Members of extremist group Patriot Front sue activist who infiltrated, identified them

[SouthernDem4ever]

Source: USAToday

Members of the white supremacist organization Patriot Front have filed a federal lawsuit against a leftist activist, claiming he infiltrated their group and revealed their identities as members of the racist organization.

The activist's "doxxing" of the four plaintiffs as members of Patriot Front cost them their jobs, incomes and relationships with family members, the lawsuit claims.

Filed in federal court in the Western District of Washington by a Spokane law firm, the case is an unusual new tactic from members of Patriot Front. The Texas-based group has gained notoriety for holding marches with dozens of masked young men wearing chinos, carrying American flags and chanting slogans. Last year, 31 members of Patriot Front were arrested when police pulled over a U-Haul that was allegedly transporting them to disrupt a Pride event in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. They were charged with conspiracy to riot.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/08/07/patriot-front-doxxing-lawsuit/70517798007/

---

Talk about hubris.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. This will be an interesting case to follow.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

66. It really will be

If doxxing anyone as an individual has financial damages, it may very well mean the end to it.

Maybe if it were reporting through valid news companies (though I have a severe doubt that definition exists anymore), it would be 1A?

edit:

Thank you, Effete Snob below, to put some of this in context. The hacking techniques he used to gain access to computer systems that he had no right to, in order to get the documents used in the doxxing was clearly illegal, so it puts a different spin on things.

[The Grand Illuminist]

2. They want extreme prejudice

Then they should be treated with such.

[IronLionZion]

3. "cost them their jobs, incomes and relationships with family members"

how about choosing to not be terrorists then? These guys are making the wrong life choices if it's costing them everything else.

These hate groups are like modern day KKK wearing chinos and masks instead of white robes.

[Grins]

21. They hid from family members...?

That says a lot!

[IronLionZion]

26. Tell Mama when her boy is in a paramilitary organization terrorizing other Americans

[jmowreader]

54. I remember one of the PF people who got arrested here in town last year

He was living at home with his parents, and they found out he was a PF member. Mom gave him an ultimatum: them or us. He chose to give up his family, his home and everyone who cared about him so he could continue his Patriot Front activities.

[KarenS]

4. oh good grief,,,,

All of these a***oles go from Bully to Victim in a nanosecond.

[SouthernDem4ever]

5. Well said

and very dystrumpian.

[erronis]

17. While I understand the analogy to "dystopian", I think the correct term is "protrumpian"

I have a feeling that some long-lasting new words will be added to the dictionaries when the dust settles - if it does settle and if they still allow dictionaries in the post-apocalypse world.

[SouthernDem4ever]

18. I used dystrumpian to reflect the dystopia we are living in.

Sorry if it is grammatically incorrect.

[erronis]

23. I liked your word and intent. No complaints from me!

[Tumbulu]

64. I love your new term!

Excellent !

[Alexander Of Assyria]

6. Famous Spokane law firm of Kraken and Kraken?

[Jerry2144]

13. I thought it was the Law Offices of

Smoken, Kracken, and Howe

[IronLionZion]

22. MAGA law firm would be Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe

[Ligyron]

28. Yeah, but Jerry's was original and quite clever.

[Rebl2]

14. Exactly

[onetexan]

38. THIS!!☝️

[Chi67]

7. Fuck nazis

If they can’t take the consequences, then they shouldn’t be nazis.

[Vdizzle]

44. This!

[Ford_Prefect]

8. They want this to be a First Amendment case and it clearly is not.

Ask the KKK about that one. It will not end well for them.

Will the lawsuit succeed?
Brian Hughes, associate director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University, said this follows a trend on the extremist far-right of attempting to couch all their activities as protected by the First Amendment. But he said he the Patriot Front members face an uphill battle.

"I've never seen this before," Hughes said. "I think that a judge will be very reluctant to set a precedent on behalf of a hate group."

