 |
| Who they think they are |
 |
| Who they actually are |
Anonymous. It's more than a name. It's a theory.
In the last year or so, the "hacktivist" group Anonymous has been launched into prominence by the mainstream media for its active support of Wikileaks, as well as its roles in the Arab Spring activities, the Wisconsin protests, and Operation Sony. And lately, a rumor (debunked as of today) inspired fear and uncertainty for Facebook users when a plan to "take down" Facebook on November 5 was announced.
Background
Uniting under the name “Anonymous,” these hacktivists strive to promote free speech and expression as well as freedom of information and other miscellaneous fights for justice. Their weapon of choice? DDoS attacks and other computer- and internet-based actions committed en-masse.
Their main targets are large corporations, government entities, sometimes individuals who they view as betraying the public in some way, usually by blocking the free flow of information. The group organizes through an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) where anyone is allowed to participate. They will identify their newest target and voice their grievances against the target through a peer-edited “Press Release” posted on the front page of AnonNews.org.
Anonymous boasts that the innate architecture of the quasi-organization and the lack of a “leader” renders the group perpetually elusive of the government’s regulatory grasp. From a practical standpoint, however, some form of leadership is required at a minimum to keep the website operational, a role filled by a “network administrator”. Press releases and other Anonymous-related design features are created through a peer-editing system similar to Wikipedia. They also say Anonymous is not “malicious” in its actions and only seeks to enforce justice.
But here's the problem:
To place a blanket characterization on the group - such as "Anonymous is not malicious" - contradicts a principle on which the group was founded: it's not actually a group. Who's to say Anonymous isn't malicious? By whose definition? People sharing in the basic beliefs and ideologies of Anonymous may hold differing opinions on course of action. To what extent shall the ends justify the means?
Who will decide?
Law enforcement agencies have been trying to answer the latter so they may remedy the havoc resulting from Anonymous' stunts, and groups fearful of the wrath of the Anons are pushing for less anonymity on the internet.
A problem with the proposed solution of identifying anonymous abusers online is that it is not a complete solution. Ideas on the internet come from a great number of users who build off one another; each individual user may contribute only slightly, but when taken as a whole, the effect can be significant. So it would seem that any solution proposing identification could only be effective if it was identification across the board, that is, no contribution of speech could go unattributed. The Electronic Frontiers Foundation made a great argument in a recent article for why loss of anonymity would be a bad thing.
The implications of harassment and “attacks” by online communities are significant. The Sixth Amendment value of a right to a fair trial comes into question, as vigilante justice punishes a person without a trial. Vigilantes can get carried away and continue harassment even after law enforcement has stepped in; a lack of communication may also contribute, i.e. if a “ceasefire” is called, there’s a reasonable chance not everyone participating in the “punishment” would hear it. These cases are often widely publicized as well, making it difficult to locate a court and jury unaffected by it. The effects of harassment are felt long after it has been discontinued, as the remnants are still readily available through online searches. Compromising material may affect an individual’s professional career, as employers are increasingly conducting makeshift background checks on potential employees through Google searches and other online resources. And such harassment has potential to intimidate further speech on part of the victim as well as on those fearful of suffering the same fate as previous victims.
Whether well-intentioned and sincere or ill-intentioned and spiteful, the people who exercise freedoms that the internet grants through anonymity can easily underestimate the impact of their actions while they sit in the comfort of their own homes. Traditionally, cyberspace has been like a swimming pool with no lifeguard on duty – swim at your own risk. But as the internet has become more ubiquitous and online culture has strengthened, we must be aware of the impact of our actions online so that free speech may continue to flourish. Abusing these freedoms will lead to their demise.
