I'm
reading Mark Bowden's interesting non-fiction book, WORM, and it got me
thinking about the Internet, malware and hacking. This led me to consider the well-known hacker
group Anonymous.
What
is Anonymous?
According
to most reports, Anonymous isn't so much a single group as it is a loose
coalition of hacktivists (hacker activists) who organized in 2003. Anonymous is international, distributed,
technically savvy, and...anonymous. What
makes analysis tricky here is that anyone can 'join' Anonymous simply by saying
their activities take place under the Anonymous umbrella.
Depending
on where you get your news, they may be labeled 'anarchists,' 'hacktivists,'
'terrorists,' or 'vigilantes.' I think
it's always more instructive to examine what someone does, rather than what
they say (try this technique on politicians.)
So let's look at some of their operations.
Operations
2008
Staged protests against Scientology, centered around Scientology censorship on the
Internet.
2009
Online attack against the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
because of their battle against online file sharing. This was an anti-censorship move--some
Anonymous members obviously support file sharing sites. In 2012, the file share site Megaupload was
also an issue.
2010
Anonymous targeted credit card companies Visa and Mastercard after they froze
Wikileaks accounts. Known as Operation
Avenge Assange.
2011
Anonymous launched online attacks against a large child pornography trading
site. They may also have been
responsible for attacks on government websites in Algeria, Chile, Colombia, Egypt,
Iran, Libya, and New Zealand.
2012
During the SOPA protests, Anonymous may have attacked websites at the FBI,
Department of Justice, Recording Industry Association of America, and the Motion
Picture Association of America. They
also urged Occupy Wallstreet protestors to remain peaceful, made threats
against Facebook, and may have made online attacks against the Pentagon.
Are
they terrorists?
I
define terrorism as a deliberate attack against civilians for a political or
religious purpose. Generally, I think of
this as a physical attack. For example,
the attack on the twin towers in New York in 2001--these were buildings filled
with office workers. I classify 9/11 as
a terrorist attack.
Collateral
damage is not the same because the intent is different. For example, if US forces in Afghanistan
attack a building containing Taliban, and accidently kill some civilians during
the battle, it's not a terrorist action.
I think US forces make an enormous effort to prevent civilian
casualties, but it is impossible to completely avoid them when the enemy hides
among the populace.
How
about indirect harm? If an online attack takes down your credit card company
it's an inconvenience and a probably a crime.
If they take down the power grid supplying electricity to a hospital,
it's terrorism.
I
don't know the detailed damage of every one of Anonymous's online attacks, but
I don't see evidence they've physically harmed people, so I don't view them as
terrorists. Many governments may
categorize their activities as criminal, but that's not the same thing as
terrorism.
Surprising
Conclusions
In
researching this post, I was surprised to find that I agree with some of
Anonymous's actions. I am against child
pornography and if governments won't take action against these websites,
vigilantes should.
In
my opinion, Scientology is a scam designed to take money from people. I am against censorship, but have mixed
feelings on file sharing--as a writer who works hard on my books, I don't like
the idea of people pirating them. On the
other hand, if you purchase an ebook or a song, you should be able to make
backup copies for yourself.
I
am against SOPA because its benign name hid an agenda of censorship and
anti-free speech. And finally, going
after repressive governments in places like Iran, Egypt and Libya makes sense
to me.
I
don't understand their opposition to Facebook and New Zealand, or their support
for Julian Assange. But the loose nature
of Anonymous and its deliberate lack of leadership means that individuals may
act in their own particular interests, and then claim they were working on
behalf of Anonymous. (Which makes me
wonder how they handle that, and do they self police?)
It's
up to you to make up your own mind about Anonymous and other hacker
groups. Some people fear them, others
see them as the future. But I suspect we
will see more groups like this in the years ahead--I just hope they use their
skills for good and not evil.
As
Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility."

No comments:
Post a Comment