Lasting legitimacy of a legion

Anonymous is responsible for many online attacks, but the members are hiding in plain sight.

Ryan Mallough

Silhouette Staff

In 2008, they targeted the Church of Scientology for Internet censorship after the Church had a video that had been leaked to YouTube removed from the site; in 2009 they helped to launch Anonymous Iran as a support platform for Iranians whose Internet is heavily censored; in 2011 they hacked HBGary Federal, an American security firm; and in February they brought down the Central Intelligence Agency website.

They are Anonymous. They are Legion. They do not forgive. They do not forget. Expect them.

When the Internet became available for public use in the ‘90s, neither governments nor consumers had any idea as to what they had, or what it would become. To date the Internet has allowed its users nearly absolute freedom, and as a result any attempt at regulation is now viewed as a government overstepping its authority. The Internet has become, in the view of its users, the final frontier, a vast, endless space unbound by laws, regulations or government restriction.

Anonymous, and similar “hacktivist” groups, have positioned themselves as the guardians of that freedom, attacking those who would threaten it without prejudice.

But who watches the watchmen?

The recent emergence of over-regulation attempts in the United States (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and Canada (Bill C-31) on the Internet stem from a lack of understanding from the generation in charge. Those who have lived half their lives without it are failing to grasp exactly what the Internet is.

However, just because they have been overzealous in their attempts to protect Internet users does not mean Internet users don’t need protection. Like with any great invention, there are those who seek to use the Internet and the freedom it provides to do harm, and they deal in the most important resource there is: intelligence.

Global leaders, still very much of the baby boomer era, continue to view the world through realist-tinted glasses. It used to be that when you caught someone in your national archives stealing information, they would be labelled as a spy, an agent acting on behalf of a foreign country, states interacting with states. However, this logic no longer applies to the interactions occurring on the state level. There are third party organizations that act independently of states but with the same level of influence. The realist lens cannot cope.

The spy is no longer in the room but thousands of miles away, and answers to no state. So where does Anonymous fit? The most recent label is that of a “cyber-terrorist” organization.

It is difficult to deny that Anonymous and similar hacktivist groups share several characteristics with terrorist organizations. They operate on an internal ideology with its own system of morality. They attack those who conflict with their internal ideology without prejudice, and their attacks are ideologically motivated. They promote their cause through threat and by instilling fear in those who oppose them; and like many modern terrorists organizations, Anonymous claims allegiance to no specific government or nation, but only to their cause – an intangible concept.

There is very little difference in ideologies behind the absolute freedom of Anonymous’ Internet utopia and the Ireland envisioned by the IRA.

Furthermore, while there is no universal definition, the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000 sets out one of the most comprehensive interpretations of terrorism in use today. Section 1(b) notes that terrorism is “the use of threat that is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public,” adding in Section 1(c) that terrorism is also “the use or threat ... made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.” Section 2 (d) and (e) add actions that create “a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public” and are “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system.” Under this understanding of terrorism, Anonymous’ 2011 service disruptions actions against Visa in the wake of Wikileaks or their 2012 attack on the Central Intelligence Agency website, as well as their general modus operandi of threatening to publicize sensitive information if their demands are not met, all fall under this definition of terrorism.

Yet Anonymous fails to meet the most integral aspect of terrorist activity: the intent to cause bodily harm or death. In fact, hacktivist organizations, as well as information distributors such as Wikileaks, have so far shown remarkable restraint when it comes to parcelling out the information they have acquired. However, that does not discount the possibility they one day could.

It is often overlooked that these groups elect not to share certain information with the public, either by personal choice or because the information is highly sensitive. That is where hacktivism organizations become threats, both to governments and the public.

In a time where the phrase “knowledge is power” is paramount, these groups are sitting on a powder keg of information, distributed at their will. Equally, if not more dangerous is that anyone who amasses that amount of information will become a target for theft by organizations who would use it to cause harm. Anonymous may not have reached the level of “terrorist threat” yet, but their information acquiring and distribution capabilities, as well as their disdain for anyone who would impose any restriction on their domain, have them well on their way.

They are Anonymous. They are Legion. They do not forgive. They do not forget.

But we’re the ones who will pay for their battles.