[bucolic_frolic]

9. That's not good news for informants

or people who report crime, call 9-1-1. wtf

[LeftInTX]

67. If you read the case, the infiltrator was kinda hard core

Was a member of Redneck Revolt spinoff. (The John Brown Gun Club) It's a left wing group.

[BlueIdaho]

10. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear

These Nazi fucks came to my home town to disrupt an LGBT celebration. Their own plans made it clear that they were going to escalate beyond speech to acts of violence. Their names and their faces were published in the local media from police records.

Most of these shits plead guilty and the few who demanded a trial got one. It took the jury less than one hour to convict them.

They do have the right to free speech and the rest of us have the right to ostracize them as a sign of our disapproval.

[mopinko]

11. just what we needed, a new definition of chutzpah.

[HuskyOffset]

12. They seem pretty melty for

prime specimens of the alleged Master Race. Poor little snowflakes.

[Mr. Sparkle]

15. Texas again, why am i not surprised.

[moreland01]

16. Kind of seems like they're saying

that bank robbers have a right to wear a mask when they stick up a bank.

[Warpy]

19. Clue phone, guys

You wouldn't be this upset about being identified if you weren't doing something very wrong.

Now sit down, shut up, and take your medicine.

[Novara]

20. It's not illegal to join a group and expose people

If they accepted him as a member without question, it's their fault for being exposed. There is no illegality here.

Start doing background checks if you're so worried about being identified, fascists.

[Effete Snob]

31. The article linked in the OP mischaracterizes the suit

This is the actual lawsuit:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.324601/gov.uscourts.wawd.324601.1.0.pdf

It's not about publishing their identities. It is about unauthorized access to a computer system.

The core of their allegations of hacking is:

25. Specifically, Capito used his access to the Patriot Front server
to execute a session hijack attack, a sophisticated type of cyber-attack which
grants the attacker administrator level privileges to information stored on the
target server which he would not have otherwise had access to. In an attempt
to distract from this attack and ensure its success, Capito also conducted a
simultaneous denial of service attack against Patriot Front's website.

26. Using his unauthorized administrator privileges in the chat server,
Capito was able to download private chats and intercept video links, which were
later published on the DDOS website. He was exposed by Patriot Front's security
team in mid-December 2021 and his fraudulently-obtained and unauthorized
access was removed.

[IronLionZion]

32. OK, yes those are actual crimes

[Novara]

42. "used his access to the Patriot Front server"

How'd he get access?

[Effete Snob]

45. Do you have authority to get payment information from DU users?

Exceeding access authority is still unlawful under the statute.

You have an account at DU. That does not allow you to gain access to, say, people's paypal accounts etc..

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Question For You

I guess 2. If(!), the hack revealed any crime, criminal intent, or conspiracy, does that change how those laws are enforced?
If he turned any information over to authorities, would whistle-blower protections apply?

[Effete Snob]

50. No, and no

There is not some sort of "open season" principle at law under which anyone can do anything they want to someone who is doing something illegal.

That means, no, you can't rape prostitutes, steal from bank robbers, or engage in unauthorized access to computing systems run by shitheads.

If I break into your house and find you are growing pot plants, I don't get some kind of "burglar of the month" award from the court.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Thanks, One More

You used the analogy of DU. But, that confuses me.
DU is open to everyone. No permission is required for getting an account. While it's certainly accurate to say that said account doesn't give us a legal right to the private information of other posters, the data accessed in this breach was not on a public platform. Somebody had to actually grant permission to access that data.
Even in a big company, we might have SAP permissions but if there are areas for which access is not job required, the permissions are granted by data function.
Now, it's obvious that if I hacked into HR to get others' salaries, I'd be wrong. But, if the granter of permissions did a poor job of protecting access on a "need to know" basis, how does that not mitigate the actions? The data owner has zero responsibility to protect data?

