of becoming perhaps the very first state in the world to literally get taken over by criminals. Anyone that stands up to the cartel is doing a good job but the reality is that the cartel really does not give a fuck and if they ever got seriously crossed they would go ahead and get their revenge. | ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
It's quite similar to do you give in to the demands of criminals who take hostages? If you do you might save lives that moment, but more people will take hostages because it works. And vice versa if you don't give em what they want. Neither is right or wrong but I love pretending to be all philosophical sometimes. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:59 Paperplane wrote: This debate has come up a million times and I just find it very interesting. It's quite similar to do you give in to the demands of criminals who take hostages? If you do you might save lives that moment, but more people will take hostages because it works. And vice versa if you don't give em what they want. Neither is right or wrong but I love pretending to be all philosophical sometimes. There's a huge difference though between vigilantes fighting only with the internet and professional SWAT teams or military forces trained to deal with such encounters. If you love pretending to be all philosophical, you'd have no problem explaining why neither is right or wrong though in the case of negotiating with criminals in hostage situations. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
Geosensation
United States256 Posts
On November 01 2011 00:54 zalz wrote: They can release that kind of information but the only result would be them getting a bullet in the face. The fact is that the cartels don't give a fuck and don't need to give a fuck. You cross them, they kill you. There is no subtlety, there is no code of honour. You get in the way, they kill you. It's about as straightforward as it gets. They allready own the government to such a degree that it can't mount a serious offensive and the police is to weak to crush them. Mexico is well on it's way of becoming perhaps the very first state in the world to literally get taken over by criminals. Anyone that stands up to the cartel is doing a good job but the reality is that the cartel really does not give a fuck and if they ever got seriously crossed they would go ahead and get their revenge. I agree with some of this. The part about the cartels not giving a fuck, totally true. But to say the government can't mount a serious offensive is just wrong. They have mounted a serious offensive for the past 5 years. The cartels just have too much money to buy weapons and recruit more soldiers for the government to win. And Mexico to an extent will be taken over by criminals, and by that I mean that once the PRI takes over the government once again they will most likely cut a deal giving the cartels whatever they want. But Mexico certainly won be the first state to have this happen. What about Somalia and other African countries? What about Russia for heaven's sake? | ||
|
Mootland
Finland63 Posts
On November 01 2011 01:05 Geosensation wrote: I agree with some of this. The part about the cartels not giving a fuck, totally true. But to say the government can't mount a serious offensive is just wrong. They have mounted a serious offensive for the past 5 years. The cartels just have too much money to buy weapons and recruit more soldiers for the government to win. And Mexico to an extent will be taken over by criminals, and by that I mean that once the PRI takes over the government once again they will most likely cut a deal giving the cartels whatever they want. But Mexico certainly won be the first state to have this happen. What about Somalia and other African countries? What about Russia for heaven's sake? You can't compare Russia to mexico and african countries, The cartel can cross just about anyone who they want in Mexico. Can't say the same about Russian mafia, you don't mess with the Vlad. | ||
|
LXR
357 Posts
| ||
|
FraCuS
United States1072 Posts
| ||
| ||
