Hacktivism

As we see a slew of governmental and corporate actions throughout the world aimed at

restricting the open use of computer networks, understanding and discussion of these and related

policies is eroding. 1 Adam Smith's market analogy of the unseen hand has now become pure

nostalgia due to the widespread distribution of social power. Citizens of the information society

are dominated less by concentrated force and more by ideological authority, as manifested in

cyberspace's symbolic practices and conventions, as global organizations migrate from

companies to networks. Meanwhile, profit-driven entities are increasingly determining media

policy, reshaping the legal and political framework of cyberspace. Critical media and conceptual

Net art may soon be extinct as a result of these changes. The clichés of digital culture as the

victory of bricolage will have been made illegal once the "cyber-terrorism" scenario includes any

use of technology to interrupt, circumvent, destabilize, or sabotage officially sanctioned user

interactions with technology.

Hacking is no longer celebrated in popular culture as a largely harmless but occasionally

lucrative activity for computer enthusiasts. The press no longer promotes the entrepreneurial

spirit of digital capitalism, as television has stopped glamorizing the obsessions of smart

academics. Instead, television and print journalists have promoted hacktivism as an irreversible

systemic danger to digital media. As Claude Shannon has already stated, it is vital to integrate

psycho-logical, theoretical, and technological understanding to appreciate the fragile balance

between secrecy and access in policy. This paper debunks three of the most egregious

misunderstandings in the debate between old and new media. First, hackers are often presented

as immature scumbags, and the solution is generally more policing authority for the government,

which comes with its own set of consequences.

 Second, once the protections of privacy and free speech are eroded by covert data

gathering and incursions of data privacy, activism is all too easily conflated with cyber-terrorism,

turning anyone who questions a few of the more pernicious consequences of widespread network

commodification into enemies of the state. Third, the claim that increased secrecy leads to

greater security is false, and the secrecy cult leads to an online resurrection of illogical rumors.

When conspiracy theory replaces critical Internet culture, public discourse on code and law

suffers.

One of the most famous hacking organizations is called Anonymous. Using the term

"cyberlibertarian" to describe Anonymous risks obfuscating the various and sometimes

conflicting expressions of its political worldview. It would lead to the conclusion that

Anonymous has little to contribute, and that it is even anathema to a progressive politics based

on both positive and negative freedoms: for instance, recognition to social equality (such as

having equal access to the technology) and continuing to expand the digital resources (positive

freedoms that require political intervention), as well as concentrating on freedom from

monitoring, censorship, and the expansion of copyright. Although libertarian ideas are most

prominent, the Anonymous ethos's paradoxical character also indicates room for a progressive

political agenda.

Anonymous is sometimes referred to as a "hacktivist," a word that mixes computer

hacking and activism. In the case of Anonymous, the hacker subculture came before the

activism, as it did for another well-known hacker group, Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc), which was

founded in the 1980s, and in contrast to another, the Electronic Disturbance Theater (hacking in

support of the Zapatistas), which used hacking as a political tool from the start. The Church of

Scientology was also a common target for Anonymous and cDc. We shouldn't exaggerate the
parallels between the two groups: cDc members, for example, have attacked Anonymous' actions

of defacing or shutting down websites as hypocritical attacks on free expression. Both sides,

however, believe that computers are more than just a tool for attaining political goals.

Both the movement's nihilism and its (righteous) idealism may be divorced from a

meaningful program for political transformation. Similarly, the veil of an anonymous "thought"

runs the risk of masking the cultural relationships and material interests entwined with political

dissent. However, these aspects of Anonymous, as well as its humorous absurdism, should be

viewed at least in part as subcultural performance, rather than as a fully established political

objective. Strong utopian and dystopian tendencies cast doubt on the movement's ability to

engage with the pragmatics of policy reform, even (or maybe particularly) in areas it considers

sacred, such as internet monitoring, privacy, censorship, and copyright.

