!

1
 Abstract
This project discusses the hacktivist association Anonymous. Using the Vejlegården
conflict that took place during the summer of 2012, it examines the democratic practice
of Anonymous. Unusually, Anonymous took the employer’s side and attacked the
websites of labour unions 3F and HK. Analysing 90 pages of chat logs from a forum
used by Anonymous during the days of the attacks, the project discusses whether the
conversations, decisions and discussions on these forums are adhering to commonly
accepted democratic principles in political theory. The analysis is especially focused on
how the concept of anonymity affects the behavior of Anonymous.
The project argues that the practice on the forums is decided by a distinguishable
hierarchy, an exclusion of users disagreeing and no regards to a concept of common
good. The project concludes that the behavior shown from the logs is in severe conflict
with desirable democratic practice.
Additionally, the project discusses the existing literature on the field and provides a
supplement to the findings, methodology and approaches of current Anonymous
scholars.

! 2
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: MOTIVATION – A BUNCH OF ANONYMOUS GUYS 4

RESEARCH FIELD 6
RESEARCH QUESTION 7
SUB-RESEARCH QUESTIONS 7

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY – APPROACHING JOHN DOE 9

METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS 9
CHRONOLOGY OF NOTABLE ANONYMOUS OPERATIONS 10
PRIMARY EMPIRICAL DATA: CHAT LOGS OF PROJECT VEJLEGÅRDEN 11
ANALYTICAL STRATEGY: APPLYING A CASE STUDY 12
PROJECT VEJLEGÅRDEN 13
ANALYSING THE PRIMARY EMPIRICAL DATA 15

CHAPTER 3: THEORY – UNLOGGING CHANNELS 17

ANONYMOUS 17
HACKTIVISM 18
ANONYMITY AS A THEORETICAL CONCEPT 20
LITERATURE STUDY AND SOURCE CRITICISM 25
GABRIELLA COLEMAN 26
ALEXANDRA SAMUEL 26

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS – UNMASKING ANONYMOUS 28

SINCERITY 28
INDEPENDENCE 32
PUBLIC-MINDEDNESS 36
METHOD > PURPOSE AND HACKER ROMANTICISM 41
FREEDOM OF SPEECH 42

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION – GIVE A MAN A MASK… 45

PARADOXXING 45
IDEOLOGY 48
DESIRABLE DEMOCRATIC PRACTICE? 50
EXISTING THEORY 56

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION – VICE HAS A MASK 59

CHAPTER 7: EPILOGUE – …ONE LAST LOGIN 62

CHAPTER 8: BIBLIOGRAPHY 65
APPENDIX 1 69
APPENDIX 2 AND 3 (CD) 70
!

! 3
Chapter 1: Motivation – A Bunch of Anonymous Guys

The world is changing around us. Especially in the way we engage in democratic
participation.
Participation in formal politics can be done through many channels, and the
following paragraphs outline the development in voter turnout, party membership,
participation in political meetings, etc. In practically all Western democracies, electoral
turnout has been decreasing for the past 60 years (Hay 2007: 13). The OECD voter
turnout average has declined 8 percentage points between 1970 and 2005 (ibid.: 13).
These numbers constitute a slight, but consistent decrease averaging barely a quarter of
a percentage point each year since the data was collected. A more dramatic decline can
be seen in the number of people engaged in party memberships. Professor Colin Hay,
who is debating this issue in his book Why We Hate Politics, notes that party
memberships are generally a sign of a higher level of commitment to political
participation. According to estimates, around 40 per cent of party members view
themselves as “activists” (Hay 2007: 21). Hay’s table shows the average turnout level
and party membership level in OECD countries since the mid-fifties. The table shows a
much more significant decline in political party membership than in voter turnout.

Table 1.1 – Election Turnout and Party Membership Level in OECD Countries

Hay further argues that similar tendencies are apparent in other forms of formal political
conduct: writing to politicians, participating in political meetings and signing petitions
are all declining as well (Hay 2007: 22).
However, in the same period of time, a rise has been seen in other forms of political
participation. Professor in Global Governance, Mary Kaldor, who studied political

4
participation throughout the 1990s found that memberships of INGOs increased by 70
per cent to an amount of 263,000 memberships (Kaldor 2011: 9). It has been argued that
especially since the Second World War, participation in politics has been much more
about engaging in a transnational civil society than national, party-based politics
(Davies 2008: 2). This depiction is supported by Kaldor, who states that a defining
characteristic of “modern” engagement is that the perspective is “…cosmopolitan …
that is to say … concerned with issues and principles that apply to human beings in
general and not just their own interests in a particular locality” (Kaldor 2011: 4).
Though the forms of organisation, forms of action, issues and relation to power
differ between different activist movements, they all try to address a need for engaging
in ways the formal political systems seem to have been insufficiently able to provide.
Colin Hay summarises three key sources of dissatisfaction with political systems as:

“(1) the (perceived) tendency of political elites to subvert the collective

public interest in the narrow pursuit of party or self-interest whilst
proclaiming themselves disingenuously to be guardians of the former; (2)
the (perceived) tendency for political elites, in pursuit of such narrow party
or self-interest, to be captured by large (often corporate) interests; and (3)
the (perceived) tendency of government to the inefficient use of public
resources” (Hay 2007: 39).

Many activist movements try to deal with these issues. The focus of Kaldor’s typology
of Global Civil Society Actors is exactly oriented towards issues (thus challenging
narrow pursuit of party or self-interest agendas) and social composition, forms of
organisation and relation to power (thus challenging the capturing of the cause by large
(corporate) interests). As the rest of the project explores, Kaldor’s typology of activism
is further nuanced by the emergence of hacktivism. Thus, these scholarly areas of focus
are relevant to explore with regards to Anonymous, but are also challenged by the forms
and function of the association.

5
Research Field

As documented, the participation in formal politics is spiralling downwards in almost

all Western societies. Election turnouts, political party memberships and labour union
activity are all seemingly losing popular support. The tendency of less political
engagement is linked to a general transformation of participation. Anonymous serves as
an example of how participation can manifest itself. Anonymous is arguably the first
hacktivist association to gain mainstream notoriety1.

Table 1.2: Development in National Newspaper Articles About Anonymous2

70!
60!
50!
40! Number!of!articles!on!
30! Anonymous!in!Danish!
national!newspapers:!
20!
Project!Vejlegården!20.!july!
10! 2012!
0!

The project discusses how it is methodologically possible to examine Anonymous.

It contains critical reflections on methodology when examining online material.
Previous academic discussions on Anonymous have been limited. The intangibility and
secrecy surrounding Anonymous has made traditional empirical approaches difficult.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Development in National Newspaper Articles About Anonymous (table 1.2) and Chronology of Notable
Anonymous Operations (table 2.1 – App. 1: 69).
2
Table 1.2 was created following quantitative research methods. The table was formed using Infomedia’s
search-engine as our source of data collection. The keyword we used was “Anonymous”, and the search
was expanded to include 16 Danish nationwide newspapers. All articles hits where carefully read in order
to confirm that the topics of the given articles actually were about the hacktivist association Anonymous.

6
Excerpts of chat logs from Project Vejlegården, obtained from IRC channels3 used by
Anonymous, are analysed. These logs have provided unique insight in the
communication and reflections of Anonymous associates. The primary focus of this
project is to discuss how the premise of anonymity has effects on Anonymous and to
discuss the democratic participatory aspects of anonymity. Because of the controversy
and exceptionality of Operation Vejlegården performed by Anonymous, this case is at
the centre of the project.
In the summer of 2012, a conflict between the Danish restaurant Vejlegården and
the Danish labour unions 3F and HK escalated and achieved massive national press
coverage4. It sparked a discussion on the conditions of the Danish labour market that
eventually caused a number of Anonymous participants to engage in the conflict. Unlike
previous Anonymous operations, however, Anonymous did not side with the little man.
Traditionally, Anonymous has been performing operations in favour of Occupy
Wall Street and WikiLeaks in addition, anti-corporate operations such as the SOPA and
ACTA operations have implied a general attitude of anti-capitalism5. In the case of
Vejlegården, however, Anonymous sided with the restaurant, and performed operations
against the websites of 3F and HK. This turn of events raises questions that lie at the
core of online activism.

Research Question

How can democratic qualities and problems of Anonymous be assessed through a

theoretical framework of democratic participation?

Sub-Research Questions

The project provides an outline of which issues that are at the frontline of the debate of
online activism. The project argues that the rise of awareness surrounding hacktivism
the recent years will continue to advance the relevance of the posed questions. Finally,
the project discusses the future of the association in relation to the questions posed in
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) refers to real-time communication (chat) through forums, called channels.
Chat logs are the logs of the activity on such chat forums.
4
In the rest of the project, the conflict will be referred to simply as “Vejlegården” and the Anonymous
involvement will be referred to as “Project Vejlegården” and “Operation Vejlegården”.
5
Also, see appendix 1 page 69 “Chronology of Notable Anonymous Operations” outlining operations and
their purpose/focus for a documentation of political tendencies in Anonymous operations.

7
the previous chapter. The final chapters touch on how the challenges of the political
identity of Anonymous affect the association in the future. In continuation to these
reflections, we have articulated some sub-research questions that are examined
throughout the project:
- How does the premise of anonymity affect the democratic participation and the
behaviour of Anonymous?
- What questions does the premise of anonymity raise concerning the
accountability and coherence of Anonymous?
- How is the existing literature concerned with Anonymous and the questions
raised?

8
Chapter 2: Methodology – Approaching John Doe

This chapter accounts and argues for the methodological reflections and the use of a
qualitative research approach. In continuation, the application of our primary empirical
data is outlined. At the end the analytical strategy of the empirical data appears through
our use of case study and the way the empirical data is analysed.

Methodological Reflections

We are interested in empirical data to support the analysis of anonymity within

Anonymous. One important notion of Anonymous is that this case study focuses on
Anonymous Denmark (AnonDK). The structure of Anonymous allows for subgroups to
form ideas and operations without the knowing or consent of other Anons6. So while
there might be generally accepted norms and values, the degree in which these apply to
all Anons is not clear. This point is why the project is not focused on a notion of an
essence of Anonymous; rather it wishes to discuss the possible manifestations of
Anonymous.
Anonymous is an online network operating on online platforms; primarily websites
and chat logs from IRC conversation are the basis of our research field7. This chapter
discusses methodological implications, opportunities and challenges in political and
social sciences when studying online, virtual phenomena (Mann & Stewart 2000;
Hewson et al. 2003; Hookway 2008).
We suggest that IRC channels can provide opportunities for scientific research that
can extent the capacities of offline qualitative research given in the case of Project
Vejlegården. Compared to traditional qualitative face-to-face interviews, observations
and focus groups, the use of online research can “…enable access to populations
otherwise geographically or socially removed from the researcher” (Hookway 2008:
93).
Online chat logs are comparable to the traditional qualitative data, which non-
participant observational methods produce. The collected chat logs is analysed in order
“…to study the processes whereby meaning is collectively constructed” (Bryman & Bell

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6
We have chosen the word Anons because they refer to themselves as such.
7
Chat logs have been merged in Microsoft Word. The chat log used in this project is stored on the CD
found as appendix 2.

9
2011: 505).
The collected chat logs consist of 90 pages of Anons chatting in the prime of
Project Vejlegården. Participants are represented by self-chosen usernames. Further
personal information is not necessarily presented. It is therefore essential to comprehend
the existing language characteristics of chat logs. Therefore understanding of technical
terms as to doxx, to be kicked or banned and the frequent change of usernames is
important in order to analyse the dynamics of IRC communication, as these terms in
themselves hold qualitative value8 9.

“In qualitative research, observation is used to study behaviour in a natural

environment. It often takes place in living, natural and complex
communities or settings, in physical environments, or in virtual settings …
(e.g., Internet chat rooms)” (Panel on Research Ethics 2012).

The chat logs of Project Vejlegården function as transcripts of the observation of Anons
debating the operation. For qualitative purposes interpretation of the transcripts is
conducted as a research method that entails interpretation and understanding of the chat
log conversations while taking the dynamics of online language and IRC channel
characteristics between participants into account. It should be mentioned that in certain
passages of the chat logs, the Danish letters æ, ø and å are not represented, as the IRC
channel does not support these letters.

Chronology of Notable Anonymous Operations

We had some methodological considerations about how to create a clear overview of

what kind of operations Anonymous participates in. We figured that a diagram
illustrating the most notable Anonymous operations would provide to an increased
understanding of which operations Anonymous engages in.
Table 2.1 (App. 1: 69) presents notable Anonymous operations. The table was
created using national and international news media such as Google news search engine,
BBC and CNN outlets and Infomedia. Methodologically this list of operations is by no
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Doxxing is when hackers or hacktivists identify personal information (typically full name, address,
contact information and perhaps employment information) of other hackers and make it available online.
9
When a person gets kicked from the Anon-forum it means that an administrator of the website has
decided to throw the user out. The administrator also has the option to ban the user. A ban suspends the
user from the forum for a period of time determined by the administrator.

10
means exhaustive, but provides a useful chronology of operations linked to Anonymous
both by the media and Anonymous itself. The categories of issues were created using a
combination of the self-proclaimed intentions given by Anonymous (Twitter-accounts
and IRC channels) and the media’s coverage.

Primary Empirical Data: Chat Logs of Project Vejlegården

The chat logs concerned with Project Vejlegården provides conversations and activities
automatically saved and stored in log files. The logs deliver useful information of who
writes what and when. Access to the screenshots of the chat logs was obtained and
collected through the Danish Anonnymous website 10 . On the website’s general
discussion board, where users interested in Anonymous discusses operations and
political issues, one particular user commented and posted his screenshot of
conversations regarding Project Vejlegården. Acknowledging questions of validity, the
authenticity of the chat logs must be discussed (Bryman & Bell 2011: 398f). The topics
and messages in the chat logs are significantly coherent with the progress and available
data regarding the conflict of Vejlegården. Anthropologist Gabriella Coleman, who
studies Anonymous activities and hacktivism, states that the use of IRC channels are a
fundamental hub for Anonymous’ activity as it facilitates discussions of work and
operations without limitations for participation (Coleman 2012b: 84). The chat logs’
coherence with the actual events in the conflict serves to validate the authenticity and
reliability of the chat logs (Bryman & Bell 2011: 394ff).
In the early stages of the project, we considered accessing some of Anonymous’
IRC channels in order to collect first-hand data and possibly interview active users.
While we were able to access some IRC channels, it was apparent that to achieve
confidentiality, a comprehensive understanding of hacking was required. Also, we
experienced an inherit amount of scepticism towards researchers and journalists, as the
users of the IRC channels expressed concern that people looking for information might
be performing criminal investigations regarding them.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
www.anonkbh.dk.

