Anonymous is here. Anonymous is legion. Anonymous is lolcats and some green guy without a face wearing a suit. Anonymous is (or rather, are) also hacktivists, a portmanteau of hacker and activist. Hacktivist is defined as “a cyber exploitation or attack actor whose intent is driven by a social, religious, political or cultural ideology” (Homeland Security), and it’s a new enough concept that Microsoft Word doesn’t recognize it as a word. Anonymous has been active as a politically motivated group since 2007, but has picked up momentum since 2010, in recent months going so far as to breach NATO security (Associated Press) and attack Bay Area Rapid Transit after it shut down cell phone service to protestors (Brustein). Their main tactics include publishing data, Wikileaks-style and temporarily shutting down websites by overloading servers. They describe themselves as a loose collective, not a single entity controlled by a leader, which fits their message of radical free speech.
4chan, the site where Anonymous got its start, is described by Cole Stryker as a “hellhole of anti-social behavior” (qtd. in Wortham). If you can imagine something (or even if you can’t), it’s probably been posted on 4chan. Anyone who knows V for Vendetta can picture anarchist revolutionaries in Guy Fawkes masks (one of Anonymous’ signatures), but dashing revolutionaries sitting at a computer, posting on 4chan? How could social activism grow out of a place that is most famous for pornography and memes?
On October 6th, a video appeared on Youtube of a man in a Guy Fawkes mask threatening the Mexican drug syndicate Los Zetas. Apparently one of the members of Anonymous has been kidnapped from a street protest. The hackers threaten to reveal the names of the syndicate’s associates as well as the syndicate’s businesses unless their fellow is released (Schiller). This is a far cry from the pedo-baiting tactics where Anonymous got its start, or even the attacks on the Scientology websites in 2008 that brought them into the spotlight (Wortham). Moreover, it is the first time Anonymous has gone against a recognized criminal syndicate, significantly one outside of North America or Europe.
Hacktivist groups are generally global North-based because in general, the people of the North have more technology at their disposal. Therefore, a global North-based group moving into social justice in the global South is significant. Before this operation, Anonymous’ activist operations have concentrated on North American and European issues. The only other significant hacktivist attack that concentrated on the global South was the 1994 Zapatista attack, but this was initiated by the Mexican revolutionaries themselves. While social media has a growing influence on protest movements, mostly in terms of organizing power, activism via computers has thus far been mostly limited to the Northern and Western hemispheres.
On the other hand, because the internet is worldwide, this group could be from anywhere and can affect things in any location regardless of the location of the hackers. Schiller points out how the man in the video “underlines the group's international ties by speaking Spanish with the accent of a Spaniard while using Mexican slang.” Anonymous shows a level of international integration that definitely would not have been possibly before the internet, both in terms of the group itself and the issues the group is deciding to attack.
When used for activism in this way, the internet continues to level the playing field between citizens and states. On the one hand, this could promote globalization without the constraint of the state, and thus more international integration on a subnational level. Subnational integration is positive because it creates stronger transnational advocacy networks and potentially gives citizens a stronger voice in state politics. On the other hand, this same activism may create a dichotomy between the governments who lock up information ever more tightly and the citizens who demand more and more information from those governments. The United States government still doesn’t approve of vigilante hacktivism, as shown by the arrest of 14 members of Anonymous in July (Sengupta). Sengupta also points out that, “While federal law enforcement officials are clearly keen to quash the notion that online attacks are a form of social protest, the arrests highlight a far bigger challenge facing the authorities as they try to stop digital raids carried out by a large and ideologically motivated group of people scattered across the globe.” Governments fear radical free speech activism, even if that activism is nonviolent.
However, the United States is not entirely out of line in suppressing hacktivism, for more reasons than fear. Hacktivism does have a dark side, which seems obvious if we consider the personal attacks hacktivism stemmed from. The internet as a whole does allow for easier creation of transnational advocacy networks, but does the medium skew the activism? As Jaron Lanier puts it, “Is it now suddenly helpful to be a troll, attacking from the darkness, as the members of Anonymous do?” Kenneth Himma provides a list of the general requirements for people to condone the breaking of unjust laws: no damage done to persons or property; nonviolent; not for personal profit; ethical motivation; willingness to accept personal responsibility (63-64). Hacktivism fulfills at least three of those requirements – it is nonviolent, not for profit, and ethically motivated. The biggest problem is the last requirement. Anonymous wants everyone to have pure free speech, but (literally) hides itself behind anonymity. The anonymity provided by sites such as 4chan allows anyone to attack without having to take responsibility. Even Anonymous’ motto, repeated at the end of their video to Zetas, is, “Knowledge is free. We are Anonymous. We are a legion. We don't forgive. We don't forget. Expect us” (qtd. in Schiller). Not exactly an uplifting message. Moreover, so much of Anonymous’ history of operations is in power plays (Stryker qtd. in Wortham). While they are now focusing on social issues, it would be easy to slip back into bullying.
Still, regardless of the personalities of its perpetrators, if hacktivism has a role to play in decreasing transnational crime, it must have a positive angle for now. Schiller quotes several sources who say Los Zetas should definitely worry about Anonymous. Integration between state governments has proven ineffective in handling transnational crime. Perhaps it is time for individuals to have their chance.
