Sorry, I can't get behind doxing.
Can't support this. Internet vigilantes have too poor of a track record of incorrectly doxing innocent people. The damage to the innocent would be huge and very difficult to reverse, even with a retraction.
This is how I feel.
It is all good and well until you get it wrong.
You guys are missing the point.
Your excuse could also literally be used for just about ANY historical action with similar conditions.
"No I can't support the Civil Rights Movement, innocent citizens might be labeled racist" or
"No I can't support #BLM; innocent citizens might be unable to take the interstate to get to their job today." or
"No I can't support buying the Holomodor was a genocide; my innocent Russian friends may get made fun of", or
"No I can't support gay marriage; some of my innocent football team members might get nervous in the locker room now."
In
all of those cases, and countless others, there is
ALWAYS a risk of innocent casualty. There is never a single movement for the intention of bettering the lives of a group in a point of history that has gone about, without a few innocent sorts falling by the sidelines, usually due to inaction. That is the nature of humanity. So you are essentially reasoning that inaction (in letting a problem fester and contaminate) is better than action because of causalities that will likely end up occurring one way or another anyhow.
Put it another way: if that innocent person isn't hurt thanks to lack of action from [Event X] (in this case, support for Operation KKK to unmask hate group members), they'll still probably fall prey to, let's say, [Event Y] of a dog pooping on their new kitchen floor. Let's also say dogs pooping on kitchen floors is a crisis across the country, and you, the individual, say you support a new law banning dogs from pooping on kitchen floors.
How does it then feel, to know that regardless of it was Event X or Event Y, the innocent person was still harmed, but you as the individual, decided that their harm from an outcome of [Event Y] warranted your support while potential harm from [Event X] did not? How does it then feel to realize that [Event Y], without your support to end/prevent it, would have already had everyone else's support and had appropriate measures taken anyhow, while essentially existing as a collection of individual instances directed indirectly at individuals, happening to share a common repeating theme? Compare that to [Event X], which likely has very little support to put an appropriate measure against it, and is intently a macro instance directly aimed at harming a large group of people, with a shared common theme? Does the fate and well-being of the individual outweigh the fate and well-being of a group of individuals?
By your own words, it's implied it does. You are valuing a life over a group of lives. In this case there is a color bias incidentally at work, because the KKK's efforts are aimed mainly at minorities (mainly, but not exclusively, black Americans), while the possible victims of this "unmasking" are white Americans.
You are essentially placing more value in the potential well being of the single white American individual than you are the entire population of African Americans (and other minority groups)! affected by the meta presence (i.e mindshare, spread of ideals and beliefs) of the KKK. That may not be your intention, but it's how it appears.
Your own worries also assume that this kind of operation would have the finess of a witch hunt; it's going on 2016 and I'm sure these people would have access to accurate database records and files, enough so to discern who would be worth legit identifying as a member and who wouldn't be.
And thankfully in America we already have a system that's (technically) around to protect the legal rights of the individual (including, among other things, slander and defamation of character); it's called the court of law.