11
Analytical Strategy: Applying a Case Study

Working with case studies involves a practical approach as an important factor to

understand theoretical coherence. Case studies are based on an investigation of some
practical issues regarding a specific event, which should result in general knowledge
(Jacob 2007: 242f). The social sciences claim that through the study of the particular
cases it is possible to reach an understanding of common conditions (Jacob 2007: 243).
Yin indicates the importance of five components of the case study’s scope (Yin
2003: 21). Firstly, the study question that in our case investigates how Anonymous
operates and why the anonymity of the association is of importance. Secondly, the
propositions, which entail what should be examined within the scope of research. In our
choice of research the problems and qualities concerning anonymity in political
democratic participation are examined. Furthermore, an examination of how Anons act
democratically in the chat rooms. Thirdly, investigating the unit of analysis that define
the specific case – in our instance Anonymous’ Operation Vejlegården. Fourthly, the
linking of the data to the propositions is done using our chat logs of Project Vejlegården
to glance at some possible matching patterns related to the theoretical framework and
existing literature. Fifthly, the criteria for interpreting the findings (Yin 2003: 21-27).
One of our criterions for success is consistent argumentation of why our research is
made as good as possible and how it contributes to the theoretical field.
Operation Vejlegården was selected after a preliminary literature study of
theoretical and empirical background literature concerning the problem of clarification.
During this phase other applicable cases for the investigation was deliberated (Jacob
2007: 245). Through the literature study, the case of Project Chanology was taken into
consideration because the interesting aspect of a more political Anonymous developing
(Coleman 2012b: 7). The empirical data available, however, did not meet our criterion
of success as much as the chat logs obtainable in the case of Project Vejlegården.
Adding to that, Operation Vejlegården let to problems and qualities regarding
anonymity, which is the core of our research question. The choice of theory and method
is selected through a meticulous research (Jacob 2007: 245). To investigate the specific
case James A. Gardner’s theory on democratic values in citizenship (Gardner 2011) and
Alexandra Samuel’s definition of hacktivism (Samuel 2004) is applied to clarify the
problems regarding the premises of anonymity in Anonymous.

12
 Yin defines a case study as an empirical study that “…investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin 2003: 13). Our case of Project
Vejlegården represents an obscurity of Anonymous as an association and their choice of
cases, which makes it an interesting phenomenon to look at. Yin stresses five typical
reasons to choose a single-case study: when it represents a critical case, an
extreme/unique case, representative/typical case, revelatory case or a longitudinal case
(Yin 2003: 40ff). The case of Vejlegården is applied as a single critical case. This case
study entails the testing of a current theory that has a set of contextual assumptions that
are believed as true (Yin 2003: 40). According to Yin our task as researchers is to use
our case of Vejlegården to determine if the theory’s assumptions are correct or whether
we will find some better alternative explanations (ibid.: 40). Anonymous, in general,
can be regarded as an example of a new way of political participation and a developed
political identity. In addition to that, the concept of anonymity is considered as a core
value in Operation Vejlegården as well as their other operations. Through the case of
Vejlegården it was analysed whether the participants adhere to Gardner’s three
democratic values, sincerity, independence and public-mindedness, and how anonymity
shapes the way of participation (Gardner 2011). In this manner, the critical case study is
applied to discover if these theories can clarify how Anonymous operated in the specific
case of Vejlegården.

Project Vejlegården

In 2011 the owner of the Vejle-based restaurant Vejlegården, Amin Skov, had all of the
Danish media pointed towards him. Skov had replaced his employees’ union with a
more budget-friendly option. Vejlegården’s waiters had a salary of DKK 130 before the
switch in unions and now they make about DKK 110 (Sørensen & Fallesen 2012).
The reasons behind the stir are different interpretations of the Danish labour market
model. Traditionally, it secures peoples’ right to conflict, the right to strike and the right
to create a blockade. It also ensures that agreements are made on collective foundations.
Restaurant Vejlegården’s employees were members of the union 3F, which secured
them the previous mentioned rights. Amin Skov took the decision to lock out employees
that wanted to remain under 3F, because he wanted them to sign up with the union Krifa

13
that would cut his employees’ wages. Simultaneously, several other restaurants
followed the same path (netnyheder@tv2.dk 2012).
The core differences between 3F and Krifa are easily spottable. What Krifa values
is a liberal model of work based on liberal worker legislation, individual agreements
between employees and employer that terminates employees’ historically granted right
to strike. Adding to that, agreements with unions like Krifa lead to poorer agreements
regarding wages and terms of working – just as the case with Vejlegården (ibid.).
In March 2012 3F showed up at the premises of Vejlegården forcing a blockade
upon the restaurant, more than a year after owner Amin Skov signed with Krifa. 3F
decided to blockade the restaurant with extensive means such as using support from
other unions in order to prevent Vejlegården’s advertisements for food from being
printed in local newspapers (ibid.). During the blockade, people could enter and leave
the premises of Vejlegården, but cars would often get 3F-stickers put on them. And the
following months after that saw a dramatic process involving more and more pickets
from 3F, politicians on either side, Amin Skov facing death threats and even one picket
being run down by a car. According to Skov, the core of the conflict is in his view, his
own fundamental right as an employer to choose unions (Hedegaard 2012). In mid-July
3F’s website was suddenly not working, telling entering users that the website could not
be shown. Shortly thereafter, Anonymous sent out statements and a video making it
clear that 3F’s website deliberately was hacked. The Danish news media TV 2 was in
contact with one person claiming to be a part of the operation. He defended the
operation by saying 3F was trying to restrict Amin Skov’s free right to choose and made
it clear that 3F’s website would be opened again, if it reached a settlement with
Vejlegården and Krifa (Braagaard 2012a). The conflict gained extra widespread
attention when the parties Venstre and the Social Democratic Party took conflicting
positions. Venstre defended Amin Skov’s free right choose union while the Social
Democratic Party backed 3F’s continuous right to maintain the blockade (Rehn 2012).
In the wake of the initial attacks on 3F’s, similar unions’ and even an attempt at
hacking a the Social Democratic Party’s website, other factions claiming to be the real
Anonymous criticised the operation. The faction that stood by Vejlegården felt the
restaurant’s struggle for the right and freedom to choose a union was legitimate and felt
that the extensive presence of pickets was intimidating (Braagaard 2012a). A few days
after the initial hacks, another video surfaced claiming the operation against 3F was
conducted by amateurs. The fundamental differences were vast. The group that was

14
critical of the initial hackers felt that the operation was not thought through. When 3F’s
website was overloaded by DDoS11 attacks, it prevented up to 30,000 recipients of
unemployment benefits from gaining access to the page where they submit their
information in order to get the support. The Anonymous faction that was critical of the
attack stated, along with 3F that they found it absurd, that the initial hack was based on
ideals of freedom, whilst the operation in reality infringed 30,000 recipients of benefit’s
personal freedom (Braagaard 2012b).
When looking at table 2.1 (App. 1: 69) Project Vejlegården differs from other
Anonymous operations. It did not target capitalistic corporations, pedophiles or
governments that infringe Internet freedom. It targeted a case with normal people
involved and took the stand of the employer instead of the employees. This is why
internal Anonymous discussions arose and because the case of Vejlegården differs from
other operations, it legitimates a scientific investigation of the case for the analysis.

Analysing the Primary Empirical Data

When analysing empirical data a distinction between deductive and inductive

approaches is common. However, the literature on scientific methods does not agree on
the relevance of the clear-cut distinction between these two approaches. It is argued that
some qualitative studies in practice require both inductive and deductive approaches
(Olsen 2002: 110ff). This is in accordance with philosophies of science that regards
realisation and the production of knowledge as practices occurring in an interaction
between researcher and the field investigated.
The approach of analysing the chat logs was based on a reflexive and interpretive
reading. The chat logs were analysed through a selection of particular quotes and from
this re-constructed to gain new perspectives. The different quotes, essential to our
investigation, were organised in proper categories related to our research question, sub-
research questions and theories. In this manner, the analysis and discussion were formed
on the basis of the project’s aim. Under these categories different interpretative
reflections were added. Thagaard defines this as interpretative coding, which aims to
reach a deeper understanding of the data applied (Thagaard 2004: 139). Through the
process of interpretative coding, a broader understanding of the chat logs emerged as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
Distributed Denial of Service.

15
the material expanded along with our own reflections (Thagaard 2004: 140). When
conducting our analysis and discussion, we were aware of the interplay between
selected quotations and the entirety of the chat log conversations.

16
Chapter 3: Theory – Unlogging Channels

This project places itself in between two fields of research – Anonymous and
democratic anonymity – that have been explored in modest extent in terms of academic
research. This chapter provides an overview of the theory on anonymity as a democratic
concept and of online anonymity. The chapter explains the core concepts of these
theoretical frameworks, and how they can apply to the analysis of Project Vejlegården.
Finally, the chapter discusses the existing literature on the subject and places itself in
the theoretical framework.

Anonymous

Anonymous took form in 2008. In January an internal Scientology video featuring

famous Scientologist and actor, Tom Cruise, surfaced on Youtube. In the video, Cruise,
a long-term and high-ranking member of the movement, describes how Scientologists
are the only people able to help after car-accidents and how they are able to save drug-
addicts (Richards 2008). Anonymous became involved after Scientology requested for
the video to be removed due to its copyright and internal purposes (Schwartz 2012: 1).
Anonymous used a hacking method that has since become integral in their later
notable hacks: DDoS. This method is based on multiple systems attacking a single
target. If the method achieves its aims, the targeted system or website will be
overloaded causing a denial of service for users. Typically, a hacker preparing a DDoS
attack is looking to exploit security breaches in the specific system or website. When
the insecurities have been settled, the hacker diffuses the information and probably
creates a crack-tool for the concrete breach. From there, the levels of diffusion set the
limit to how many hackers are able to participate. Often the crack-tools are made so
simple, that average computer-users only have to load the tool to participate. All
computers with the specific crack-tool installed are participating in the overloading of
the target (Rouse 2010).
At the point of Project Chanology, it was Anonymous’ biggest operation and the
association was paving its way into the mainstream consciousness. When looking at
Anonymous’ later operations, some central ideas and themes pop up. After Project
Chanology, Anonymous involved itself in piracy- and file-sharing-related issues. The
association launched attacks defending the file-sharing hub The Pirate Bay in 2010. The

17
website was accused of copyright infringements by the International Federation of
Phonographic Industry (IFPI) that represents and safeguards recording artists’ rights.
When the DDoS attacks against the IFPIs website were launched, Anonymous made it
clear why it supported The Pirate Bay; the association wanted to defend freedom of
information, create a copyright reform and establish a free Internet (Constantin 2010).
Since the support of The Pirate Bay, Anonymous has conducted several similar attacks
in the same spirit of freedom of information, new copyrights and a free Internet.
Examples are the attacks on the American Department of Justice in January 2012 in
response to the governmental closure of the file-sharing website Megaupload (Segall
2012). Anonymous has conducted several operations of the same type, which table 2.1
visualise (App. 1: 69). Apart from freedom-insisting operations, Anonymous also has a
history of targeting pedophiles using the Internet for surfing child porn. Their tactics
include shutting down illegal pornographic websites and making public lists with
alleged pedophile’s names or handing them in to the relevant authorities.
Following Project Chanology in 2008, Anons started real-life protests on the
streets, supporting the attacks on Scientology. In Anonymous-related demonstrations
since, the demonstrators wear characteristic masks that have become a symbol of
Anonymous. It appears in the movie V for Vendetta, which is a movie about revolting
against a fascist establishment, where it is a symbol of the fight for freedom. The mask
serves as a symbol of Anonymous – for example when the association submits pre-
attack videos, it often features a person wearing a mask. It also helps maintain the
activists’ anonymity (Benedictus 2011).

Hacktivism

PhD in Political Science, Alexandra Samuel, stands out as one of the few academic
contributors that specifically investigate hacktivism. Samuel’s dissertation is used as a
theoretical framework to understand dilemmas and core concepts of Anonymous
discussing to what extent the Internet can provide new forms of deliberative political
participation. Samuel’s work has its foundation in the phenomenon of hacktivism,
which she defines as: “…the marriage of political activism and computer hacking”
(Samuel 2004: 11).
Samuel identifies three opportunities for political action enabled by hacktivism.
First off, she notes that hacktivism can be carried out by one solo actor, which changes

18
the understanding of political action being driven by mass cooperation (Samuel 2004:
17). Secondly, Samuel notes that ”…hacktivists can elude the mechanisms that allow
states to enforce policy, pursuing policy circumvention rather than policy change”
(ibid.: 17). Thirdly, the hacktivist nature of online activity promotes anonymity and
makes use of communication, both one to many and many to many (ibid.: 17).
Samuel argues that hacktivism challenges the traditional perception of selective
incentives for political participation (Samuel 2004: 103). She contests the question of
collectiveness and collaboration among hacktivists, as she stresses that collaboration
should be seen as a way of pursuing specific political ends, and not because
collaboration entails interactive benefits: “Simply looking at incentives for collaboration
still leaves the mystery of why self-interested individuals pursue collective action as a
means to those ends” (Samuel 2004: 146). The way out of this dilemma, for Samuel, is
to focus on the “particular reward” (ibid.: 146), to explain why hacktivists participate in
collective action: “For hacktivists, the choice of means – virtual sit-in or web site
defacement, political software or denial of service attack – is an end in itself: the end of
confirming a very particular kind of social and political identity” (Samuel 2004: 147).
Hacktivism poses challenges to the democratic discourse in terms of accountability
and freedom. Samuel argues that a transformation is emerging as hacktivist tools and
information on how to engage is being spread through various channels (Samuel 2004:
223). Anonymity is a core concept in order to understand hacktivist activity. Anonymity
can have various degrees and the identifiability can be modified from full names, to
nicknames to full anonymity. This serves different purposes and amends the levels of
accountability (Samuel 2004: 224). Hacktivist behaviour is highly influenced by a
discourse emphasising freedom of speech: “…[hacktivists] are heavily influenced by a
kind of hacker romanticism that sees the Internet as the last frontier for truly free
speech, and as a kind of generalized libertarian haven” (ibid.: 224). Samuel stresses
that the rise of hacktivism calls for new ways of understanding social movements, as
hacktivism differs in its starting point of engagement. Her key argument is that
hacktivists often choose to be active, due to their technical abilities, prior to determining
their political agenda (Samuel 2004: 105). Hacktivists therefore contrast social
movements because it is the methods and not the causes that define their movement:

“The priority of movement method (i.e. participation in some form of

political hacking) over movement purpose (the choice of cause to which that

19
 hacking is harnessed) is further evidenced by hacktivists’ explicit allegiance
to their common form of political participation, rather than to any common
purpose“ (Samuel 2004: 106).

