| Column: The duplicity of anonymous |
 |
 |
 |
|
Wednesday, 29 June 2011 10:20
|
|||
|
On 10 February 2008, the Church of Scientology came under attack. Thousands of Internet users from across the globe had unanimously decided that the Church was a "money-making cult" and that it was up to them to do something about it. They donned Guy Fawkes masks (ala V for Vendetta) and gathered en mass outside Scientology churches.
According to Wikipedia, 7 000 people protested in at least 100 cities worldwide. Within 24 hours of the first protest, a search for 'Scientology' and 'protest' on Google Blog Search returned more than 4 000 results and over 2 000 pictures of the event.
What particular crime had sparked this protest? The church wanted to remove a video from YouTube. An Internet group, calling itself 'Anonymous', took exception to this. Claiming to be the defenders of Internet freedom and freedom of speech, they decided to take a stand.
A rallying cry went out: "Brothers, our time has come for us to rise, as not only heroes of the Internet, but as its guardians. Brothers, let the demons of the intarwebs [Internet] become the angels that shall vanquish the evil that dare turn its face to us. Brothers... man the harpoons!"
Three years later, they are toppling governments and upsetting the world's economy.
Anonymous has a reputation. If you happen to stumble upon any of their haunts you'd better not be at work. Their image boards, where any user can post anonymously, are cesspools of racism, sexism and pornography. They have been involved in horrific incidents of bullying and cruel pranks. They skulk behind the anonymity that the Internet provides. They are the manifestation of the darkness within us all, the epitome of the psychological phenomenon "group think".
And yet... they are also responsible for taking down white supremacist radio host Hal Turner's Web site and costing him thousands of dollars; for tracking down Internet predator, Chris Forcand, before the police even got around to investigating him; for banding together with The Pirate Bay to try ensure Iran had free and fair elections. Last year they fought against Internet censorship in Australia, against corporations suing independent developers for copyright violation and, even more famously, stood up in support of the freedom of speech and right to information presented by Wikileaks and for the human rights of suspected leaker, Bradley Manning.
This year, they played a part in the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan protests, targeting government Web sites.
And now they are in the press again - this time in conjunction with the hacker group claiming responsibility for the Sony security breech, LulzSec.
However, Anonymous has made numerous statements to the press and on Web sites such as PasteBin that they do not support the anarchic fervour of the members of LulzSec. When Anonymous targets something, it's for a reason.
As I write this, they are engaging in a wide-ranging campaign against oppressive governments called Operation Anonymous. Yesterday they dumped data from Anguillan, Brazilian, Zimbabwean and Australian government servers and there was talk of them targeting the Israeli government next. You can easily follow their progress on Twitter by running a search for the hashtag #antisec or #wordrevolution.
Today they've declared war on Orlando, Fl, targeting a different Orlando-related website every day until the city stops arresting non-profit members feeding the homeless (you can follow @OpOrlando2011 for more info on this).
So are they terrorists? Or are they activists? Or are they misguided freedom of speech evangelists with their hearts in the right place but with despicable methods? And are they using these methods because they wish to show off, or because these are the only methods that they feel will work?
The answer, I feel, is "all of the above". Anonymous is not so much an organisation as a movement. It has little to no leadership and every member operates independently for his or her own reasons. This is what makes it most powerful and at times pretty terrifying. Again the image from V for Vendetta seems fitting: many masked citizens marching on the seat of government, a few falling to the shots of frightened soldiers now and then, but the mass moving steadily onwards.
Perhaps figuring out who they are, why they do what they do and if there is any way to stop them is not as important as acknowledging that they represent a fundamental shift in the way we have to think about politics.
As The Pirate Party has argued for a shift in the way we think of copyright and ownership in the digital age, so does Anonymous put forward the idea that people now really have the power to stop the governments and corporations of the world from engaging in undesirable behaviour, that people have the power to to hold them accountable.