Works Cited
Associated Press. “Hackers Gain Access to NATO Data” New York Times 21 July 2011. Web. 30 October 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/world/europe/22briefs-Computers.html?ref=anonymousinternetgroup>
Brustein, Joshua. “Anonymous to BART: We Hack. We Organize, Too” New York Times 15 Aug 2011. Web. 30 October 2011. <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/anonymous-to-bart-we-hack-we-organize-too/?ref=anonymousinternetgroup>
Himma, Kenneth Einar. Internet security: hacking, counterhacking, and society. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett, 2007. Web. 2 Nov 2011. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=M5d-yuCME0AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA61&dq=hacktivist&ots=2_WyjiZVCT&sig=pocxvcpRdVgWAG21RAKbZ9nfNuc#v=onepage&q=hacktivist&f=false>
Lanier, Jaron. “The Hazards of Nerd Supremacy: The Case of WikiLeaks” The Atlantic 20 Dec 2010. Web. 30 Oct 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/the-hazards-of-nerd-supremacy-the-case-of-wikileaks/68217/>
Schiller, Dane. “Online hackers threaten to expose cartel's secrets” Houston Chronicle 31 October 2011. Web. 31 October 2011. <http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Online-hackers-threaten-to-expose-cartel-secrets-2242068.php>
Sengupta, Somini. “For Suspected Hackers, a Sense of Social Protest” New York Times 26 July 2011. Web. 2 Nov 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/technology/for-suspected-hackers-a-sense-of-social-protest.html?_r=2&ref=sominisengupta>
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Assessment of Anonymous Threat to Control Systems” National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center Bulletin. Web. 1 Nov 2011. <http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/10/NCCIC-AnonymousICS.pdf>
Wortham, Jenna. “One on One: Cole Stryker, Author of ‘Epic Win for Anonymous’” New York Times 2 Sept 2011. Web. 1 Nov 2011. <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/one-on-one-cole-stryker-author-of-epic-win-for-anonymous/?ref=anonymousinternetgroup>
Works Refenced
Markoff, John. “The Asymmetrical Online War” New York Times 3 Apr 2011. Web. 1 Nov 2011. <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/the-asymmetrical-online-war/?ref=anonymousinternetgroup>
Sara,
ReplyDeleteVery timely post on the fifth of November! Your post brings up the excellent question of whether or not hacktivism is a legitimate way to influence states. As seen in the case of Julian Assange’s “Wikileaks” this past summer, there was a divide in public opinion as to whether or not such a site should be permitted to exist. Especially in the United States, it seems that many people tend to ‘support the underdog’ or rally behind the ‘vigilante’ who fights evil, especially, as you mentioned, by someone (or a group) with an ethical motivation. However, without a legitimate organization to oversee the publication of states’ secrets, why do you think they are instantly believed by so many people and spread by news organizations? Where do you think groups such as Anonymous gain their legitimacy, or does legitimacy no longer matter when paying attention to such groups?
Remember, remember, the fifth of November…
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting post to read, because I followed the news concerning Wikileaks, Anonymous, and LulzSec over the past year while trying to decide just how I feel about such hactivism. Though I might agree with the supposed objectives of such hactivists in principle, I tend to disagree with their methods. There is a line between taking actions in order to promote a cause and causing chaos just to watch the world burn, and I occasionally have to wonder on which side of the line these groups fall. Do you think that Anonymous and Wikileaks really do what they do out of a sense of social responsibility and activism, or is it just because they are unhappy with the status quo and want to stir up trouble? And, as Sara asked, does legitimacy even matter anymore with things such as this in the public eye?
Maybe my head is just in the clouds, but I had never heard of this group or these incidents before reading your paper. Very interesting! I was wondering how influential you think groups like these could be? Also, how large of an impact could they have on transnational crime in the future? Do you feel that this is threating enough to put a lot of attention and money on stopping?
ReplyDeleteMeg, I think a lot of unhappiness with the status quo leads to a sense of social responsibility to do something about it if you have the means. In this case, the members of Anonymous, being as diverse as they are, could be provoked by the fact that their countries are either consistently stagnant or heading in the wrong direction, which prompts them to do something about it. In my opinion, legitimacy is something long disregarded by the masses. Anonymous probably gained such a global standing as international hacktivists by the way they present themselves to the world, as vigilantes for truth with some pretty cool masks. People would latch onto what they're doing because they could see Anonymous' actions as manifesting the sentiments they wished they could act on. People like getting behind those kinds of things; the Occupy movement could be an example of where people agree with the premise of what people are doing but don't know much more than that.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. It just so happened that Anonymous, allegedly, attacked some Israeli government sites today: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-government-security-services-websites-down-in-suspected-cyber-attack-1.394042
ReplyDeleteTo respond to the questions about legitimacy, I think Americans have a superhero complex. We love our vigilantes for justice, to the extent that we'll ignore some questionable motives in that vigilantism.
ReplyDeleteI don't personally believe that ALL state secrets should be published, because where would we be if everyone knew everything that was going on all the time? Transparency in dealings is good, but you wouldn't want everything you said about someone reported back to them, and neither do states.
On the other hand, the concept of a vigilante to fight transnational crime is a lot more appealing. (Superheroes!) Criminals are clearly "bad guys" where states aren't. If the current state-regulation-based system we have in place to fight transnational crime isn't working, then maybe we SHOULD let vigilantes have a bite of the apple.
It seems that in your conclusion you are moving towards saying that these hacktivists might be a good thing, with reservations. That is a position that I would agree with myself. It should be noted that these hacktivists do not represent the majority population in their activities: these are a distinct group of computer prodigies operating sometimes in conjunction and sometimes more independently (as I understand it). Thus, there is serious room for radicalism over certain issues to seep into hacktivism, that would give this group an undue amount of power.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, these hacktivists function as a check on government power at a time when technological means of surveillance are approaching orwellian standards. Their technological prowess allows them to function as a balance against government power and against government surveillance. Certainly they are an independent group, unrepresentative of the citizenry, but they are also independent of any government, putting them in a special position. If I recall correctly, there has been conflict between Anonymous and China over authoritarian controls there. I am curious to see how Anonymous and hacktivism will play out; they stand ready to put an important check on government power