Gabriella Coleman is included to complement Samuel’s focus on hacktivism. Coleman

is an avid follower of Anonymous and has written academic publications concerning the
online association. Gabriella Coleman’s publication Our Weirdness is Free, The Logic
of Anonymous – Online Army, Agent of Chaos, and Seeker of Justice is applied in the
analysis of Anonymous. It clarifies Anonymous’ development and mostly how the
association is understood today. Importantly, Coleman studies the terminology of
Anonymous and online communities, which proves useful when trying to understand
the dynamics of IRC channels. Furthermore, Coleman describes how Anonymous
operates, their decentralised structure and how their standpoint has changed being more
political (Coleman 2012b: 84ff).

Anonymity as a Theoretical Concept

While anonymity is by no means a new concept in democratic discussions, the change

in platforms of participation (specifically online participation) has arguably had
implications on the perspectives of the discussion of anonymity and democracy. As
Professor James A. Gardner suggests, discussions of anonymity and democracy has
always been a sensible matter: “…anonymity has been both praised for freeing citizens
to vote and speak their true beliefs, and condemned for providing convenient cover to
harmful or democratically undesirable behaviour” (Gardner 2011: 4f). The chosen text
Anonymity and Democracy Citizenship by Gardner is relevant for the project as it
provides with concrete accounts on anonymity and democratic ideals. His theoretical
framework is unifying an adequate scale of democratic theory (Gardner 2011: 15).
However, this project’s intention is not to balance the wide array of political theory on
the subject of anonymity and democratic participation. Gardner’s theory is applied in
order to create a guiding framework to explore our empiric data rather than approving
or disapproving his concepts. Gardner presents mediated democratic ideals for citizens
that allow linking the behaviour of the Anons to good democratic practices. While we
could have included a more comprehensive amount of literature on democratic

20
participation, we do not believe that it would, necessarily, have made the analysis of
chat logs more concise.
Gardner proposes a wide array of relevant points on anonymity as an idea in public
life (Gardner 2011). The project’s argument, that anonymity is especially interesting
with regards to Anonymous, consists of three points: 1) Anonymous organises and
recruits participants in a massive scale anonymously, 2) Anonymous are able to
organise and recruit participants with no regards to geography and background
anonymously and 3) Anonymous regards the concept of anonymity as a core value in
their operations (hence the name). These points make up the argument that exploring
anonymity is central to the understanding of Anonymous.
While anonymity is not the sole defining characteristic of hacktivism generally and
Anonymous specifically, the premise of anonymity has a significant impact on a range
of other characteristics. This includes, among the most important, the structure and
hierarchy, the internal debates on legality and the matter of accountability. The
anonymity becomes an ideal aspiring to values of universality, collectivity and
generality, an anti-individualistic, anti-personal aspiration and a means of practicing
direct democracy.
As documented by Professor of Sociology, Gary T. Marx, anonymity is not a static
concept (Marx 2001). Marx states that “Identity knowledge has multiple components
and there are degrees of identifiability” and as such, anonymity is only a precise and
meaningful concept if considerations of the context are taken (ibid.). Throughout the
project, different degrees of anonymity are discussed. The project concerns itself
primarily with three types of identifiability (contrasting three types of anonymity) and
the types of identity knowledge associated with these. One type of identifiability is the
phenomenon called “doxxing”. This practice is used to expose other hackers and,
besides that, it might aid investigations of any criminal behaviour, aims to show the
doxxed persons inability to protect their online anonymity.
The other identifiability discussed in the project, is concerned with the investigative
measures taken against people associated with Anonymous. These measures naturally
include identifying the personal information mentioned above, but also linking them
with a provable criminal behaviour – hacking, for instance.
Finally, the project concerns itself with a type of identifiability not covering formal
information, such as birth name and address. Instead, when on IRC channels, Anons
typically use one or more usernames that allow for some degree of identification and

21
recognition. Marx describes that with online pseudonyms, “…protection is given to
literal identity or location, while meeting needs for some degree of identification”
(Marx 1999: 101). As the later analysis shows, the use of these pseudonyms is by no
means a transparent practice, and as such, the interplay with this type of identifiability is
both recognised and constantly challenged within Anonymous.

In the discussion of the theoretical significance of anonymity in democratic practice,

again we turn to Gardner. The primary source for theory on democratic anonymity is
Gardner’s research paper Anonymity and Democratic Citizenship. It provides 1) an
account of the existing literature on political theory and anonymity 2) a conceptual
presentation of relevant democratic theory and 3) a presentation of empirical research
on the effects of anonymity on democratic participation.
Gardner notes that the importance of anonymity as a democratic concept has
received diminutive attention from political theorists and that “…[a]lthough the
literature of democratic theory is vast, little has been written from any perspective
concerning the compatibility of citizen anonymity with the theoretical premises of
democracy” (Gardner 2011: 19). He goes on to state that John Stuart Mill is “Perhaps
the only…” political theorist to deal expressly with anonymity in the political sphere
(Gardner 2011: 21). Mill’s dealing with anonymity is established in a discussion on the
secret ballot, a practice that had recently been proposed. Mill argues strongly against the
secret ballot, on the grounds that voting is an act in the public sphere, and as such, it
should be under public scrutiny (ibid.: 21). This argument stems from the notion that
political actions by individuals are (or at least should be) performed as a duty for the
public good, and that the legitimacy of such actions lie in that they are public (Gardner
2011: 22). Gardner discusses Mill’s arguments and concludes that it “…rests on
contestable empirical premises” (ibid.: 22). Both theoretically and empirically, Gardner
argues that anonymity has undeniable democratic significance.
Instead, Gardner mentions a wide array of democratic practices where anonymity is
not only preferable but also essential to securing individuals’ participation. This
includes anonymous voting, which, unlike in Mill’s time, is widely regarded as a key
feature in modern democracies (Gardner 2011: 10). Also, anonymity in public spheres
protects individuals from ramifications. As Gardner stresses it: “…anonymity is also
frequently credited with permitting citizens to speak and behave honestly by insulating

22
them from pressures of observation that might inhibit their willingness to speak and act
consistently with their own views” (ibid.: 10).
Gardner points out that the questions raised by anonymity are impossible to answer
without reference to what political theory presents as desirable participation. Instead of
discussing different political theories’ view on desirable participation, our focus is what
is generally considered as healthy democratic practice. Gardner argues that despite their
differences, most major views on democratic citizenship share some conceptions. This
includes especially three values, which Gardner examines theoretically. These are
sincerity, independence, and public-mindedness (Gardner 2011: 19). The effect
anonymity has on the democratic practice and how these values are exercised is relevant
to the discussion of Anonymous as a whole.
Sincerity is the democratic notion that democratic participation should be in
harmony with the convictions of the individual. As Gardner puts it:

“Citizens, it seems, should vote, speak, signal support, contribute, sign

petitions, and in general behave in the political arena by acting on and
expressing themselves in accordance with their actual beliefs, however
those beliefs might ultimately be formulated” (Gardner 2011: 17).

Insincerity causes mistrust, inefficiency and genuine consensus, which is why political
theories generally all favour its opposite as a fundamental value (ibid.: 17). Anonymity
is often described as protecting sincerity, because it protects from any repercussions
from both state and private actors. Concerns are, however, frequently raised about
anonymity causing people to act randomly and uninformed (Gardner 2011: 38).
Independence, as a citizenship value, is the idea that individuals and their ability to
reason critically, is of utmost importance. While its emphasis is on the avoidance of
inducing blind loyalty to, for instance, a political party, it is important to note that
independence “…does not mean formal social apartness; rather, citizens incur an
obligation in deliberation to hold themselves open to persuasion and to seek consensus”
(Gardner 2011: 18). A problem concerned with online anonymity is that an online
discussion between people sharing similar opinions might cause a synergetic effect
where groups end up encouraging opinions more radical than any one member of the
group had initially (Gardner 2011: 30).

23
 On public-mindedness, Gardner notes that most theories subscribe to the notion that
political actors should act according to an idea of what is for the common best – even
that a singular pursuit of self-interest is “…generally regarded as a profound political
error” (Gardner 2011: 20). Gardner states liberal theories also recognise the necessity of
a collective outlook, and that, generally, when regarding human nature as in pursuit of
self-interests, it is understood as the “…consequence of the predictable failure of human
beings to live up to their own ideals, not as a behavioral aspiration in itself” (ibid.: 20).
It is especially regarding to public-mindedness that anonymity is theorised to cause
problems. The argument is that if anonymity diminishes personal accountability, people
will lose incentives to act with regards to the common good, because natural, social
regulations of the public sphere have less impact.
The analysis of the chat logs try to discern whether the participants adhere to these
democratic ideals, and how the form of participation is shaped by the premise of
perceived anonymity.

Alexandra Samuel agrees with Gardner insofar that theoretical arguments can be made
explicitly for and explicitly against anonymity (Samuel 2004: 216). She states that
“Hacktivist [ano]nymity practices, like many anonymity practices online, are ultimately
ill-described by the scholarship on offline anonymity” (Samuel 2004: 218). She states
that depending on the purpose of the hacktivists, the arguments for and against different
degrees of anonymity diverge. Ultimately, Samuel finds it difficult to say that
anonymity manifests itself as either good or bad democratic practice and that altogether:

“Hacktivists do not use anonymity as a blanket avoidance of legal

consequences; nor do they treat it as a universally ennobling way of
liberating message from messenger. Rather, they treat anonymity as a
political tool, with different [ano]nymity choices conveying different kinds
of claims about political strategy, risk, and above all, accountability”
(Samuel 2004: 222).

It is these how and whether these claims are expressed in the chat logs that will be the
second focus of the analysis.

24
Literature Study and Source Criticism

Anonymous has not been treated extensively in academic literature. As shown, both
Samuel and Coleman express an explicit positive attitude towards Anonymous. Their
emphasis is on the argued structure of direct democracy, the transnational participation
both off- and online and the recognition Anonymous has gained. Critical literature has
been written about Anonymous, but little from an academic point. The other side of the
debate rarely recognises Anonymous as an activist group, but often refers to them as
either young pranksters or anarchical cyber terrorists.
With our analytical approach, we seek a mediated, reflexive position between
Coleman and Samuel, who are declared positive about hacktivism, and authors who
completely reject hacktivism as a democratic practice.

Samuel states that anonymity can be reduced to a deliberately and strategically applied
political tool and denies that it is meaningful to make general assessments about the
effect of anonymity on hacktivist behaviour. While she does demonstrate examples of
strategic use of degrees of anonymity, we believe it is insufficient to refuse to examine
possible patterns altogether.
In both Gardner’s and Samuel’s take on anonymity, they present theoretical
arguments for and against anonymity in general practice. Arguments are made that
anonymity causes recklessness, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability. On the
other hand, arguments are made that anonymity allows people to speak freely, free from
persecution. We argue that both types of arguments must be recognised. The analysis of
the chat logs and legitimisation of the scientific approach, where we discard pre-
conceived notions on inherit qualities of anonymity, allows us to examine the chat logs
unbiased. Instead, our examination of the actual practice defines our take on anonymity.
Our approach to the chat logs has been between the notion that anonymity in itself
produces democratic behaviour and that it in itself causes a disregard of accountability.
We sought to be aware when theory was not supported by the empirical data handled.
Our analytical aim has been to provide a dimension of democratic theory to the
discussion of hacktivists and empirical data to the discussion of anonymity.
It is, however, worth noting that our research significantly developed our view on
the field. It became apparent, examining the chat logs that the empirical data did not
itself allow for a balanced approach. Instead, we argue that the chat logs show that

25
existing theory on the field lacks critical perspectives. Our findings show a need for
theory and research adherent to the actual practice of Anonymous. Coleman and Samuel
both argue for the expressed ideals of Anonymous – direct democracy, inclusion, no
leadership – but neither provide a thorough examination whether these are apparent in
the day-to-day workings of Anonymous. Our analysis findings and discussion seeks to
add to a more critical perspective in the field. The project also adds qualitative findings
to the discussion of anonymity’s implications on democratic practice.

Gabriella Coleman

Coleman has done a lot of scientific work related to Anonymous, which makes her
publications applicable in this project’s analysis. It is important to be aware of what
tendency the researcher has to the approach. The tendency can be defined as bias in
statements, use of terminology and the specific content the writer has chosen
(Ankersborg 2009: 88f). Looking at Coleman’s activities and paper representations one
of the words that appears repeatedly is liberalism in connection with hacktivism and
communication on the Internet (Coleman 2012a). Of this, Coleman’s research might
have a bias advantaging Anonymous.

Alexandra Samuel

Samuel assesses, in her PhD Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation, that
hacktivism has produced some challenges to the idea of freedom and accountability in
democratic discourses (Samuel 2004: 223). Samuel states that the development in
hacktivism may “…expand the ranks of hacktivists, and extend hacktivist-style protest
to activists whose primary allegiances lie outside of the hacktivist community” (ibid.:
223). A conclusion Samuel draws is that there are challenges concerning the Internet
culture as a whole. The right to free expression is confronted with accusations of a right
to be heard. Thus, these claims have made arguments towards technologies, which
allow individuals to post expressions online, arguing that they have obtained “…is not
airtime but eyeballs" (ibid.: 223).
Samuel’s dissertation is applied in the analysis to underpin the concept of
accountability through anonymous participation. We were aware of Samuel’s approach
to hacktivism during the preparation of the project. She states that treating hacktivism as

26
cyberterrorism is a mistake. Samuel is pro hacktivism and hopes that there will be
continued space for hacktivism in the future (Samuel 2004: iv).