[Effete Snob]

52. How short was the victim's skirt?

If I leave my keys in the ignition, and you drive off with my car, you have stolen my car.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Forget It

You're being obtuse now, and needlessly condescending.
I'll take your inability to provide a cogent & civil answer as evidence that you don't know.
BTW: Those analogies were ridiculous.

[Effete Snob]

57. I don't understand your reaction at all

No, just because people were doing "bad things" does not give you the right to do unlawful things back to them.

And, no, "unauthorized access" is unauthorized access, regardless of whether the system's security was "good" to some subjective level. There is not a victim blaming clause in the statute where we excuse unauthorized access because the access controls were not good enough. Even if they are people we don't like. Pretty obviously, in almost any instance of unauthorized access, the security wasn't "good enough" or the access wouldn't have happened.

I answered your question and don't understand why you are so upset with it, at all. I said nothing uncivil toward you.

I totally get that people believe these idiots "deserve" whatever anyone does to them. It was dumb of me to point out that the OP completely mischaracterized what this action is about.

I will issue you a full refund for the services.

[Martin68]

60. Thanks for the info, Effete. So the charges are quite similar to those against Julian Assange...

[LeftInTX]

61. I wouldn't put it at that level!

This is a civil suit (not criminal) by members of a website whose personal info was leaked.

Assange had state secrets. (criminal stuff)


This will be interesting how this plays out.

Another left wing activist could say: "I also joined that site to spy, but now I'm labeled as a member of Patriot Front".

(You know how people join stuff just to spy)

Who knows...

[Martin68]

62. Important distinction. Thanks.

[LeftInTX]

63. Although the suit touches on the hacking, it really seems to emphasize stuff like his camera

and stuff like this that caused "damages":

https://unicornriot.ninja/2022/patriot-front-members-exposed-in-parking-lot-clusterfck/

It also emphasized TOS for membership. (Which included their anonymity, which is probably BS )

It will be interesting to see what happens. The hacking was wrong (illegal), but did the hacking cause damage to the plaintiffs? Or did Capito's photos cause damage?

And we also have this case:

https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/lawyers-committee-files-lawsuit-against-patriot-front-members-for-vandalism-intimidation/

Defendants include the Patriot Front, National Director Thomas Rousseau, Network Director Paul Gancarz, and Patriot Front members Nathan Noyce and Thomas Dail. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia and includes claims for conspiracy to violate civil rights under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 as well as intimidation based on racial animosity under Virginia state law.

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/3:2022cv00670/529786

Paul Gancarz is one of the Patriot Front members that is suing Capito

[rownesheck]

24. A terrorist organization

should not be allowed to sue anyone. They have chosen to not be a part of a civilized society. They can fuck right off.

[Johnny2X2X]

25. Consequence Culture strikes again

These hate groups can't handle the consequences they make for themselves.

[LaMouffette]

27. Were they also the group responsible for trying to run a Biden campaign bus off the road in TX?

[ShazzieB]

35. I don't think so.

I'm pretty sure that was a bunch of random deplorables. I don't recall an organized group being associated with it (although I could, of course, be wrong).

These "Pariot Front" jerks are the ones who stage "protests" and march around with their faces covered and all wearing the same exact clothes, so they're almost impossible to identify. Very creepy and Klanlike, IMO.

[TeamProg]

29. Way too broad. I can't see a case getting anywhere. Look at marketing lists, mailing lists, all of

those types of sharing personal info would also then become reasons to sue.

[Midnight Writer]

30. My Mom used to say if you're doing something you don't want anyone to know about,

then it's probably something you shouldn't be doing.

[AllyCat]

33. I cannot understand what grounds they may have to sue.

He informed on a CRIME they were likely to commit. And, they’re Phucking Nazis.

[Effete Snob]

39. That's because the article does not explain the lawsuit

They are suing because he allegedly hacked into their computer system to obtain the information.