Through the defiance of traditions and taboos surrounding images of violence and sex, it

evolved into a carnivalesque celebration of free expression. 4chan was also the birthplace of

now-ubiquitous memes like lolcats, in which harmless and charming stuff was paired with severe

and purposely insulting material. Participants were either anonymous or pseudonymous, but a

joke about 'Anon' as a single person became popular, and Anonymous was born. 4Chan was a

boisterous environment, with tensions escalating between those who advocated collective

anonymity and those who created pseudonymous identities, the latter derided as "namefags" by

the former. Culturally insensitive language was and continues to be a hallmark: users of 4chan

and Anonymous often trade homophobic, racist, and sexist rhetoric. The extent to which 4chan

and Anonymous idioms connect with racist, sexist, or homophobic sentiments is debatable

(Olson, 2013, p. 411) – members frequently assert that the language is instead a subversive

display of incivility. This started with parody of Scientology's naive disdain for the 'Streisand
effect,' which states that attempting to restrict material only serves to increase its circulation and

reputation. It morphed into a more serious (but never without a sense of humour) war against an

exploitative, rich, and powerful cult, energizing current 'Anons' and drawing new ones. The

'Chanology' campaign was carried out online (DDoS assaults), over the phone and fax (prank

calls and black faxes), and on the streets (prank calls and black faxes).

The Westbro Baptist Church, a smaller but philosophically more virulent religious cult,

would subsequently be targeted by Anonymous. Other high-profile campaigns were launched in

2011 against private computer security firm HBGary (in direct retaliation for the firm's boastful

but false claims about outing—or 'd0xing'— Anonymous members), and in 2010 against PayPal,

Visa, and Mastercard after they disabled Wikileaks donation facilities, allegedly under pressure

from US authorities. In response for attempts to shut down file-sharing site the Pirate Bay, the

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of

America (RIAA) launched 'Operation Payback.'

'Operation Titstorm' was launched in 2010 in protest to the Australian government's

planned obligatory internet pornography filter (Kravets, 2010). Surprisingly, Anonymous treats

pornography as a clear free speech problem. Furthermore, it agreed with other interest groups

that a filter ostensibly targeting child pornography would be a "slippery slope" toward broader

internet censorship—as one Anon puts it: "however abhorrent these things may be, even more

abhorrent is the idea that someone else can tell me what I can and can't look at" (Anonymous,

2013, p. 128). It is important information to consider.

LulzSec, an anonymous breakaway organization, targeted PBS in 2011 when the

broadcaster aired Wikisecrets, a program the group saw as biased towards Wikileaks and Julian

Assange (PBS, 2011). In retaliation to Rupert Murdoch's News International's phone hacking
incident, the Sun newspaper in the United Kingdom was hacked in the same year. These LulzSec

breaches shattered an established Anonymous rule prohibiting assaults on media companies, a

rule intended to prevent hypocritical attacks on free speech. The notorious hack on multinational

firm Stratfor (now known as 'AntiSec') occurred in 2011. (Norton, 2011). Following a series of

arrests and convictions in the United States and the United Kingdom in 2011, Anonymous joined

Occupy organizations in activities and helped release data related to the Edward Snowden/NSA

controversy. It also offered support and advice to demonstrators in Tunisia and later other Arab

Spring nations that faced censorship, monitoring, and crackdowns on dissidents. In the aftermath

of arguments over SOPA (the contentious Stop Online Piracy Act) and the suspension of file-

sharing site MegaUpload, as well as extradition proceedings against its creator Kim DotCom on

piracy charges, Anonymous has targeted copyright institutions, notably the RIAA and MPAA. In

the aftermath of indicted internet activist Aaron Swartz's suicide, Anonymous members targeted

the Department of Justice in 2013. (Limer, 2013).

Anonymous was able to build its brand identity through website defacements, which

consisted of minimal black and white artwork and text, as well as righteous and ominous

rhetoric. The tone of LulzSec hacks became more blatantly pranksterish: a falsified claim of

Tupac Shakur coming up alive in New Zealand appeared on PBS online (Markoff, 2011), and

The Sun's website stated Rupert Murdoch had committed suicide in the aftermath of the phone

hacking incident (Arthur, 2011). The basic, though oversimplified, difference in hacker culture is

between respectable 'white hats' (hackers hired to find security flaws) and malicious 'black hats'

or 'crackers.' Unauthorized hacks are carried out by 'gray hats,' who have a good intention of

exposing security holes, however their reputation and position may be at risk (Bozzo, 2010).

Detractors may see them as the outcome of their acts, which are more akin to gray hat hacking—
unauthorized attacks that result in their target firms improving their security. Their explicitly

moral and political motivations differ.

Anonymous' origins are largely pre-political: the movement arose from a subculture

committed to mocking authority, but conflicts against strong and corrupt governmental,

corporate, and religious interests gave rise to a more serious political objective. Indeed, a schism

emerged among the movement, with some preferring to keep the activities focused on hilarity

and pranks while disparaging those who sought a more explicitly political and moral goal. The

parts that follow take a more in-depth look at this goal, first via the prism of

'cyberlibertarianism.'