27
Chapter 4: Analysis – Unmasking Anonymous

In this part, the theoretical concepts of James A. Gardner’s three democratic values of
the ideal democratic citizenship, sincerity, independence and public-mindedness is
applied analytically on the chat logs of Project Vejlegården (Gardner 2011: 14-18). This
is done to show how the anonymity of Anons impact on these conditions and thus the
behavioural engagement the Anons face when they interact on the chat logs.
Furthermore, Alexandra Samuel’s definition of hacktivism regarding the notion of
freedom of speech, hacker romanticism and methods over purpose (Samuel 2004) is
utilised to clarify how these specific values appear in the chat logs context of Project
Vejlegården. The aim of this section is to provide an analytical clarification of how
anonymity influences the Anons’ actions and their participation in the chat logs.
Additionally, how democratic values can be identified in the Anons’ discussions of
Operation Vejlegården.

Sincerity

Gardner’s value concerning democratic sincerity is a relevant tool when analysing

Anonymous’ chat logs because it allows analysis of how true the Anons act according
to their sincere beliefs. It also permits an analysis of the effects anonymity can have on
the intensity of their actions and how they advocate for their engagements. Gardner
points out that sincerity is a pillar in theories of democracy: “Sincerity seems to be
favored, and even required, by every theory of democracy” (Gardner 2011: 15). The
core of sincerity is political engagement true to an individual’s actual beliefs regardless
of how these individual actions are formulated. These beliefs, mounted by engagement,
could take form in several actions: voting, speaking, campaigning, writing, signalling of
support, petition-signing and general behaviour in the political arena (ibid.: 15).
The statement below is a part of long phase of the Anons checking each other’s
vulnerabilities in order to minimise the chances of being detected during and after the
operations: ”Herbert: Skal nok stoppe nu - men igen, det er jo super vigtigt at du passer
på disse opslysninger. Specielt når du er politisk engageret. Tænk hvis der sad en
socialdemokrat herinde”(CL 32: 866-868) 12. The Anon Herbert is writing to the Anon
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
This is how references to the attached chat logs will appear. CL is an abbreviation of Chat Logs,
followed by page-references and finally a reference to the specific line in the attached chat logs.

28
JonasDK12 per request, as JonasDK12 feels that the access to his personal information
is vulnerable. Using his skills, Herbert quickly finds out a lot about JonasDK12 –
including his political views and likes from Facebook. It is not unusual to see people
being explicit about their political views on online social media, but what is interesting
here is that it is not well regarded in the Anon-chat. Not that his concrete political
views, supporting the party Venstre (which seems to be the party-of-choice in the
specific chat logs) or any other Danish parties, is conflicting with any determined
ideology, it is colliding with the Anon’s anonymity (CL 54: 1457-1464). The primary
concern for JonasDK12 is if Anons supporting the Social Democratic Party, a rival of
Venstre, will be able to doxx his information, ruin his participation in the operations and
make his info publicly obtainable. James A. Gardner emphasises the importance of
people sticking to their actual beliefs instead of hiding them and in that respect,
JonasDK12 is on a wrong path by trying to hide his information (Gardner 2011: 15).
The discussions regarding relations to especially two Danish political parties, Venstre
and the Social Democrats, may be due to the politicisation of the blockade of
Vejlegården. Both parties entered the conflict and took oppositional stances towards
each other (Rehn 2012). This could explain the division between the Anons. The most
supporting Anons in the forum are quite vocal towards supporting Venstre and are
rejecting notions of the Social Democratic-influenced Anons in the chat. Gardner’s
value of sincerity would encourage Anons being vocal and sincere about their political
views, while Gardner also values anonymity because it might allow more withdrawn
Anons a chance to articulate political viewpoints. This shows the complexity between
anonymity and being sincere and vocal. The constant paranoia of being doxxed by
enemies or identified by the public demands that Anons value anonymity higher than
keeping their political opinions sincere and accessible. On the other hand, Gardner
argues that anonymity can free individuals to speak their true beliefs – like voting at a
ballot (Gardner 2011: 5). Anonymity lets Anons avoid being directly connected to
participation and actions promoting their substantive views secretly while the
anonymity allows them to conceal the intensity of feelings and preferences (Gardner
2011: 6). When communicating feelings and preferences in a public sphere, people
often moderate their choice of words compared to if the preferences are presented in an
anonymous arena. Anonymously, preferences often intensify and lead to choices of
other words and sentiments than in the public. An example of this is by the Anon
default that comes with a respond to an on-going internal discussion that could be

29
perceived as being sarcastic regarding the 30,000 benefit-claimants that would be
victimised by the operation by not being able to get benefits online: ”de medlemmer jeg
har set af både 3f og hk der modtager dagpenge.. har godt af motion, så de må derned i
morgen” (CL 26: 705-706). Few people would publicly address 30,000 benefit-
claimants as needing physical exercise in order to promote their own viewpoints. This
corresponds well with Gardner’s description of how the anonymity that rules in the
Anon chat rooms creates a situation, where people post and use words of high intensity
that they would hesitate to copy in the public. As a result, anonymity can have an
enhanced influence on the Anons’ sincerity. Alexandra Samuel also argues that
anonymity can be a valuable part of political life. The anonymity of the speaker
“…holding that total privacy … is sometimes necessary to free speech” (Samuel 2004:
214). Through the anonymity, flows of ideas can be encouraged and enrich the debate
by having a positive impact on personal expression (ibid.: 214). Nevertheless it can be
discussed, though, how this sincere quotation, made by default, has a good influence as
a democratic value. It can be argued that some of the public sociality is lost in
Anonymous when patronising citizens within the democratic society.

The following excerpt presents an opportunity to examine how the Anons see
themselves and how they want to connect their persona to the media:

“Qusse FRIHEDSKÆMPERE

Qusse LOOOOOOOOOL

JustinBeaver Eller bare Online aktivister

pachuco lad dem nu skrive hvad de vil

Qusse Aktivister er et godt ord

pachuco hacker er bare n godst overskrift

Qusse Hackere giver gode overskrifter

30
 JustinBeaver ye ofc, men aktivister rammer sku nok bare bedre, men ja,

pachuco justin: 70% af det her, er at "spinne" pressen rigtigt” (CL

50f: 1355-1366).

The excerpt displays a chat with Anons discussing which different identity-attachments
would be befitting. Regarding sincerity, the last sentence made by pachuco is
interesting: “…70% af det her, er at "spinne" pressen rigtigt” (CL 51: 1366). By saying
that 70 per cent of choosing how to define themselves, is in order for the media to
believe, what the Anons want them to believe creates a lack of transparency and
sincerity. A sincere group of citizens wanting their views projected by the media would
find it in their interests to get a clear and true message out (Gardner 2011: 15). Again, it
can be argued, in accordance with Gardner, that the anonymity creates a foundation for
these intentions of concealing the truth. None of the Anons discussing how to spin the
media and what to call themselves have to take any responsibility for the decision to
deceive the media in the desired direction. According to Samuel this is one of the more
negative aspects of anonymity in political participation. When contributors are not
taking account for their statements it can have a negative impact on the democracy
making it difficult to judge the speaker’s motives and interests (Samuel 2004: 215).
When Anons do not behave accountable for their actions it might say something about
their interest in the public sphere not being totally sincere. Thus, it can be difficult for
the common citizen to relate to their actions when no one takes responsibility for the
motives behind the action.

Gardner’s value illustrates the complexities of anonymity versus sincerity, which is

evident in several passages of the logs. An example is the statement by Herbert that
reveals quite intense feelings about benefit-claimants spoken in a way only anonymity
protects. Another interesting sincerity-aspect is how the Anons view their own role and
how they predicate themselves. There is no consensus on how the media should be
manipulated. These discussions create a lack of transparency and sincerity but on the
other hand allow the Anons to speak freely.

31
Independence

Another characteristic of good democratic citizenship is, argues Gardner, the value of
independence. As a value of citizenship independence is regarded as an individual
political reasoning isolated from other’s reasoning (Gardner 2011: 16). Gabriella
Coleman assesses how Anonymous’ participation is fluid and includes a lot of various
actors like hard core hackers, people contributing by video editing and public actions,
etc. Furthermore, Coleman addresses that there are countless sympathisers just spending
hours in chat rooms waiting for a DDoS attack to join (Coleman 2012b: 84).
The loose structure of Anonymous shows how it is possible for Anons
independently to choose what kind of action they will participate in. In the chat logs of
Project Vejlegården Rafiki does not support for the operation: “Er alle i anondk nede
med aktionen mod 3f? eller er jeg den eneste der ikke st r inde for den?” (CL 57:
1539). This quotation outlines the possibility of Anons to express their opinions as
Gardner emphasises as a premise of independency in a democratic citizenship (Gardner
2011: 17). Samuel, as well, stresses how anonymity can be of great significance when
allowing people to make use of free speech (Samuel 2004: 214). Because of the
anonymity of Anons it could be argued that it gives the opportunity to be more sincere
and open about their own points of view, which additionally enhances the
independency. Rafiki, who expressed his doubts about the operation, is not getting much
support through his statement though; instead others are defending the operation. For
instance Lillepalle replies Rafiki saying: “tror der er udbredt enighed om principperne
bag den [the operation against 3F]” (CL 57: 1542). Thus, there is room for Rafiki
independently to get his opinion known but at the same time he does not change the
operations’ agenda, which illustrates the difficulties of reaching consensus. Gardner
points out that through the value of independency ”…citizens incur an obligation in
deliberation to hold themselves open to persuasion and to seek consensus” (Gardner
2011: 17). Samuel argues how anonymity can be valuable in these discussions because
of its positive influence on free speech and thus enriching the debate. The idea is that
the focus should be on the speech and not the speaker (Samuel 2004: 214). Throughout
the chat logs there is an indication of an opportunity to question the operation and in
that matter discuss the purposes but at the same time it illustrates a lack of an overall
consensus seeking.

32
 If an Anon does not feel associated with the operation it is allowed to back out and
exit the chat room. At some point the debate on the chat logs seem to be rather chaotic
and the Anons with higher status, as elan0r and Qusse, starts kicking people out and
threats with doxxing. Rafiki, as mentioned before, does support the operation and
decides to leave the chat room: “Rafiki quit” (CL 75: 2030). In the following
discussions on the chat logs Rafiki does not appear anymore. Rafiki is essentially
labelled a moralfag by the other users. Moralfag is a frequent phrase in Anonymous
terminology, and is used to describe Anons who have moral issues or utter views
considered boring13.
Even though it is allowed to leave the chat room independently the chat logs of
Vejlegården shows that Anons can be threatened to exit. This threatening behaviour
does not correlate with Gardner’s value of independency since it hinders the participants
to act consistent with their independent judgement (Gardner 2011: 17).

The discussions on the chat logs imply a kind of hierarchical order and indicate
problems regarding the value of the speaker’s possibility to be heard. In the chat logs,
the self-appointed head of press, Qusse made an interview to the Danish TV 2, where he
said that Anonymous would attack later that day (CL 62f: 1675-1699). The reaction of
elan0r seems of rather demeaning character:

”elan0r Qusse, send mig PM med sp rgsm l og hvad du har

svaret p !

Qusse jeg sagde at vi FORMENTLIG ville angribe LO.dk,

HK.dk og Soc.Dem igen iaften

elan0r Qusse, gerne nu

Qusse ja 2 sek” (CL 63f: 1708-1712).

From this, and throughout the chat logs, it can be interpreted that elan0r has a certain
rank in the forum. Thus, even though there is room for independency there is a
significant hierarchical order. As pointed out by default the necessity of a specific rank
is provided if you have something to say (CL 25: 652-653). Coleman assess that
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13!The!term!is!a!part!of!the!dark!humour!Anons!use.!Other!similar!terms!are!lulzfag!(Anons!only!

interested!in!trolling),!newfag!(new!Anons)!and!scienfag!(members!or!defenders!of!Scientology).!

33
Anonymous has a loose structure with technical resources being controlled and run by
some elites. Nevertheless, these elites have not put up formal barriers to participate and
the ethical norms imbedded seem to be building on consent terms and enforced by all
(Coleman 2012b: 84). In opposition to this it can be inferred from the context by the
chat logs of AnonDK that there is a hierarchical structure depending on skills. For
instance Pascale appears as the administrator of the site and mostly decides who is
going to be kicked out of the chat room and who is not.

“CD was kicked from the chat room by Pascale.

JonasDK12: hvorfor røg CD ud - han er jo liberal ?

elan0r: JonasDK12, sorry har kort lunte :D gad ikke blive ved
med at høre på at han kunne det ene og det andet....

KK: liberal eller ej er vel også irrelevant

Christian: Beklager at jeg skrev det, var ikke for at virke irriteret, er
ikke ligefrem nogen haj til sådan noget med hjemmesider
:)

mib_gm967v: At kicke nogen for at stille et spørgsmål er måske også

lige i overkanten.. Der hjælper i hvert fald ikke på det
billede folk har fået, af mennesker der plastre sig med
anon navnet. (not that you can blame them)” (CL 12f:
308-335).

