Conor O’ Donovan
Staff Writer
Over the past couple of weeks numerous members and affiliates of the ‘Hacktivist’ movement, Anonymous, and other freelance hackers have been arrested. Anonymous would have us believe that this is a great social injustice which, in some cases, it may well be. Whether they are the best authority on the subject is unclear.
Recently approved legislation sees these hackers tried as terrorists, a default setting in the US for those perceived to be enemies of the state. On top of this, the DSA have claimed that within two years Anonymous could be capable of attacking the US power grid, shutting off power to millions. It is clear that Anonymous, as an organisation, are being taken very seriously indeed. But do they deserve to be? Despite much posturing on Youtube by various subdivisions of the movement, it would appear so.
Most would maintain that Anonymous have little interest in directly attacking civilians. This comes from the assumption that Anonymous are a group concerned with protecting a free Internet and exposing information with a view to maintaining an informed and free public.
This seems debatable when one considers the theft of personal information from customers of the Playstation network and Xfactor contestants by Anonymous members. While this is not quite in the same margin as an assault on power supplies, the reasoning behind such as attack is dubious. Obtaining information is one of Anonymous’ more aggressive tactics and one they have already used against the public.
Quite apart from the public, Anonymous seem to have a hard time protecting their members. Before the recent wave of arrests there were concerns that their trademark Ddos attacks were putting the bank details of members at risk. After Interpol’s recent swoop that saw 25 arrests following investigations spanning two continents, it came to light that they had infiltrated Anonymous. This is, in fact, more difficult than it sounds as Anonymous members share little or no personal information, making it hard to spot impostors.
While these are unfortunate circumstances, it appears there are members of Anonymous who have no interest in protecting less experienced members. In August of last year, Martin Gonlag, a young student from the Netherlands and former member of Anonymous, became disillusioned with the movement. He witnessed a more senior member of Anonymous telling a young hacker his identity and IP address would be safe when using a certain program. Gonlag was facing a jail sentence for using the same program. This highlights a fundamental issue with Anonymous as a force on behalf of the average Internet user.
Anonymous and its many subdivision are, essentially, anarchic collectives of individuals. Any degree of Internet liberty is ultimately going to be one for these individuals. Despite involvement in protests against SOPA and PIPA, the frequent retributive actions against the websites and communications of authorities, such as Interpol’s public website, arguably do more to promote similar, future legislation. There are, undoubtedly, benign and even benevolent hackers. But certain members of Anonymous have suited themselves, and have therefore, arguably provoked the recent backlash.
Irrespective of Anonymous’ flaws as a force for digital civil liberty, they would also have us believe there is only one choice to make. This is a choice between a freewheeling and potentially destructive vigilante and censorship.
The ACTA protests across Europe showed that bodies taking to the street in peaceful protest is still effective. Futhermore, the Blackout protests by websites such as Reddit and Wikipedia were what killed the SOPA and PIPA bills earlier this year. Internet users opposed a threat to their freedom of speech and expression without aggression and as a community.
