Anonymous Intervention

I love how the internet quickly proposed alt. flag filters.

(Source)

(Source)

In the first half of class we talked a lot about the Paris attacks and the digital expressions of empathy for victims of the attack and how non-Western tragedies tend to be left out of such social media trends, sometimes by  those controlling social media and not just the people using it. I think that these are important lessons to learn and that our empathy for Beirut and other places in the world that suffer terrorist attacks on a more regular basis only should only increase our understanding of the dire situations many people live in and strengthen our resolve to help refugees after an event such as the attacks that took place in Paris last Friday.

(Source)

(Source)

(Source)

Then we moved into somewhat murkier territory: online terrorism, Anonymous (which I am more inclined to consider a loose association of hackers as opposed to an actual organization), and what it means to be a criminal (though this seemed to be more of an undercurrent to me). I contemplated this topic for some time that day and, later this week, it was reported that Anonymous shut down as many as 5500 ISIS-associated Twitter accounts. This is the kind of  news that causes one to immediately smirk and think good things about Anonymous. They're actually doing something! But then I started to think "What, exactly, is Anonymous doing?" First, let's admit we were operating on some assumptions on Monday. People were saying that ISIS doesn't use Twitter and other social media. If that's true, then what did Anonymous do exactly? Something pretty superficial at best. But this isn't the case. The bad news is that what Anonymous did is still probably a poor judgment call. Let's work from the assumption that ISIS and their supporters uses Twitter and other social media, as with the accused in this case in America. Now let us also assume the American and other national intelligence agencies have sound surveillance on social media, which they do. These agencies also probably have the means to do what Anonymous did (even though some may want to argue that they cannot do so as efficiently). Why wouldn't they do it then? 

I think Alan Turing has the answer:

When the Germans' infamous Enigma code was finally cracked by Turing and his team in 1941 (with considerable help from Polish codebreakers) British Intelligence did not immediately start thwarting every plan the Nazi armies put into motion. Uncovered intel was used sparingly in order to not let on that the source of Allied intelligence was a broken Enigma code.

If terrorists were openly distributing information of any kind over social media, media vulnerable to surveillance efforts, why would someone destroy that means of communication and force them to use less easily observed modes of communicating? How are those 5500 Twitter users going to communicate now?

Anonymous, in its show of force, may have just complicated many security agencies' abilities to observe ISIS communication. 

This is a potential problem of vigilantism, especially in a global, digital age. Vigilantes frequently have less information readily available to them and make small decisions that can have greater ramifications, winning a battle but damaging a war effort. Moreover, Anonymous's actions are at best a misguided emotional response meant to 'scratch an itch' (Stephen Colbert has used this phrase as a bad reason for air-strikes in retaliation) and at worst a publicity stunt in the face of real tragedy. 

And this is where I enter a line of questioning on criminality. 

Anonymous has taken credit for activity which is considered criminal under national laws. Yet they appear to choose targets in a socially conscious way that corresponds to some sort of code of ethics. So like Batman or any other vigilante before them, what do you think should be done about such an organization? I don't like the idea of anyone being above the law, but then that timeless phrase of Juvenal "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" (Better known by most as "Who watches the Watchmen") enters my mind and the thought that there are people really paying attention to what's going on in cyberspace in a way I can't doesn't seem so bad, as long as their observing doesn't turn into being judge, jury, and executioner on moral issues (at that point I like to elect people for that). Members of Anonymous don't just watch and report, they act. And sometimes they act in ways I don't agree with and that don't follow the law. What do you guys think? Anonymous = "good/bad" Is my analysis of their actions fair or a misguided simplification? Post in the comments.

(Source)