The passage ilustrates how it might be alright to ask questions about some things but
not other. If you ask too many stupid questions it can result in being kicked out. In this
case CD is being kicked by Pascale meanwhile elan0r argues for the kick. It is claimed

34
that CD is a script kiddie14, which other Anons are not pleased with (CL 12: 312-313).
Of this, it can be interpreted that the other Anons do not think CD is being professional
enough to be allowed to express himself. JonasDK12 questions the kick because of
CD’s liberal political attitude, which demonstrates an accepted ideological discourse on
the chat room (CL 12: 310). The kicking of users related to political approaches
indicates that arguing against the common political value might result in being kicked
out. This is not consistent with the democratic value of independence. According to
Gardner’s principle this form of exclusion could illustrate a social apartness, thus it
makes Anons dependent on those of higher status (Gardner 2011: 17). It should, on the
other hand, be allowed to argue for one’s approach and trough that seek consensus
(ibid.: 17). The statement agrees with the Anon mib_gm967v that assess that the kick
was unfair and not related to the spirit of Anons (CL 13: 333-335). It seems paradoxical
when the Anons advocate about liberal values as freedom of speech but at the same time
limit others freedom by kicking them out of the discussion. In this manner, they have
double standards when preaching about free speech but not acting based on these
values. Furthermore, the idea of democratic participation, online or offline, does not
work in general when overriding others through execution of power of numerical
superiority.
The admin Pascale’s part on the Anon chat room is of interesting character. His
actions on the site is done tacitly and accepted by all. Pascale seems like the
administrator and he is the one who decides who is being promoted and who to kick out
of the discussions. The only thing he announces is the Anons on the chat room that are
not active, which is being followed by a kick (CL 42: 1138; CL 67:1802-1803).
Pascale’s silence tells us something about his status. He seems superior and highly
accepted by the other Anons. Pascale’s role is not one that values independence, but as
mentioned before a role of social apartness. It could be interpreted that when the Anon
with the highest rank acts exclusively a ruling attitude of dependence could influence
the Anons utilise the chat room in general. That is, he has an ability to induce a sort of
blind loyalty on the chat room incongruous with the Anons’ independent judgement,
which, according to Gardner, all citizens in a democratic society should undertake
(Gardner 2011: 16).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
A script kiddie is a demeaning term used by Anons as an expression for an inexperienced hacktivist
that use programs and software developed by others. A script kiddie is not that technologically skilled.

35
 Gardner stresses that deliberative notions of democracy also involve independence
as a feature of the democratic citizen and that deliberation is a social and collective
endeavour. Therefore, it is important to permit all to defend their own standpoints
(Gardner 2011: 17). If Anons, as mentioned above, keeps kicking each other out and
banning them from the forum the collective identity of the association will be weakened
and the value of independency threatened. Furthermore, not valuing democratic
independence in anonymous organisations can drive people to behave more selfish not
thinking of the collective norms and identity.

Thus, the loose structure of Anonymous creates possibilities for Anons to express
themselves and choose what operations they will participate in independently.
Nevertheless the behaviour on the chat room is not coherent with Gardner’s value of
independency. The chat logs show problems regarding the Anons’ value of speech.
Even though there is room for independency the necessity of a specific status is needed
if you want your voice to be heard and not being excluded. Thus, the overall discourse
is not one valuing independency but rather one of rank and technological skills.

Public-Mindedness

The perceived anonymity in the chat logs affects the practice of the public-mindedness
value described by Gardner. The public-mindedness value in political theories is
considered a requirement for political practice, as it states that “…citizens have an
obligation to act according to some conception of the collective good” (Gardner 2011:
20). Gardner recognises that some contemporary economic theories do not value public-
mindedness, but places these ideas outside the “…main theoretical consensus” (ibid.:
20).
Operation Vejlegården consisted primarily of attacks on 3f.dk, hk.dk and
socialdemokraterne.dk (CL 63: 1709-1710). During the operation, the site mit3f.dk also
went offline. This was a turn in events, because unlike the other sites – and unlike
previous Anonymous operations – mit3f.dk was used by unemployed to receive their
unemployment checks. Therefore, taking mit3f.dk offline would have severe
consequences for citizens with no direct involvement in the Vejlegården-conflict. The
first discussion of this issue happens during the initial DDoS attacks, when shmoo
wonders why the site is still online (CL 55: 1498). LillePalle encourages shmoo to

36
attack it, saying “…du kan jo skyde den ned hvis du synes?” (CL 56: 1502). kakobdk
states that the plans have changed and now “planeen er at stoppe angrab på mit3f.fdk
… det går ud over uskyldie som ikke får deres hårdt tjente penge” (CL 56: 1510-1512).
The other users interpret this sentiment as being sarcastic, and ask whether kakobdk
refers to their “hårdtjente dagpenge?” (CL 56: 1514). Gardner’s descriptions of public-
mindedness as a willingness “…to transcend [one’s] own self-interest…” (Gardner
2011: 18) and acting according to “…some conception of the collective good” (Gardner
2011: 17) are not principles apparent in these discussions. When mit3f.dk is reported
down by news sites, the reaction from the users also lacked any notions of collective
good, with default stating, ”de medlemmer jeg har set af både 3f og hk der modtager
dagpenge.. har godt af motion, så de må derned i morgen” (CL 26: 705-706). Besides
default’s statement, the only explicit argument made for taking down mit3f.dk is
Qusse’s statement that ”det gælder bare om at få budskabet ud” (CL 27: 707). These
statements indicate motives more oriented towards selfish ideals and a lack of
sympathy. Making fun of other citizens in a democratic culture does not correlate to a
notion valuing the public good, collective identities and norms. This, on the other hand,
illustrates destructive approaches to democracy, which threatens the democratic society.
There is, however, a certain degree of deliberation in the principal discussion of
whether the operation is a protest against the 3F blockade or a general declaration of
support for certain political parties. In a discussion Rafiki argues that Anonymous
should adhere to principles that – whatever they are – transcend national party politics:

“…det er jo en helt anden snak. Som vi nok aldrig bliver enige i. lad nu det
ligge. Synes bare det er en skam at folk tager politisk parti. Jeg kæmper sgu
også for frihed og den gang vi hjalp wikileaks. Var højrefløjen sgu de første
til at skide i bukserne og brokke sig.. men sådan er det” (CL 8: 232-234).

The argument earlier in the discussion is that Anonymous distances itself from the
formal political system, and should not side with specific parties, because it potentially
could undermine the observance to the causes most Anons agree on15. The other users
partaking in the discussion disagree and state that “ja, personlig frihed og
venstrefløjsideologi hænger meget lidt sammen” (CL 8: 230-231). Qusse agrees with
LillePalles sentiment and simply states that “Rafiki, vi kæmper jo for frihed” (CL 8:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15
See table 2.1, Chronology of Notable Anonymous Operations (App. 1: 69).

37
231). Rafiki goes on trying to achieve some kind of consensus from the rest of the users,
asking if all the Anons agree on the operation against 3F because he does not vouch for
it (CL 9: 267-268). The rest of the users support the operation. While it arguably is not a
discussion, merely a few lines, it shows an initial wonder among the Anons.
Open discussion, however, is strongly discouraged. Several times throughout the
logs, users who are either idle, in disagreement or simply annoying are kicked from the
IRC (see CL 12: 308; CL 42: 1136; CL 75: 2027). At one point, anyone disagreeing
with the operations is invited to join an open discussion (CL 88: 2351). The Anons
invite anyone interested to join them through different Twitter-accounts. However, at
the agreed time, when the pseudonym nysgerrig joins to talk, elan0r and Qusse are both
busy (CL 88: 2346-2367). jacobdk responds to his questions with “go home nysgerrig”
and before there is any actual dialogue, he is kicked (CL 89: 2390; CL 90: 2402). The
antics of the Anons here can hardly be considered pursuing the ideals of impartiality
and open-mindedness. Additionally, Alexandra Samuel stresses that sceptics point out
how anonymity in political participation can have a negative impact on accountability.
In this perspective, anonymity allows the speaker to avoid the consequences of the
action committed and can be a destructive democratic factor (Samuel 2004: 214f). Thus,
the anonymity on the chat room can be utilised more harshly to reduce impacts from not
desired opinions as displayed through the kicking on the Anon chat logs. These actions
can have negative consequences against open-mindedness and because of this an overall
destructive democratic influence.
Throughout the operation, discussions are had on how to communicate their
viewpoint to the press. While Qusse is doing interviews with media sites, other Anons
are concerned whether their actions are properly expressed. The concern especially
stretches to whether Anons on the forum are more concerned with doing interviews than
with the purpose of the operation: “ligeså snart medierne er på, så ryger halvdelen af
kanalen afk fordi de skal ud og interviewes af dagspressen” (CL 24: 642). izbew agrees,
stating about the state of the forum that it “[v]irker som et sted min søn vil være” (CL
24: 639). The theme appears again later, when LillePalle observes that ”…99% af dem
der er her, havde første login siden fredag!” (CL 57: 148). These are concerns that the
ideal of a community-oriented, anti-individualistic process are not properly upheld and
that certain Anons regard bickering and media-attention higher than the Anonymous’
values. As stated by default the operation becomes more about “personificering af sig
selv, iscenesættelse og alt muligt, frem for bare at fyre en youtube film af med hvorfor vi

38
har gjort som vi har” (CL 24: 647-648). Worries are that Anonymous will be
misrepresented in the media are present, and cause izbew to say “Fuck medierne” (CL
24: 644). Gabriella Coleman emphasises how participants of Anonymous “…strongly
discourage from identifying themselves, instead focusing on the collective pursuit of
‘epic wins’” (Coleman 2012: 87). The notion on epic wins can be linked to Gardner’s
value of public-mindedness. The discussions the Anons are having about
personification and media attention has some conflictual aspects. It seems to be a
distinction between the Anons’ thinking more about “epic wins” and public-mindedness
and those who are more concerned with their own personal appearance.
The unrest about the operation causes a discussion on whether to stop the operation.
Partly because there is a disagreement on how it is run, but also because the negative
media attention might have consequences for the participants:

”kacobdk hvad med at lægge låg på også finde et nyt target at være
eningeiege omn

LillePalle kacobdk: fordi!?

LillePalle jeg mener bare finde et target fordi vi kan?!

kacobdk fordi jacobdk hader at skændes.. hehehe

LillePalle eller køre denne til ende og se hvad der sker

kacobdk det går pisse galt for mange anon hvis vi køre vidre

LillePalle kacobdk: hvad mener du?!

Rafiki enig med kacobdk

kacobdk endelig har politiet noget at bryuge deres it kompatanser

til

39
 LillePalle kacobdk: fuck da politiet” (CL 57-58: 1552-1566).

The concerns are primarily about whether the operations might have legal
consequences. izbew and kacobdk go on to tell about how they have both received
prison sentences for cybercrimes (58: 1575-1576). They are worried about being held
accountable personally, but there is very limited discussion within the group on the
accountability and culture of the group. The discrepancy between the Anons’
deliberations about accountability and political theory on public-mindedness are
apparent with Gardner stating that:

“Modern liberal theories in the Kantian tradition frequently claim that the
route to justice lies in the willingness and capacity of citizens to attempt to
transcend their own self-interest by striving for impartiality, self-
effacement, and open-mindedness in both private reflection and public
deliberation, and this imposes on them an obligation to undertake their
public political acts consistent with these normative commitments”
(Gardner 2011: 20).

Gardner underlines that impartiality; self-effacement and open-mindedness are not

values necessarily inherit in human behaviour. Therefore he notes that several political
theorists have encouraged measures to stimulate the practice of these values:

“And although political theorists such as Hume and Madison advocated

designing political institutions on the assumption that “every man must be
supposed a knave”, it is clear that knavery was understood as the
consequence of the predictable failure of human beings to live up to their
own ideals, not as a behavioral aspiration in itself” (Gardner 2011: 20).

It is clear from the excerpts of these discussions, that the practice on these chat rooms
does not guard itself against knavery. Apparently, a lot of the discussions about the
legitimacy of the operation take place after the first attacks, dissidents and by-standers
are frequently kicked from the IRC and decisions are made through an obviously
hierarchical structure. At one point, LillePalle, rather regretfully, explains that there is

40
no longer a top-down leadership in the operation, and that he ”tror planen er stoppet for
længst... nu er det hiven16 der overtager” (CL 56: 1505).

Thus, it can be argued that Gardner’s democratic ideal of public-mindedness in the chat
logs appears to a limited extent. Furthermore, Gardner points out that a person’s
behaviour in anonymous political participation can be placed on a scale ranging from
entirely group-based to entirely personal. If the group’s political norms do not correlate
to the individual’s it would be more likely for the person to act through its own
behavioural norms (Gardner 2011: 43f). Thus, the low salience or the confusion of
political norms in Anonymous can drive Anons to act more in accordance with their
own interest rather than with the collective norms of good political behaviour. In this
manner the anonymity of Anons can have negative consequences for democracy if the
behavioural norms of public-mindedness is not internalised.

Method > Purpose and Hacker Romanticism

Samuel highlights hacktivists’ great concern for guarding the online world as a safe
haven for freedom of speech. The shielding of freedom rights online has a romantic
sound to it, when hacktivists’ address their accomplishments and legitimations of their
actions (Samuel 2004: 224f). The conversations about the operation are justified and
idealised: “elan0r: så er vi nr 1 som mest sete på nyhederne.tv2.dk” (CL 7: 167). This
tendency shows, as different users romanticise their previous actions, status and
technical competencies:

“LillePalle: lhvem rootede en server hos patentstyrelsen og dumpede

10000 hemmelige patentansøgninger

LillePalle: *fløjt fløjt*” (CL 16: 1607-1609).

Declerations of hacktivist status is even used in taunting and threatening terms:

“luxor: kaffekande: ved du hvem jeg er?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16
Hiven is a reference to the leaderless hive-mind structure Anonymous is often described as.

41
 kaffekande: luxor: nej?

luxor: kaffekande: Det tænkte jeg nok. Hvis du vidste det, ville
du ikke komme med alt dit crap mens jeg var her”(CL 24f:
646-656).

This threatening behaviour of luxor results in kaffekande leaving the chat room (CL 25:
671). It is recurrent that the Anons both tend to glorify individual users, but also that
they impose limitations in the freedom of speech as the hierarchy degrades certain
users.

Hacktivism differs from other social movements as being means-based rather than
purpose based (Samuel n.d.: 3f). The collectiveness driven by a cause or purpose is
usually the starting point for social movements, whereas the methods to accomplish
certain goals come secondly (ibid.: 3f). At one point in the chat logs the Anon kacobdk
wants to choose a different target for operation, so they could use their methods without
internal disputes in AnonDK. This is interesting, as the debate this comment causes is
dominated by descriptions of technical characteristics of how to engage in DDoS
attacks, and how to stay hidden are predominant to actual discussion of the purpose of
Project Vejlegården (CL 57f: 1552-1562; CT 81ff).

Freedom of Speech

Samuel describes freedom of speech, fighting censorship and defending free

information flows as key elements in hacktivists’ consciousness (Samuel 2004: 42).
DDoS attacks on Internet sites causes limits, not only the accessibility of certain
Internet sites, but to a larger extent also limits the values freedom of speech and free
information flows. This causes a paradox between fighting for free speech and
information while disallowing other access to the same privileges.
Samuel identifies this debate concerning freedom of speech and the operational use
of DDoS attacks as a discussion that divides participants in two opposing positions
(Samuel n.d.: 7). Qusse is confronted with this issue during an interview with TV 2,
where he justifies his and fellow Anons’ actions with the following logic:

42
 “TV 2 journalist: Er det rimeligt, at I går ind og påvirker en lovlig konflikt
med ulovlige midler?