I don't know what it means to "inform" on a crime someone is "likely to commit". Obviously, this person did not report any crime to any law enforcement authority.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.324601/gov.uscourts.wawd.324601.1.0.pdf

25. Specifically, Capito used his access to the Patriot Front server
to execute a session hijack attack, a sophisticated type of cyber-attack which
grants the attacker administrator level privileges to information stored on the
target server which he would not have otherwise had access to. In an attempt
to distract from this attack and ensure its success, Capito also conducted a
simultaneous denial of service attack against Patriot Front's website.

26. Using his unauthorized administrator privileges in the chat server,
Capito was able to download private chats and intercept video links, which were
later published on the DDOS website. He was exposed by Patriot Front's security
team in mid-December 2021 and his fraudulently-obtained and unauthorized
access was removed.

[catbyte]

34. They are all Big Men until they're outed, then they're...

[Brainfodder]

36. Thank you! That did tickle the funny bone a bit!

We are bad people and we want $ for being exposed!

WTAF, frivolous much, I hope the judge at the very least yells at their lawyers a bit.

Loose screws people are the problem along with the awful preventative health care offered and that little issue of protecting the guns racket going on?

Lots of ingredients, but when they are all not ideal, you wind up with not ideal final product and worse?

[Happy Hoosier]

37. They do not have a right to anonymity.

I don't see a grounds for the suit the succeed. They don't have a right to aonymity, and if they're shitty procedures allowed someone to access their databases, that's on them.

[Effete Snob]

40. So, unauthorized access to someone else's system is okay...

...as long as they used "shitty procedures" to protect it?

[Happy Hoosier]

43. But it wasn't unauthorized....

They just did a shitty job of vetting the access. They GAVE these folks access.

And further, they are not an actual organization... they're a collection of racist assholes. If that was actually an issue, no reporter could ever go undercover or get "unauthorized" access to information.

[Effete Snob]

46. No

You are given access to DU.

That does not make it lawful for you to hijack credentials you do not possess to gain access to DU user data.

[Happy Hoosier]

49. We'll see. I read the suit.

They claim the Patriot Front computers are "protected computers" which they may, or may not, be able to show. Most analysis I've seen is pretty skeptical.

I say, fuck Patriot Front. It is oin the public interest to havbe this terrorist group exposed at every turn. They were not, IMHO participating in legitimate 1stA activites, and they're participation in criminal conspiracies means their computers should NOT qualify as "protected computers."

This is about the equivalent of the Mafia suing a man for posing as a Mob accountant and then exposing the identities of all the Mob members. Could the Mob then sue the guy? C'mon.

[LeftInTX]

58. Usually, LE hacks the mob

Last edited Mon Aug 7, 2023, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The hacker should have gone to LE with the info and shouldn't have doxxed anyone.

I have no idea if the hacker would have gotten in trouble if he went straight to LE??? LE will usually follow up with their own hack to obtain the data legally. Of course, things like this need special orders from prosecutors.

Often in crimes committed, someone in the mob rats on other members and becomes an informant. Informants are protected, but they often have committed crimes. LE decides what to do about the informant's crimes. Most cases of the mob involve pretty bad stuff (numerous murders) and many informants face legal penalties. (Of course those penalties are reduced) Sort of an apples and oranges comparison...

This is more like someone hacking the KKK.

The person hacking and take the info to LE/FBI etc. Usually these groups are "surveilled" by LE. However, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't a crime to be a member of the KKK. And it isn't a crime to have racist opinions. It is a crime to be involved with hate crimes, but private hate speech isn't a crime.

[twodogsbarking]

41. These are the losers and suckers.

[ificandream]

47. Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hooody hoo hoo.

[republianmushroom]

53. Guess their not to proud to be a known member of that club.

[llashram]

55. f-em

[Martin68]

59. I wouldn't call it hubris. More like admission of guilt.

[Obvious85]

65. Why do 'patriots' want Anonimity?

Cowards