To steal the quote from V for Vendetta: "Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
Tallulah is social media manager for ITWeb.co.za and a self-confessed Internet junkie. When cut off from the net she hides in her room drawing, watching movies, reading or making up fantastical stories that might one day make her famous. She likes long conversations, long walks on the beach and your feedback (no matter how long). Contact her on Twitter (@tallulahlucy) or via email at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Comments (6)
  written by tallulah, June 29, 2011
I think there are definitely members who take part "for the lulz", and then there are members who actually feel like they want to make a difference, and then there are those who just want to show off.
An hour on 4chan demonstrates better than anything that they're no freedom fighters. But I'm not entirely convinced they're pure terrorist either. I'm also not sure I believe that it's just a bunch of fun tiems with other people's data. Some of the stuff to come out of the Lulzsec thing surprised me - anonymous members who actually spoke out against what Lulzsec doing because it weakened the cause. But then there were also members who congratulated them. I agree with you - few seem to understand that Anonymous is not an organisation. Perhaps I was wrong in calling it a movement though... but is there even a word for what it is? An idea is the closest I can come. Sure, the individual members may be misguided and not nearly as harmonious as the V for Vendetta image implies, but the fact that they exist, the fact they've started making the news and the fact that the FBI etc have failed to stop them so far says something. I'm just not entirely sure what that is yet! It's a fascinating topic. If I went back to study I'd do a thesis on 4Chan/Anonymous.
 written by Ryc0v, June 29, 2011
They are quite an aberrant social structure aren't they? If pressed to try define them I'd say they're almost like an anarcho-commune...
 written by RIC007GP, June 29, 2011
I think that the difference between these guys and those standing in the streets with signs is that you can see those with signs and count their number and, usually, they are constrained by the rule of law. These self proclaimed "protectors of the people" are few in number who hide behind their anonimity. These cowards certainly cannot be spoken of in the same breath as those who braved the streets of Damascus or Tripoli. Agree with him or not, at least Julian Assange did not hide behind an avatar. Can their support be quantified? I think not. Who do they speak for? Certainly not me.
written by tallulah, June 29, 2011
A good point! But one could argue that if they used their real names they would not have much chance to do anything before the authorities got hold of them. Still, I agree that their methods leave much to be desired, even if their hearts are in the right place - which in some of the cases I don't think they are.
Add your 2Cents
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Newer news items:
Older news items:
|
Are they a bunch of acne-faced teenagers engaging in random acts of mob violence from their mothers' basements, or the true protectors of the Internet? Or both? It's a paradox – and one that begs questions about the true nature and power of the Net.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Member Login
 |
 |
 |
I think the media attention "anonymous" is getting is hilarious. The way they seem to specify that the group has no leaders, but then go on to describe thousands of people working together in perfect harmony is fairly inaccurate.
As a person (un)lucky enough to witness a "raid" being planned/executed by anonymous. I can honestly say that it's one of the less inspiring mind storming processes.
Sure, some of the reasons for their DDoS's and spamming and cracking attacks are good, but the process itself is done by a skilled minority. The majority are just foolish individuals that don't understand the abilities of organisations to track them over the internet.
The people getting caught are almost definitely NOT "high-ranking" or "leaders" but socially awkward people who like to laugh at others misfortune.
This schaudenfraude is hardly frowned upon in other aspects of life, it just seems that the anonymity and lack of restrain present on their forums means that they are perhaps a little TOO perverse in their enjoyments.
They claim that, as many nations allow picketing and public protests, their digital attacks are a similar process. A nice idea, but the law doesn't agree.
The uncontrolled image board produces content like raids (and the stuff you see in the news), annoying internet memes (some say it's the birthplace of LOLcats), annoying grammar errors assumed to aggravate others (I lost. What do?) and basically a "How-to-troll" guide for the aspiring online irritant.
I would not be so quick to say they're a bunch of nerds living in their parents basement however, I was surprised by what some of the anonymous members seem to spend their lives doing. Some are far from the stereotypical "loser" type.
And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. (Mark 5:9, King James translation).