Qusse: Vi mener ikke, at det er ulovligt. De laver blokader. Det

samme gør vi” (Anon DK 2012: 00:22).

Freedom of speech and its connection to hacktivism is interesting in the light of the chat
log conversations. There is a distinguishable hierarchy dominating the chat
conversations throughout the discussion of Project Vejlegården. Banning and kicking is
seen throughout the conversations, and the hierarchy seems to determine, who is
allowed to follow and participate in the conversation: “Pascale: unknown idlers will be
kicked in eta 2 minutes” (CL 42: 1138). Critical comments on the motives of Operation
Vejlegården often lead to a kicking from the conversation:

”mib_3doru5: Hvornår er Anonymous egentlig blevet et højrefløjsprojekt

som agerer bøllekorps for de kristlige og bryder strejker

mib_3doru5: ?

JonasDK12: vi viser ærligt at vi bliver støttet af en række firmaer

mib_3doru5: Kapitalens små lejesvende???

mib_3doru5: Det er flot

JonasDK12: jeg kan ikke se problemet

Anon1234: mib_3doru5, du er helt forkert på den.

JonasDK12: det er lovligt at støtte et politisk parti

elan0r: !k mib_3doru5 første advarsel wanker !

» mib_3doru5 was kicked from the chat room by Pascale “ (CL 6: 146-159).

The diffusion between political convictions and the right to engage in the chat logs
proves to challenge the freedom of speech, as administrators define the hierarchy and
controls the premises of discussion. The chat log channel, administrated by AnonDK, is
highly exclusive and it is therefore highly questionable whether it is meaningful to

43
relate values of anonymity, in terms of democratic promotion, to the actual debates
within AnonDK.

Sincerity can be enhanced by the anonymity of the Anons making it easier to express
oneself but their ways of showing themselves is not one valuing the ideals of
democracy. The value of independence on the chat room seems in general to be of
limited character because of the Anons’ hierarchical order. Furthermore, the Anons do
not overall express an idea towards public-mindedness. The chat logs show conflictual
attitudes of the notion of collective good. The anonymity of the Anons can have
positive and negative consequences pointed out by Samuel. On one hand, anonymity
can have positive impacts on the possibility for the Anons to express themselves but on
the other hand, a negative influence because some of the Anons decides which
approaches that are okay and which are not. Through the chat logs a notion of
hacktivism as the World’s safe haven for free speech shows itself when the Anons
outline their accomplishments. Nevertheless the Anons’ way of thinking in liberal terms
through a belief in freedom of speech is paradoxical because they at the same time act
against these beliefs. Overall the Anons show of a democratic destructive behaviour not
valuing Gardner’s three values of a democratic citizenship but rather some of exclusion
and status.

44
Chapter 5: Discussion – Give a Man a Mask…

The ideology (or lack of) of Anonymous and the premise of anonymity’s effect on the
democratic practise of Anonymous are important to discuss. Moreover, the discussion
includes a debate of existing theory and literature and its depictions on Anonymous’
behaviour. The method of doxxing and its ambiguous use is the starting point of this
discussion as it illustrates how the premise of anonymity affects the democratic
participation inside Anonymous.

Paradoxxing

Doxxing is used both for security and protective reasons, but also as a currency of
anonymity where revelations of identities or the ability to avoid doxxing is decisive for
the opportunity to participate. Thirdly, doxxing is essential to many operations carried
out by Anonymous best exemplified by identity revelation of pedophile suspects (App.
1: 69).
The practice of doxxing – exposing the legal identity of the pseudonymous
individual or others – is clearly detectable throughout the chat logs:

”izbew: Hvorfor har founder lukket anon.dk ?

thereaper: fordi han blev doxxet og truet på utube” (CL 14: 356-357).

Later on, doxxing becomes a rapid reaction to oppositions or disagreements:

“elan0r det er ham nysgerig fra ig

elan0r MEN MEN MEN DRENGE

elan0r Skal jeg lige doxxe ham

izbew Ye

Herbert +1

45
 17
elan0r http://www.facebook.com/allan.noer ” (CL 73:1957-
1962).

Taking Gary T. Marx’ theorising of anonymity and identifiability into account, the
intentions and practical use of doxxing, in Project Vejlegården, is most certainly
essential to discuss. Marx stresses that knowledge of identity is equivalent to the degree
of identifiability, which again affects the level of anonymity (Marx 2001). Removing
the anonymity of one Anon through doxxing, decisively affects the hierarchical status
of the doxxed Anon, as they lose the premise of anonymity. It also affects the other
participants in different ways, for instance they might become deterrent to partake in
debating. This suggests that intentions of doxxing relate to the ability to reveal and
identify other Anons in order to hinder them from participation while publicising their
anonymity. The Anon kaffekande serves as the best example of such intention, as he, as
a consequence of his provocation and questioning of other Anons’ hacker-abilities (CL
19-22), is threatened with being doxxed due to his IP-address “Qusse: kaffekande,
stoppe mens legen er god, det kan beskrives med et digt "Roser er røde, violer er blå,
kaffekande's IP ligger frit fremme, og til at få" (CL 23: 613-614).
This becomes intensified as the Anon luxor interferes. luxor, who enjoys great
respect throughout the chat log conversations, claims that he knows and is able to
identify kaffekande. This ends with kaffekande leaving the channel.

”luxor: kaffekande: Jeg tror vi har "snakket" på en andet net - og

det endte med at du måtte ned med nakken. Husker du det
"jazman/jungletromme/Mifuba"

luxor: s/en/et/

luxor: kaffekande: ?

izbew: luxor, tror han forsvandt

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17
We had ethical considerations concerning the link to nysgerrig’s Facebook profile. We briefly
considered anonymising the information in the project, but because the information is publicly available
in the original source, such measure would appear rather futile.

46
 kaffekande left the chat room” (CL 24f: 659-671).

Doxxing is carried out both with and without consent of the doxxed individuals.
JonasDK12 openly asks on the channel whether it is possible to doxx him or he is
hidden from detection. This comes after kaffekande implies that he is able to doxx
JonasDK12 age:

”kaffekande: godt - glad for at høre at det blot er medierne der har
fortolket jer som "hackere"

JonasDK12: det er blokade

luxor: lolwut

JonasDK12: anno 2012

kaffekande: lyder godt... Jonas 16 år” (CL 20: 515-520).

The conversation develops and with the consent of JonasDK12, other Anons try to
explore his anonymity with intention of helping him going under the radar by pointing
out where he reveals identifiable information and becomes traceable (CL 29-36).
JonasDK12 is recognised by previous activity on a gaming forum, where he used an
identical nickname. For the sake of JonasDK12, they do not explicitly reveal the
information, but hint that they have acquired knowledge consisting of his full name, city
of residence, Twitter-account and his commitment to the Danish political party Venstre
(ibid.: 29-36). The level of detail in the doxxing of JonasDK12 is remarkable as his
mother’s job and a picture of his dog mockingly are presented as personal information
visible for other Anons to exploit (ibid.: 29-36). As Marx notes, anonymity is bound to
the level of identifiability. The chat logs prove that doxxing is used with different
intentions and for different purposes. One is exclusive and tries to exploit other Anons
for reasons of disagreements or challenges, while other intensions of cooperation
serving to keep the anonymity of Anons. Doxxing is though more complex as revelation
of online identity also aid criminal investigation and is used actively in Anonymous
operations, for instance when information on pedophiles are leaked (Dahlgaard 2012;
Bundgaard 2012).

47
Doxxing therefore becomes a paradox as it is, not only, a tool originally linked to the
playful hacker culture and a method that precedes the purpose (as described by
Alexander Samuel) it is also a currency of anonymity. Anonymity holds great value, as
it provides the ability to act, to stay hidden and in this case to dominate the operation.
The loss of anonymity or the fear of getting doxxed, on the other hand, prevents and
deterrents others from participation.

Ideology

Alexandra Samuel assesses how some hacktivists have a utopian view on the Internet
and free speech. They argue that an online censorship has technical difficulties, which
promotes the deliberative democrats’ ambitions of an online democratic discourse
(Samuel 2004: 207). Samuel argues that this notion might be more problematic than
these hacktivists suggest. A lot of actions made by hacktivists imply a limitation of
someone else’s freedom of speech. In the case of Project Vejlegården the operation had
a negative impact on 30,000 recipients of unemployment benefits (Braagaard 2012b).
The interesting aspect of Project Vejlegården is the oxymoronic conflict between an
initial hack based on ideas of freedom and its consequences for the recipients of
benefit’s personal freedom.

Some hacktivists argue that freedom of speech is what hacktivism is all about. In the
chat logs of Project Vejlegården the Anons discuss how they fight for personal freedom
(CL 55: 1482-1493). The fight for freedom, however, does apparently not concern the
people, who cannot receive their benefits because of the Anons’ operation.
As previously argued, the methods of Anonymous precede the purpose. Not only are
those especially skilled more qualified to dictate how operations should be performed,
but every Anonymous battle is fought on the Internet and with the Internet as the
instrument. There is no founding ideology, no manifesto to which Anonymous adhere.
There are, first and foremost, the hacktivist tools of DDoSing, doxxing and defacing.
We have proposed the argument that even with no formally expressed values, there
are still some apparent patterns in the targeted adversaries of Anonymous since their
first operation in 2008. These patterns, and how Operation Vejlegården fits in there, is
important in order to grasp the schism between the “Everyone is Anonymous”-paradigm
and the values that people associate Anonymous with.

48
 When the primary denominator for Anons is their common existence in cyberspace,
it is logical that they unite against whoever is trying to regulate, limit and surveillance
their behaviour. As Samuel puts it: “…hacktivism is, by definition, activism related to
the Internet” (Samuel 2004: 85).
This has caused operations against anti-piracy acts such as SOPA and ACTA, in
favour of file-sharing sites Megaupload and The Pirate Bay and against regimes in Syria
and Egypt, the latter for limiting citizens’ access to the Internet. In 20 of their most
notable operations, 12 have been about issues of either freedom of information or anti-
copyright (App. 1: 69).
The Internet is regarded by many hacktivists “…as the last frontier for truly free
speech, and as a kind of generalized libertarian haven” (Samuel 2004: 225). Because of
the habitat of the Internet, perceived injustice taking place online is recurrent in
Anonymous’ operations. This applies, for example, to their recurring operations against
pedophiles – typically doxxing suspected pedophiles – who posses and distribute child
pornography online.

As for trying to discern general ideologies, Samuel proposes two very overall lines of
ideology recurring in hacktivist operations. She states that hackers often adhere to and
express cyber-libertarian views, but that especially as more offline issues have appeared
on the hacktivist agenda, values that are traditionally more leftist and sometimes
anarchist have become more prominent (Samuel 2004: 151). The techno-libertarian
view and the leftist-anarchist view are both traceable in Anonymous’ operations. As
mentioned, many operations are concerned with total freedom of information, but also
11 of the 20 operations are traditionally leftist, being either anti-corporate or pro LGBT-
rights (App. 1: 69).
Arguably, the views overlap on several issues, such as the WikiLeaks operations.
While the techno-libertarian stance might also find similar shared interests with a neo-
liberal agenda, it seems that often they collide (as when many multinational
corporations supported the ACTA and SOPA propositions). These points support the
notion that siding with Restaurant Vejlegården was not a typical Anonymous operation,
and as our overview shows, targeting political party sites is historically rather unusual.
Anon Rafiki asks ”Siden hvornår er det her blevet en aktion mod partier? Fornemmer
et udbredt had mod venstrefløjen i anonDK” (CL 54: 1457-1458).

49
Desirable Democratic Practice?

It is relevant to discuss the practices of Anonymous since it contributes to new

perspectives of anonymous political participation. James A. Gardner’s three core
attributes mentioned in the analysis that the ideal politically active citizen should
possess: sincerity, independence and public-mindedness are also relevant in this chapter
(Gardner 2011: 14-18). Gardner outlines how political participation takes form
generally:

“…financial contributions to candidates, political parties, and advocacy

groups; petition signing; political speech and debate; communication with
and lobbying of officials; attending public meetings; holding office; and any
of a host of other obligations of citizenship such as paying taxes, obeying
the law, or performing public service or charitable work in one’s
community” (Gardner 2011: 3).

Gardner elaborates that these examples of political participation can take form in
different spheres. It could be in the public spotlight, it could be anonymously or it could
be in between where citizens can be vocal in some respects and private in others. In
several passages some of the Anons make no attempt to hide their political affiliations
or views – one is almost using his real name (CL 54: 1457-1464). This indicates that
several perceptions of anonymity exist and the degree of it may vary.
Being sincere and open about your political affiliation, if you have one, is a good
democratic value. But in the logs, it becomes evident, that the high level of acceptance
concerning only one political orientation by the participating Anons creates a one-sided
forum with no room for open debates and alternative viewpoints. This fact goes against
the very core of the value of sincerity. The following quote from the logs illustrate just
that:

”<nysgerrig>: elan0r: så hvis begge parter er tilfreds regulere det hele sig
selv kan jeg så udlede af det du skrev. men nu har vi jo
udelukkende ferie, ok løn, sygedage, weekend og meget
andet på grund af at arbejdsgivere aldrig har været i stand
til at være tilfredse. det ses jo også med østarbejde,
virksomheder der flytter til udlandet osv.

50
…

<nysgerrig>: elan0r: så hvorfor gå imod den en af de foreninger som

netop er blevet bygget op over 100 år for at tage det
"almindelige" mennesker parti og derfor gøre begge parter
tilfredse, da der jo trods alt stadig findes virksomheder.?

<elan0r>: nysgerrig, hvis du s nyhederne s har du mine svar !

Som selv den almene studiev rt deler !

<nysgerrig>: elan0r: så det er dit svar? fair nok.. havde heller ikke
forventet mere af nogen der siger de fører kampen for
menneskerret og ytringsfrihed og så tager parti for en eller
anden smart ass restaurant der gerne vil fucke sine
medarbejdere

<izbew>: nysgerrig, hvorfor er du her enligt ?

