Lulz-based Activism

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.

What is this and why should I care?

My mother was telling me how excited she was to get Google on her new smartphone.

“Cool, Mom! Now Google can know where you are all the time. Are you OK with that?”
 

“Oh, whatever. What do I care if they know I go to the grocery store after work before going home?”
 

“Well you know, you could start getting advertisements on your phone based on your location.”
 

“Like spam?”

“Some might be spam. Some might be coupons for $2 off a latte when you drive by Starbucks.”

“Oh, so it’s good!”

“Well, good for Starbucks - and your caffeine addiction.”

 

From its inception to today, the power and influence of the media has grown exponentially. First, the printing press brought words to the masses, taking the power of education and literacy from the privileged few and giving it to the privileged many. Later, the radio sent audio transmissions over the airwaves, bringing mass communication to those who never learned to read. Not long after, television put faces to newscasters and brought images of tragedy and triumph into families’ homes. These advances in communication all allowed messages from senders in a few specific locations to be sent to receivers on a broad scale.

Because of restrictions of practicality, not all information gets to the masses. You can only pack so much into one newspaper or television show.

But media gatekeepers such as newspaper editors and television producers determined what issues were important and what the people would hear about; consumers were virtually powerless to influence what they were shown.

Not until the birth and growth of the internet were the traditional receivers of messages able to utilize the medium as much as the traditional senders. Messages and feedback on messages are now sent between businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, etc. rather than from one clear sender to one clear receiver.

New mass media allows information to spread from all sides. People are technologically able to find information they're looking for directly from the source, and send it on. All parties in the communications process are active.

Developments in media technology are not necessarily good, and not necessarily bad. What it means is power to determine what information becomes known – and now, for the first time, this power is technologically accessible to all participants in media interactions.

Our society needs to be conscious of the power we have with this technology, for only when we are aware of the power we possess are we able to use it to its full potential. We are building an incredible tool for our society - how do we want it to look? For a lot of people, like my mom with Google on her phone, the implications of shiny new gadgets aren't apparent.

This blog will be a place that addresses these topics from a consumer's standpoint. My goal is to provide critical thinking in understandable terms on technologies and behaviors that are rapidly changing and continually shaping society. The internet and its relation to privacy, anonymity, ownership and copyright, jurisdiction, civil rights, activism, free speech and journalism are topics mired in questions that we, the people, must answer.