Anonymous: threat or social revolution?

Print

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 6:00p.m.

Their methods are unconventional

Their methods are unconventional

By Dylan Moran

“We are anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us” – that is the catchcry of anonymous.

The organisation is commonly referred to as a ‘cyber-terrorism group’ because it’s a convenient way of describing anonymous (anon); a group difficult to understand.

They are often held up as an example of everything that is wrong with the internet, and the way the web desensitises users, allowing them to verbally attack and bully whoever they have a problem with.

But there are two sides to anonymous. There are those who are in it for the ‘lulz’ – creating their own humour via the misfortune of others, like Jessi Slaughter. Then there are those referred to as ‘moralfags’, who believe they can harness the power of anon to make a difference in the world.

That side of anon is my generation’s version of the Million Man March, the Martin Luther King, Kate Sheppard or Nelson Mandela.

Their methods are unconventional and, most of the time, unethical, but they get the job done.

Their unusual means make it easy to label them as a terrorist group; as bad, evil, people – which is true; they have done some terrible things.

For example, they attacked the website of the Epilepsy Foundation of America, setting up flashing animations in the hopes of triggering attacks.

Or the aforementioned Jessi Slaughter harassment; or the anecdotes we’ve all heard about members of anonymous joining suicide chatrooms and pushing people to the edge of despair in the hope they crack.

But equally, they believe they’ve done some great things like discrediting Scientology, helping spread information following the 2009 Iranian elections, turning their eye toward online debt collectors who were using anonymous’ own methods against companies who didn’t comply with software takedown notices, or software company HBGary Federal, who claimed that they had ‘infiltrated’ anonymous.

The response was swift, with HBGary’s site taken down, its email server hacked and leaked to the public.

This has been anon’s way of operating. You offend them and they’ll take down your website and dig through your online trash, trying to find something which will tarnish your image.

They’ll order pizzas to be delivered to your work, home, wherever. They’ll publish your address, phone number, bank details online because that’s the extent of their power – which is something to fear in some instances, but not in others.

If they do attack Internal Affairs, it won’t be the full brunt of the group; it’ll be a few people. Maybe a few hundred if they stir up the hornet’s nest on a slow day.

Anonymous are protestors, pure and simple. In the 70s, they would have been protestors who also ran a radio station. In the 80s and 90s, they would have had a public access TV station.

They have attacked governments in the past, after Australian politician Stephen Conroy announced plans to filter websites at an ISP level.

They took down then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s homepage, and a few others, for a few hours, to a few days.

Twice.

It’s part of Internal Affairs’ role to know about these sorts of things, so they will have liaised with Australia and will be prepared – Australia’s response to the matter was ‘we’ll just leave it ‘til they get bored then put the sites up again’.

When New Zealand looked at the same filtering measures our Tasman neighbours were considering, we got no attention from anon.

The Twitter Blackout campaign had more success, thanks to many industry insiders and campaigners, I know there were many, but Russell Brown jumps to mind as something of a figurehead.

None of those people have voiced any kind of call to arms against Internal Affairs recently.

The reaction of a few on anonnews has been along the lines of “Oh, I didn’t even know about this until it was in the media”.

Because, when we look at it, is New Zealand really becoming like China?

Does anon care, or are the majority more focused on Libya, Egypt, and actual social change?

Will today’s events result in a larger scale attack against the DIA, due to the publicity and people knowing about them?

I guess we’ll have to wait until Monday to see.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

30 Jan 2012 06:44p.m.

Mark wrote:

The news report in written form seemed a bit more free of bias however the article i saw on TV was nothing short of fear mongering. Anonymous support some very worthy causes and for that they will also get my support. Despite that I would never do anything "for the lulz" and I operate with a socially acceptable moral compass.

04 Apr 2011 06:19p.m.

Ryan wrote:

@James Murray: I have no problem with Dylan Moran and David Farrier reporting the points of view - in fact I encourage it - I do do however have a problem with the news media blurring the line between news reporting and opinion pieces. Cambell Live, blogs, and current affairs shows are good places for opinions - though with the exception of blogs they should try to get both sides of the argument. The 6pm News is the place for facts and reporting, and if you are going to have opinions make sure it's clear that it is an opinion, ideally use an extenral source (ie not a 3News reporter), and get both sides of the argument. None of those occured during that story - therefore it was a biased piece. Blurring facts and opinions is something FOXNews has been repeatedly criticised of doing by other media outlets - try to be better.