<elan0r>: nysgerrig, du har vidst drukket af natpotten ! Jeg har

folkets opbakning og du er tydeligvis ikke en af dem !
Husk og tage din lykkepille om morgen

<Anon1234>: izbew, der er inviteret til debat i denne chan her kl. 20, vi
må nok acceptere, at der kommer forskellige holdninger.

<jacobdk>: go home nysgerrig

51
 …

<Thereaper>: !kick nysgerrig TROLL

*** nysgerrig was kicked by Pascale (TROLL (Thereaper))”(CL 81-90:

2175-2402)

The above excerpt serves as an example of poor democratic behaviour. Just before the
above conversation begins, an internal debate has been settled. The user nysgerrig asks
elan0r several questions with a highly critical tone. This critical and sharp tone is met
with very undemocratic responses. Firstly, elan0r refuses to answer nysgerrig directly
and refers him to a news show. That is poor democratic deeds during a debate – to reject
direct arguing in order to find common ground, but nonetheless, it is frequently seen
done by politicians and alike referring to what they have said in earlier interviews etc.
elan0r continues by claiming that he is backed by the “people”. That statement raises
two questions that remain unanswered: how does elan0r know that he is backed by the
people and who are the “people”? izbew then asks nysgerrig why he is present in the
forum with a wondering tone that could imply that nysgerrig has no chance of changing
the majority’s view. A couple of comments later, Anon1234 reluctantly notes that they
probably have to accept the fact that counterarguments will be presented during the
debate. The reluctance and scepticism that Anon1234’s comment sheds is a huge pitfall
for democratic values such as sincerity and independence. It is good democratic practice
to be sincere to your own actual beliefs, but these personal beliefs should not hinder
progressive discussions with other citizens. Instead of telling nysgerrig to go home or
asking wonderingly why he even is present at the internal debate, the Anons should be
open for other viewpoints. They should be aware of their own views and stay true to
them, but at the same time allow new common ground between the factions to be
developed.
The chat channels demand access to the Internet, adequate computer-skills and
know-how. This alone excludes some people along with the fact that many of
Anonymous’ channels can be difficult to localise. Moreover, the Anons make use of
pseudonyms or other methods to hide their identity such as advanced Internet-browsers
that hide their actual location. This allows them to build reputations and identities based
solely on their online presence. This form of anonymous political participation has a
positive aspect in the way the contributors transfer their social selves to groups based on

52
their own interest. This means that arguments and new ideas can be developed but at the
same time not being related to one’s real-life identity (Auerbach 2012). Nevertheless,
the opportunity for anonymity can have a more destructive effect on the democratic
values in society (Samuel 2004: 214f). If you manage to enter an Anonymous forum
there are several possible outcomes. If the established Anons in the forum take notice of
your name, find you or your name annoying or just feel threatened by the possibility of
being doxxed, they have several options of maintaining the forum’s privacy. The Anon-
chat logs illustrate a strong indication of a hierarchical order and they act highly
excluding. During the discussions in the Anon logs, it becomes clear that if an Anon
disagrees with the general opinions, pokes his nose too much or just stays idle, he
would be likely to get kicked out of the forum. If he returns to the forum with the
behaviour displayed earlier, the person can face a ban for a defined period of time (CL
75: 2030; CL 12: 312-313). It creates a complex situation where the positives are that
Anons create a place for ideas, opinions and actions but at the same time, the measures
and means reveal that the anonymity breed more tense scales of political behaviour (CL
26: 705-706). Gardner would encourage taking action whether anonymously or
publicly, but he would also be concerned about the excluding character of the Anon
logs. As mentioned earlier, privacy and anonymity can lead to more sincere political
actions and like a ballot it lets people speak out with no fright. But the technological
requirements, along with the very hierarchic culture in the forum, create an exclusionary
atmosphere, which could harbour intense preferences instead of constructive open
dialogues.

The Anons’ attitudes have some contradictory indications that strive against the
democratic notion of political behaviour in society. The idea of anonymity as a valuable
application for the contributor’s opportunity of expression is not consistent with the
behaviour at the Anon chat logs. Gardner stresses that an important factor for
developing and sustaining democratic societies is allowing everyone to defend their
own standpoints. The Anons, on the other hand, behave through a different logic based
on status and power shown through methods (Gardner 2011: 14; Samuel n.d.: 3f). This
logic is paradoxical because of how Anons advocate for freedom when not practicing
these. Furthermore, the excluding behaviour weakens the collective identity and the
democratic values needed in a group using anonymity. Not applying anonymity through
a valued approach towards democratic notions can in general drive individuals to act

53
more selfish not believing in norms and identities of the collective good (Gardner 2011:
42ff). Thus when Anonymous acts in opposition with democratic political behaviour,
defined as free speech, exchange of ideas, discussions of different issues and maybe a
room for reaching consensus, the optimistic view on anonymity in online participation
must be re-examined. If anonymity should work in practice the behaviour in the Anon-
forum shows that international laws and technologies of identification verification
should be highly restricted.

Alexandra Samuel points out how hacktivists are challenging “…the legal and political
order, but still exists in relation to it and even share some norms of the liberal
democratic order, such as notions of legitimacy and accountability” (Samuel 2004: 37).
After the attack on 3F and HK, the chairman of HK, Kim Simonsen talked about
turning the hackers in. This starts a discussion on the Anon-chat room about legality of
their methods (CL 45: 1196-1220). The discussions are characterised by a weak
understanding of their actions’ legality. It seems like they have not thought about the
possibility of their methods being illegal before the actual attack.

”Qusse der er en paragraf der omhandler du ikke må trænge ind i

andre's systemer, uden tilladelse.

JustinBeaver Men der er jo ingen der har trængt ind i 3F's system?

pachuco tror de bliver meget skuffede når panserne siger

"desværre, der er ingen § vi kan bruge imod dem"

JustinBeaver sort på hvidt,

kacobdk okay, jeg har bare svært ved at tro de bare laer os slippe...
men jeg e er ogspparanoid

Qusse haha

pachuco kacobdk: der skal nok komme en lovændring efter det her

JustinBeaver Helt sikkert,

Qusse Tror jeg også

54
 ItzLegend i sådan en sag laver de en ny paragraf.

kacobdk helt sikkert

pachuco men det kan de ikke gøre med tilbagevirkende kraft” (CL
48: 1290-1304).

The Anons’ reactions show how anonymity distorts their sense of reality. When talking
about paragraphs and how the law does not say anything specific about DDoS attacks
and through that believe that they cannot be arrested shows lack of realism. Moreover,
their liberal view on freedom, as their sense of selves, is contradictory in notions of
legality and accountability (Samuel 2004: 37). Throughout the analysis of the Anon
chat logs a strong indication of hierarchical order, conflictual to the deliberative
democratic society, was described. The way the Anons behave on the chat logs might
illustrate conceptions completely outside of liberal democratic norms. However, they
might not entirely reject the legal and political order but it looks more like the Anons
have a distorted view on their own beliefs related to the real world. This demonstrates a
kind of unreflective and immature characteristic of the Anons. Additionally, when
kacobdk wants to clarify the possibility of their attack being illegal he suggests asking a
law student he knows that got the top grade 12 in an assignment (CL 49: 1320). This
again demonstrates lack of realism since asking a law student does not entirely tell
something about how the law works in practice.
The way the Anons hide their identity through pseudonyms and handles can be a
way to “…take credit for an online act, without necessarily being accountable for that
act in an offline context" (Samuel 2004: 49). This way of anonymity can have some
consequences for the accountability related to the liberal democratic legal order. The
anonymity used in illegal ways can prevent the Anon from being identified by law
enforcement authorities and therefore being accountable for the action (ibid.: 49). The
way the Anons threaten about doxxing tells something about how important the
anonymity is for their online identity. In addition, the anonymity shields their possibility
of not taking responsibility for their online actions in the offline sphere. In this manner,
it seems paradoxical fighting for freedom of speech and democratic virtues when Anons
are not practicing these beliefs. Even though the chat logs illustrates the fact that the
Anons have not thought about the illegal aspect in their methods it is obvious that they
do not want to be held accountable for their actions. In general, the analytical

55
processing of the Anons behaviour, based on their anonymity, illustrates a more
negative way of anonymous political participation. We find that the Anons’ desire for
not taking account for their actions stand in opposition to their own formulated liberal
approaches. However, this behaviour has a more destructive factor of democratic values
in political participation.

Existing Theory

Perhaps because of its intangibility, not much scholarly literature has been written on
Anonymous. Throughout the project we have utilised Coleman and Samuel as the
primary academic sources. We do, however, find that both in assessing the democratic
practice of Anonymous and in the methodological approaches, there are insufficiencies
distorting the aspiration to a balanced view of Anonymous.
The existing scholarly literature presents a rather fascinated, optimistic analysis of
Anonymous. Coleman, for instance, simply states that Anonymous“…has become,
much of the time, a force of good in the world” (Coleman 2012: 86). She goes on to note
that Anonymous is “…one the most adroit and effective political operations in recent
times” (Coleman 2012: 83). While we do not necessarily disagree, it seems the
perspective is simply too narrow to grasp the possible fallacies and possibly dystopian
manifestations of an association like Anonymous. Max Halupka and Cassandra Star
provide a description of how direct democracy and meritocratic values are inherent in
the structure and culture of Anonymous, concluding that “…Anonymous presents
scholars with a unique opportunity to analyse an effective working model of true direct
democracy”, a sentiment this project disagrees with (Halupka & Star 201?: 11).

Perhaps, some of the inadequacy of existing theory can be explained from an

insufficient methodological approach. While Coleman says she has spent extensive
amounts of time on IRC channels, and that she has spent years studying and eventually
getting to know Anons, she does not include a thorough examination of the
conversations and personalities on the channels in her literature (Coleman 2012: 93).
Samuel provides accounts of interviewing hacktivists prior to the development of
Anonymous, but in her treatment of Anonymous, no such data is presented (Samuel
2004; Samuel n.d.). Even with the methodology of interviewing individuals through e-
mails or chat, we believe such accounts might distort the description of actual processes

56
of Anonymous. Halupka and Star also provide no description on how their data on the
antics of Anonymous was gathered (Halupka & Star 201?). It is apparent from their
bibliography, however, that the only scholar they consult on hacktivism is Gabriella
Coleman.
Samuel insists that it is meaningless to examine whether there are any patterns in
how anonymity affects hacktivist behaviour (Samuel 2004: 222). Instead she states that
because many hacktivists decide on how anonymous they wish to be, it is much more
relevant to apply a more instrumentalist view of anonymity: as simply a political tool
(ibid.: 222). We do, however, find that on several democratic parameters, it is
seemingly more of an excuse to act inappropriately. The instrumentalist view on
anonymity is important, and there is no doubt that many Anons have serious
considerations not only on how to be anonymous, but also on how much anonymity is
ideal. It is, however, an unsatisfactory perspective, that disregards one of the most
important discussions on online participation and anonymity: Whether anonymity has
any discernible effect on hacktivist behaviour.
Our findings in this project, namely that the practice of Anonymous can indeed be
at least as exclusive, hierarchical and undemocratic, as the offline World practices,
provide a different account of the hacktivists than existing literature. We do not only
consider our discoveries a supplement to Coleman’s and Samuel’s framework, but also
a call for a more critical approach to Anonymous and similar hacktivist networks, one
that take into the account the hierarchical, exclusive and undesirable practice that also
takes place on the IRCs.

The Anons way of doxxing is not only a tool originally linked to the playful hacker
culture and a method that precedes the purpose, it also works as a currency of
anonymity. Anonymity is valuable for Anons as it provides the ability to participate and
in this case to dominate the operation. The loss of anonymity, however, prevents users
from participation, and doxxing therefore becomes a tool of exclusion.
There is no formally expressed ideology of Anonymous. However, patterns in
ideology can be recognised concerning freedom of information, anti-corporatism and
LGBT-rights. Both techno-libertarian views and leftist-anarchist views are prominent in
the chronology of hacktivist purposes in Anonymous’ operations. The emphasis of

57
Project Vejlegården is historically unusual, as the Anons rarely, if ever, have sided with
the employer of any conflict.

58
Chapter 6: Conclusion – Vice Has a Mask

In this thesis we have examined the dynamics of Anonymous through the scope of
Operation Vejlegården. While it is by no means a complete account of everything
Anonymous can be, it provides a new understanding of the culture on Anonymous’ IRC
channels. Anonymous is a complex phenomenon of democratic participation as its
liquid structure provides somewhat intangible decision-making processes. Anonymous
is still, and will probably remain, an association existing on a premise of secrecy and
uncontrolled organic development. It has an immense amount of manifestations on
Twitter, in IRC channels and in offline protests.
Therefore, our case study does not aim to provide a general assessment of what
Anonymous is but rather an examination of how the culture of Anonymous can
manifest itself. It discusses whether the chat logs analysed are examples of desirable
democratic practice. Furthermore, the project looks at how the premise of perceived
online anonymity affects the behaviour and practice studied on the logs.
Operation Vejlegården was in many ways an unusual Anonymous operation. It took
a different ideological stance than most Anonymous operations; it attacked political
party websites and it had severe consequences for regular citizens not directly involved
in the conflict. Our primary research question is concerned with whether the antics of
Anons involved in the operation were compliant with generally agreed standards on
good democratic practice.
We have used James Gardner’s paper on anonymity and democratic participation as
the main reference for political theory and have analysed the logs with regards to three
commonly accepted parameters: sincerity, independence and public-mindedness.
Throughout the logs, patterns of questionable behaviour are apparent. The Anons
discourage discussion and consensus-based participation. Instead, Anons regarded as
inactive, disagreeing or simply aggravating, by the accepted Anons on the forum, are
excluded from the channel. If their behaviour is recurring or especially bothersome,
they are completely banned.
Also, as opposed to the story often told of Anonymous, a very strong and
acknowledged hierarchy exists on the channel. Particular users make the decisions,
explain the plans and handle the press. Other Anons simply answer to them. For some
highly ranked Anons, their statuses come from merits or skills, and for others it is quite
unclear. On all accounts, Gardner’s ideals are absent. The Anons on the channel are not

59
independent. Hardly anyone voice concerns, critical perspectives or nuance and those
who do get excluded. Little to no respect or consideration is shown for the people
affected by the DDoS’. Instead, leading Anon, elan0r, rather frantically states to a critic:
“du har vidst drukket af natpotten ! Jeg har folkets opbakning” (CL 86: 2301). As
opposed to the value of sincerity, it seems that the exclusion and top-down decision-
making causes both more radical opinions and more silence than it causes actual
sincerity.
The way the Anons act, based on their anonymity, seem problematic in
considerations of anonymity in political democratic participation. The Anons use their
anonymity as a safeguard against legality and accountability. Furthermore, the Anons’
reflections of legality show how their anonymity seems to leave a distorted sense of
reality. The discussions are characterised by an immature and unreflective notions about
the practice of a democratic society. The Anons believe that because the law does not
have a particular paragraph about DDoS attacks they are discharged from the
accountability related to the action. This belief seems detached from reality. Moreover,
the factors of anonymity seem valuable for the Anons preventing them from being
identified by law and enforcement authorities and hence take account for their actions.
In this manner, the anonymity enhances the Anons’ possibility of not taken account for
their online actions in the offline sphere. This way of using anonymity as a safeguard
can in general drive people to behave more selfish not valuing the democratic ideas of
collective norms and good.
Finally, our findings in the project have provided with alternative insights
compared to the existing research on the field. Most literature on Anonymous has a
fascinated, optimistic tone to it. Samuel, Coleman, Halupka and Starr emphasise
Anonymous’ ability to organise people, its direct democratic culture, and the dynamic,
nonhierarchical structure. These characteristics are indeed both relevant and important,
and all of the abovementioned scholars provide a framework to understand Anonymous
better. Our findings, however, show a need for a more critical approach as well. Critical
approaches discussing whether more traditional hierarchies and statuses are also
recurring in the Anonymous collectives on the IRCs. An approach that would examine
the exclusion and lack of deliberate discussion that apparently can thrive on the
channels. The field of research also needs to discuss to how differing degrees of
perceived anonymity might affect the behaviour of Anons both negatively and
positively, and not from a strictly instrumentalist point of view.