In the next sections, these testimonials can be used to identify several of the conceptual

and moral lines that run across Anonymous. I'd want to demonstrate how the movement's ethos

might be understood as a number of wars. Almost each social and political movement has

philosophical, intellectual, and social disagreements. These might be beneficial, providing vigor

and dynamism (for example, environmentalists and clean technology proponents coexisting

within the Green movement), or they can be more severe fault lines (even deadly contradictions),

jeopardizing a movement's vitality and long-term viability. It's hard to say whether the below-

mentioned tensions within Anonymous are useful or destructive.

Positive and negative freedoms are a final duality within the Anonymous ethos. The

sanctification of free speech and privacy, as well as prominent anti-state rhetoric echoing

Barlow's Declaration, pitting government as "dinosaurs" (Anonymous, 2013, p. 19) against the

internet's "vibrant marketplace of ideas," support Golumbia's claim that cyberlibertarianism

focuses on negative freedoms (p. 34). However, there is another side to the story. Many of the

sources in Olson's book, Knappenberger's documentary, and Anonymous on Anonymous attest

to the sense of empowerment and personal development they had after joining and becoming a

part of a community after previously feeling alone.

Positive and negative freedoms are a final duality within the Anonymous ethos. The

sanctification of free speech and privacy, as well as prominent anti-state rhetoric echoing

Barlow's Declaration, pitting government as "dinosaurs" (Anonymous, 2013, p. 19) against the

internet's "vibrant marketplace of ideas," support Golumbia's claim that cyberlibertarianism

focuses on negative freedoms (p. 34). However, there is another side to the story. Many of the

sources in Olson's book, Knappenberger's documentary, and Anonymous on Anonymous attest

to the sense of empowerment and personal development they had after joining and becoming a

part of a community after previously feeling alone.

The focus paid to concerns of class, inequality, and distributive justice in Anonymous on

Anonymous is another indicator that positive liberties are valued. Several Anons bring attention

to topics such as student debt, welfare cuts, poverty, homelessness, and the super-rich, echoing

the Occupy movement and its vocabulary of the 99 percent (Anonymous, 2013, pp. 186-7).

Others blame the 'ruling classes' and 'elites' for their 'greed.' Although this is not a fully

developed materialist concept of class, we cannot conclude that the Anonymous movement is

unconcerned about social class and economic inequality.

These same tendencies, on the other hand, allow for a critical expansion of modern

mainstream politics' restricted political imagination. The Anonymous ethos's strong

individualism threatens to prioritize privacy, free expression, and frictionless data flows over

other aims, but the organization has also tried with (relatively) leaderless collectivism and

highlighted solidarity principles. Finally, while the right to be left alone (negative freedom) is
lauded above all else, progressive politics and economic equality have made inroads into the

Anonymous culture.

Is there room in a progressive digital politics for hacking and hacktivism? The answer is

unquestionably affirmative, but to a limited extent. Anonymous' activities and performances

have sparked arguments about the ownership of information and digital media in modern society,

and digital technology has been used to mock and attract critical attention to numerous groups

that have engaged in questionable behaviors and power abuses. Even if Anonymous' long-term

influence on the institutions and power structures they've targeted is limited, they have been

good and progressive initiatives.

Conclusion

Ackerman, S. (2013). Former NSA chief warns of cyber-terror attacks if Snowden apprehended.

The Guardian, August 6. Retrieved December 12, 2013 from

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/06/nsa-directorcyber-terrorism-

snowden

Allnut, L. (2011). Old-School Hacker Oxblood Ruffin Discusses Anonymous And The Future Of

Hacktivism. Retrieved December 12, 2013, from

http://www.rferl.org/content/hacker_oxblood_ruffin_discusses_anonymous_and_the_futu

re_of_hacktivism/24228166.html

Anonymous (2013). Anonymous on Anonymous. London: Imaginary Book Co.

Arthur, C. (2011). Sun Website Hacked by LulzSec. The Guardian, July 19

Coleman, G. (2011a). Hacker Politics and Publics. Public Culture, 23(3), 511-516.
Coleman, G. (2011b). Anonymous: From the Lulz to Collective Action. The New Everyday.

Retrieved December 2, 2013, from

http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/tne/pieces/anonymous-lulzcollective-action

Coleman, G. (2011c). Is Anonymous Anarchy? Retrieved November 14, 2013 from

http://owni.eu/2011/08/22/is-anonymous-anarchy/

Coleman, G. (2012). Our Weirdness is Free: The logic of Anonymous. Triple Canopy, January

2012.