27 Mar 2011 12:13a.m.

DerMoosealini wrote:

I think to try and quantify and understand an unknown number of people who would stem from every social, economic and cultural background is a waste of time to say the least. Instead of focusing on the cyber attacks...why not focus on the reasons for inciting the attacks in the first place?

25 Mar 2011 02:27p.m.

Celia wrote:

Anonymous tries to be moralistic about freedom of speech yet exercises and supports hate speech disguised as humour that exceeds all boundaries of taste and decency (try this for size http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Holocaust). My guess is that some Anons may try to defend encyclopedia dramatica yet this is a major meeting ground where "for the lulz" replaces any moral compass. What they do not realise is that freedom of speech is not the only freedom mankind has, yet it has become Anonymous's mantra in their somewhat warped, cultish world of strange language and rules. The Guardian newspaper were able to ascertain that a small clique of about 12 people guide Anonymous toward certain targets to attack, contrary to the idea they are leaderless. Several of their members have been convicted and jailed for participating in DDoS attacks on websites, but this is the downside of participation in illegal activities that they do not tell their followers. Of course like any criminal gang they can only make their presence felt through threatening behaviour and bullying, which explains their internet activities. Challenge Anonymous and they might attack your websites (scary--not). The irony is a lot of them are spotty-nosed boys and girls that wouldn't frighten anyone IRL (in real life). Their larger-than-life Internet presence often conceals their social inadequacies and short-comings. In this way anonymity and the Anonymous collective fulfills a need and sense of belonging in much the same way religion does. So they have become the very thing they oppose.

25 Mar 2011 01:58p.m.

DEW wrote:

It's a social revolution, and it is a damn good one. Though this article could do well with some refinement and a closer look into what anon is. Plus Jessie slaughter wasn't attacked, she was the first to attack.

25 Mar 2011 01:12p.m.

kane wrote:

They could make a good start by publishing the name of the child sex offender comedian... In fact publishing every child sex offender they know of would be a good publicity plan... And why would publishing the name of the sex offender comedian give away the victim in this case??? Unless he has committed incest as well another very sick and serious offence...

25 Mar 2011 12:28p.m.

Real Deal wrote:

I totally understand them and their rationale and to be quite frank it's just a matter of time before New Zealand is hit severly because at the end of the day New Zealand is now becoming involved in global politics purely by association which is as I know, not due to Globalization but because of the mutually agreed and signed support we offer the big player nations. The fact of the matter is multinational media organizations are now politically and state governed regardless what they say and their stories aren't about freedom of speech, justice or world peace! Their stories are Political, politically edited and politically motivated. TV1 State owned and run. TV3 well you don't have to go far to locate their links cousins and again a different spin on world affairs. My point is this...slowly but surely the Power structure as we know it and as we continue to put up with will change for the better! "Laws were made to protect men in Power" Here in New Zealand it's an ass !! Globally it's changing and "Power to the People" is no longer a cliche' but an obtainable goal. Text cannot be associated to an ethnicity, color or societal status so it moves beyond personal discrimination unless one places a name to it to be open to criticism, judgment and posturing within everyone who reads it. Attacking is not attacking in the virtual realm it's "Playing the game on a level playing field" however the goal is not to win it's to correct or put back into balance. As for the story, tap tap tap.

25 Mar 2011 12:20p.m.

NOTAnonymous wrote:

This is boring.

25 Mar 2011 12:05p.m.

Anon wrote:

generally i prefer to watch tv3 as its news coverage is slightly broader than tv1s very limited very right wing erspective on events. however last night, i could swear that they were no different.

25 Mar 2011 10:09a.m.

James wrote:

Hey there - James Murray chief editor 3news.co.nz here. Look I can't speak for our television news output as it is not my responsibility. Dylan Moran's piece above is a very balanced piece in my view and makes the point that this is likely to be very small section of Anon. As did the news piece last night. I have also personally blogged about the issue of filtering the internet here and the impact that has on freedom of speech - so we do understand the issues and we don't have a right wing agenda (or a left wing one). As for David Farrier's comments - he is entitled to freedom of speech in the same way Anon is, and fights for, criticism of Anon would be part of that and I think most people who are part of this group would agree.