60
 Concerning methodology, it seems that most of the research conducted on
Anonymous does not include empirical data directly from IRC channels. Such data is by
no means accomplished in itself, and other approaches can naturally provide with both
important and necessary knowledge on Anonymous. We do, however, take notice that
much of the described attributes of Anonymous are contradicted by our findings. The
use of chat logs can probably be of use when discussing many of the perceived qualities
of Anonymous.

61
Chapter 7: Epilogue – …One Last Login

While writing the project, we started frequenting some of the IRC channels Anonymous
uses – especially the AnonDK channel, where the chat logs took place. We did this
without intentions of using the chats empirically or analytically; after all, our research
and experiences taught us that journalists and academics are not easily trusted by
Anons. We started chatting in order to gain a first-hand sense of Anonymous and
simply because we were curious.
Using the handle ulve, we built rapport with Anon CurveMask18. The exchanges
with him made us consider an epilogue, reflecting on methodology as well as the
findings in our project. Because most of the conversations with CurveMask took place
very late in the writing process, time constraints made it difficult for us to use these
conversations as a part of the analysis. We do, however, find that they are too valuable
to leave out, as they provide new perspectives on the dynamics of the IRC.

While writing the project, some rather dramatic events took place in the IRC channel.
On July 26th 2012, just a few days after Operation Vejlegården, other Anons put a doxx
of elan0r online from AnonDK. The person who allegedly was elan0r, had his home
and computers searched by the police shortly after the doxx was put online, however, no
charges were filed (Mortensen 2012). A week later, five people were charged for their
involvement in Operation Vejlegården. Additionally, two other people were questioned,
but not charged, because they were under the age of criminal responsibility. The
maximum penalty of the charges is six years in prison (Ritzau 2012).

CurveMask shed lights on how this turn of events was handled by the Anons. After
Operation Vejlegården, an internal discussion took place that resulted in the doxxing of
elan0r. Our source told us that:

” rsagen til vi doxxede elan0r var flere ting. F rst og fremmest havde han
misbrugt folk som hans ‘personal army’ og mange andre ting, som var
interne - alle var genereltsure p ham over hvor meget han havde delagt
anons omtale i dk” (App. 3: 17-19).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18
CurveMask is not the Anon’s actual handle. He allowed us to quote him, but only on the condition that
his statements did not make him recognisable. In the appendix 3 on the enclosed CD, we have only
included one conversation with CurveMask. All identifiable details are left out.

62
He states that as elan0r had abused his admin-status on the IRC and that the doxxing
was a measure taken for breaking the, albeit unwritten, codes of conduct. He says that
decisions in the channels are supposed to happen by consensus:

”man h ndterer det blot gennem intern diskussion, f r enkelte personer

lader deres holdninger g lde for resten af anonymous. Hvad der var det
st rste problem ved 3f-sagen var, at man smed kritikere ud fra rummet i
stedet for at debattere” (App. 3: 12-14).

Another reason for the doxxing of elan0r was that he put his fellow Anons at risk
during the operation. Both he and the other Anons with admin-status were criticised
afterwards for not taking properly care of security measures:

”…Jeg har ikke set elan0r give ordentlige instruktioner til folk udover
hvordan de skyder19. han v rnede ikke ordentligt om de nyes sikkerhed, og
i chatloggen giver flere folk personligt afsl rende info ud (hvilken by de er
fra osv.), s de folk der administrerede p det tidspunkt jeg var v k,
gjorde et d rligt arbejde b de med at administrere channel og at lave
op'en rent generelt”(App. 3: 23-26).

This caused them to pursue a sort of internal justice, essentially blacklisting elan0r.
CurveMask had considerations about whether they doxxed the right person, but when
asked whether there were any concerns, he said: ”det var der selvf lgelig, men vi
havde s mange ting, han gav ud i public, der matchede hans profil for godt til det
kunne v re sandt” (App. 3: 28-29). CurveMask also believes that it was the doxxing
that eventually led to the search in the person identified as elan0r’s house. He also
implies, during the conversation, that elan0r might have provided the police with
information that led to the arrest of the other Anons (App. 3: 91-100).

The exchanges with CurveMask added interesting perspectives to the issues discussed in
this project. The internal justice and the codes of conduct that CurveMask elaborates on
are not pursued in any literature about Anonymous that we have come across. The
ethical implications of doxxing and the connection between legal measures are indeed

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19
To shoot (skyder), is a term for performing and/or aiding a DDoS attack.

63
interesting fields for future research. Despite CurveMask’s claims to the contrary, it
would be highly relevant to examine if and how the IRCs are different in culture.
Comparing two national IRC channels would provide data to discuss whether all of the
chats adhere to the same norms and values, essentially making it possible to investigate
the democratic practice in several sub-forums of Anonymous.
Last, but not least, the notion presented by CurveMask, that Anon channels can be
corrupted by a single, determined person, adds a dimension to the discussion about the
accountability of Anonymous and the idea of the anti-individualistic hive-mind.

We suggest that future research into Anonymous investigates these points. The use of
chat logs and the conversations with CurveMask provided us with an empirical base for
our research, that we would argue is necessary, in order to draw conclusions about the
actual democratic mechanisms and culture in the IRCs. While we do not uncritically
accept CurveMask’s claims, they do provide information on the possible workings of
Anonymous. Therefore, we can only encourage that future research into the field is
carried out within a critical framework, and with empirical data to support the
methodology. The dynamics of Anonymous will in all probability continue to be an
important field of research in years to come. They are gaining media attention, they are
consistently picking bigger adversaries, and the premises of democratic participation are
rapidly changing.

64
Chapter 8: Bibliography

- Ankersborg, Vibeke 2009: Kildekritik i et samfundsvidenskabeligt perspektiv,

Forlaget Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg.
- Anon DK 2012: TV2 Nyhederne - Udtaler sig om 3F (Hackeren 'Qusse'),
Youtube. Localised on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htDbVvZe7u4 [12-
05-2012].
- Auerbach, David 2012: Anonymity as Culture, Triplecanopy. Localised on
http://canopycanopycanopy.com/15/anonymity_as_culture__treatise [12-11-
2012].
- Benedictus, Leo (2011, 31. August). The irony of the Anonymous mask. The
Guardian. Localised on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/30/irony-of-anonymous-mask
[11-15-2012].
- Braagaard, Natali (2012a, 20. July). 3F: Det er et storstilet hackerangreb. TV2.
Localised on http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-51987601:3f-det-er-et-
storstilet-hackerangreb.html [11-26-2012].
- Braagaard, Natali (2012b, 20. July). 3F-formand: Vi politianmelder hackere.
TV2. Localised on http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-51989320:3fformand-
vi-politianmelder-hackere.html [11-26-2012].
- Bryman, Alan & Bell, Emma 2011: Business Research Methods, Oxford
University Press, New York.
- Bundgaard, Maria (2012, 17. February). Hacker: Derfor udstiller vi pædofile.
Tv2 Nyhederne. Localised on http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-
48292813:hacker-derfor-udstiller-vi-pædofile.html [11-30-2012].
- Coleman, Gabriella (2012a). Curriculum Vitae, Steinhardt. Localised on
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/006/826/Coleman-Current-CV-
2012.pdf [10-10-2012].
- Coleman, Gabriella 2012b: Our Weirdness is Free, The Logic of Anonymous –
online army, agent of chaos, and seeker of justice, Triple Canopy, Brooklyn.
- Constantin, Lucian (2010, 29. November). Anonymous Attacks IFPI After The
Pirate Bay Loses Appeal. Softpedia. Localised on

65
 http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anonymous-Attacks-IFPI-After-The-Pirate-
Bay-Loses-Appeal-169380.shtml [11-15-2012].
- Dahlgaard, Karina O. (2012, 11. July). Hackergruppe udstiller pædofile.
Jyllands-Posten. Localised on http://jyllands-
posten.dk/international/article4777049.ece;%20 [11-30-2012].
- Davies, Thomas R. 2008: The Rise and Fall of Transnational Civil Society: The
Evolution of International Non-Governmental Organizations Since 1839, City
University London, London.
- Gardner, James A. 2011: Anonymity and Democratic Citizenship, Buffalo: Legal
Studies Research Paper Series, Paper no. 2011 – 008.
- Halupka, Max & Star, Cassandra 201?: The Utilisation of Direct Democracy
and Meritocracy in the Decision Making Process of the Decentralised Virtual
Community Anonymous. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.
- Hay, Colin 2007: Why We Hate Politics, Polity Press, Cambridge.
- Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D. & Vogel, C. 2003: Internet Research
Methods. London: Sage Publications.
- Hedegaard, Kristian (2012, 24. July). Tidslinje over Vejlegård-konflikt.
Localised on http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-52061387:tidslinje-over-
vejleg%C3%A5rdkonflikt.html [11-26-2012].
- Hookway, Nicholas 2008: Entering the blogosphere, SAGE Publications,
London, vol. 8.
- Kaldor, Mary 2011: Social Movements, NGOs, and Networks. IN: Reydams,
Luc: Global Activism Reader, The Continuum International Publishing Group,
New York.
- Mann, C. and Stewart, F. 2000: Internet Communication and Qualitative
Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. London: Sage Publications.
- Marx, Gary T. 1999: What’s in a Name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of
Anonymity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
- Marx, Gary T. 2001: Identity and Anonymity: Some Conceptual Distinctions and
Issues for Research, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
- Mortensen, Henrik N. (2012, 28. august). 29-årig it-konsulent fra Vejle hængt
ud for 3F-hacking, in Version2, Localised on
http://www.version2.dk/artikel/29-aarig-it-konsulent-fra-vejle-haengt-ud-3f-
hacking-47251 [12-12-2012].

66
- Netnyheder@tv2.dk (2012, 23. July). Hvad er op og ned i 3F-konflikten? TV2.
Localised on http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-52041418:hvad-er-op-og-
ned-i-3fkonflikten.html [11-22-2012].
- Olsen, Henning 2002: Kvalitative Kvaler. Kvalitative metoder og danske
kvalitative interviewundersøgelsers kvalitet, Akademisk Forlag, København.
- Panel on Research Ethics (2012, 22. August). Qualitative Research. Localised
on http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-
eptc2/chapter10-chapitre10/ [11-28-2012].
- Ritzau (2012, 29. november). Politiet mistænker helt unge for hackerangreb på
3F. Politiken. Localised on http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE1826616/politiet-
mistaenker-helt-unge-for-hackerangreb-paa-3f/ [12-12-2012].
- Rehn, Niklas (2012, 23. July). Socialdemokraterne: Restaurant-blokade er lige
efter bogen. Politiken. Localised on
http://politiken.dk/politik/ECE1697137/socialdemokraterne-restaurant-blokade-
er-lige-efter-bogen/ [11-20-2012].
- Rendtorff, Jacob D. 2007: Case-studier. IN: Fuglsang, Lars et al.: Teknikker I
samfundsvidenskaberne, Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Frederiksberg.
- Richards, Jonathan (2008, 25. January). Hackers Declare War on Scientology.
FoxNews. Localised on http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325586,00.html
[10-21-2012].
- Rouse, Margaret (2010, November). Definition: distributed denial-of-service
attack (DDoS). SearchSecurity. Localised on
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/distributed-denial-of-service-
attack [11-10-2012].
- Samuel, Alexandra W. 2004: Hacktivism and the Future of Political
Participation, Harvard University. Localised on
http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-
entire.pdf [10-05-2012].
- Samuel, Alexandra W. n.d.: Decoding Hacktivism: Purpose, Method, and
Identity in a New Social Movement, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
- Schwartz, Matthew J. (2012, 2. July). Who Is Anonymous: 10 Key Facts.
InformationWeek. Localised on

67
 http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/who-is-anonymous-10-key-
facts/232600322 [10-21-2012].
- Segall, Laurie (2012, 20. January). Anonymous strikes back after feds shut
down piracy hub Megaupload. CNNMoney. Localised on
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/19/technology/megaupload_shutdown/index.htm
[11-17-2012].
- Sørensen, Kaare & Fallesen, Johannes K. (2012, 29. november). V: Håber,
parterne vil reflektere over dommen. Jyllands-posten. Localised on
http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/article4928184.ece [11-30-2012].
- Thagaard, Tove 2004: Systematik og indlevelse – En indførelse i kvalitativ
metode, Akademiske Forlag, København.
- Yin, Robert K. 2003: Case Study Research – Design and Methods, Sage
Publications, London.

68
69
Appendix 2 and 3 (CD)

70