Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday December 13 2015, @02:12AM   Printer-friendly

CBS reports that hot on the heels of its campaign against ISIS, the shadowy hackers' collective known as Anonymous is going after a new target: Donald Trump. The latest Anonymous operation -- #OpTrump -- was announced in a YouTube video featuring a masked activist claiming to speak for the group. In a computer-generated voice, he takes aim at Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, claiming "This is what ISIS wants." He goes on to say that "the more the United States appears to be targeting Muslims, not just radical Muslims," the more ISIS will be able to recruit sympathizers. The video concludes with Anonymous' now-familiar threat: "You have been warned, Mr. Donald Trump. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. Expect us."

After a video message was posted, the website of Trump Tower in New York City went down for at least an hour. However the campaign didn't appear to have much success. Despite the group's apparent distributed-denial-of-service attack, which aimed to take down a web server by flooding it with fake traffic, the Trump Tower website was up and running by 11 a.m. and the alleged damage might not have been apparent, to visitors to the page, because a cached version of Trump's site was programmed to hold the fort in the event of an attack or maintenance issues. Gabriella Coleman, who studies hackers and online activism as the Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy at McGill University, in Montreal, told CBS News it's no surprise that Anonymous would find Trump a juicy target. "He's the biggest bully and the only other bully that's bigger is possibly trolls and Anonymous," says Coleman. "Anonymous isn't necessarily going to take down his campaign, per se, but they could embarrass him."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:01AM (#275908)

    there will NEVER be a third party win the white house

    It's happened before: the candidate of the Progressive Party (you might know it as the Bull Moose Party) was elected president in 1912. Of course, that was before electronic voting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday December 14 2015, @01:49AM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Monday December 14 2015, @01:49AM (#275955)

    It's happened before: the candidate of the Progressive Party (you might know it as the Bull Moose Party) was elected president in 1912.

    No.

    Returning to the USA, he became frustrated with Taft's approach as his successor, trying but failing to win the presidential nomination again himself in 1912. He then founded his own party, the Progressive, so-called "Bull Moose" Party, and called for wide-ranging progressive reforms. The split allowed the Democrats to win both the White House and a majority in the Congress in 1912, and Republicans aligned with Taft would control the Republican Party for decades.

    Geez, at least read what you link to before using it to support your argument. That's in the fourth paragraph of the lead.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday December 14 2015, @02:14AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 14 2015, @02:14AM (#275972) Journal

      Isn't it just sad when they do that? When they are so damned desperate to find ANY citation to support their belief they don't even bother to read beyond the first line and see it is in reality against their position but they didn't read beyond the first line?

      At the end of the day voting third party in the USA simply DOES NOT WORK, all it does it insure the shittiest candidate wins, as the other two split the vote between them. Just look at Bush in 00, does anybody here believe Gore could have possibly been worse than "fool me once, don't get fooled again", joking about the lack of WMDs after causing over a million dead, burying us in debt for at least a generation so he could give more to the 1%, Bush? But that is what voting third party got us, it has been shown if Nader's votes would have went to Gore? There wouldn't have been any contesting squat, Gore would have won the crucial swing states.

      So I'm sorry but that dude is full of shit, voting third party in any election higher than state causes REAL harm as it always insures the shittiest candidate wins and it always will until/unless the laws are changed from a winner takes all to percentage count like most of the EU.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 14 2015, @10:10AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 14 2015, @10:10AM (#276043)

        At the end of the day voting third party in the USA simply DOES NOT WORK

        Voting for evil does not work, and in fact makes the situation significantly worse. Your problem is that you seem to think that if the third party candidate did not win the election, then voting third party does not work. That is false; it's short-term thinking. Are you only capable of thinking about what will happen immediately after the current election?

        But that is what voting third party got us

        It's my vote and I'll do with it what I please. I choose to not be an authoritarian who votes for evil.

        So I'm sorry but that dude is full of shit, voting third party in any election higher than state causes REAL harm

        How can merely casting a vote for someone who isn't an evil scumbag "cause" real harm? Are you insinuating that casting a vote for a third party is akin to directly shooting someone, or some other such thing? However, no such thing occurs, so there is no "real harm". In reality, the authoritarian scumbags people like you vote for cause the real harm, whether they're a 'lesser' evil or not.

        as it always insures the shittiest candidate wins

        No, people voting for evil scumbags does that. I guess they think voting for evil is some sort of 'strategy', but it's anything but. Their short-sightedness is truly staggering.

        and it always will until/unless the laws are changed from a winner takes all to percentage count like most of the EU.

        I'm sure voting for evil will accomplish that.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by JeanCroix on Monday December 14 2015, @04:39PM

        by JeanCroix (573) on Monday December 14 2015, @04:39PM (#276170)

        But that is what voting third party got us, it has been shown if Nader's votes would have went to Gore? There wouldn't have been any contesting squat, Gore would have won the crucial swing states.

        This is the criticism against voting third party which pisses me off the most - that absolute CONCEIT that if I hadn't voted third party, I'd have voted for your candidate instead. It's right up there with **AA "logic" that every illegal download constitutes one lost sale.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 15 2015, @12:32AM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 15 2015, @12:32AM (#276427)

          Also the claim that not voting at all is somehow better than voting for a third party.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"