Anonymous and the global correction - Opinion - Al Jazeera English - 4 views
-
Josh van de Scheur on 09 Apr 11The online protest group 'Anonymous' use web based networking and collaboration tools as effective ways to support and achieve their collective goals. This article follows the technological and social conditions that have shaped the groups innovative use of the internet as a tool for political protest. Like the author states, "as the social, political and technological environment has developed, some have already begun to explore new options, seizing new chances for digital activism"(Anonymous, 2011). In many ways it is hard to see how decentralized networks of like-minded protesters can achieve political change. While Anonymous are aware of how "a loose network of people with shared values and varying skill sets (providing) substantial help to a population abroad is seen as quixotic"(Anonymous, 2011), recent campaigns in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are generally recognized as highly effective and indicative of what is achievable when collaborating on real world projects via web-based networks (see, Keane, B. 2011). Like Wikipedia and other mass-collaboration projects, it is a global network that drives Anonymous' influence. For example, anonymous use tools such as 'Low Orbit Ion Cannon'; or 'LOIC' (see, Arthur, C. 2010), allowing people from around the world to collaborate together. LOIC enables the group to carry out "distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, involving thousands of computer users who request large amounts of data from a website simultaneously, overwhelming it" (Anonymous, 2011). Online systems of mass-collaboration are proving to be productive and influential vehicles for social or political change. To understand their success we need to acknowledge how the "technological infrastructure that allows these movements has been in place for well under a decade - but phenomena such as WikiLeaks and Anonymous have already appeared, expanded, and even become players within the geopolitical environment" (Anonymous, 2011).
- ...4 more comments...
-
Helen Pidoulas on 23 Apr 11One of the problems with digital activism is that the internet is a tool that can be accessed by many people, cross-border and across many different countries. What might be acceptable practice and perfectly legal in a country like Australia, might be liable to prosecution in countries like China where the government censors not only the internet, but people in general. Freedom in countries like Australia is taken for granted. Other countries might not enjoy this freedom, and when people try to access content that is politically sensitive or illegal in their country, questions are raised about who is providing the illegal content, and the person accessing the material can be liable to prosecution. Internet laws are also changing rapidly, and it is very difficult for people to keep up with the constantly changing landscape of laws that are evolving and reshaping. While there is a need for activism, an awareness or a better understanding of the potential for breaking the law needs to be clearly understood when posting politically or socially active sensitive material online. There is a real danger that activities that are legal for people surfing the web in Australia are not legal in other countries, and the implications this can mean for people not only posting material, but those reading and interacting content, especially if they have to by-pass traditional methods of accessing the internet to get through to what they want to read, hear or see. Louis-Jacques, L. (2003). Legal Research on International Law Issues. Retrieved from http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/forintlaw.html
-
anonymous on 02 May 11Digital or online 'Hacktivism' has a perception of existing as a natural extension of more traditional forms of protest. Being that the Internet has moved on from being a relatively static information source and into a dynamic realm where regulation and social policy is conducted by governments, protesting has struggled to find its place. An example of collaboration gone astray can be seen in the story of 22 year old Matthew George. In October 2009, in reaction to the Australian Federal Government's attempts to legislate an Internet filter Matthew volunteered to let his PC take part in a denial of service attack on government websites. In collaborating with other PC's Matthew thought "We hoped to achieve a bit of media attention to why internet censorship was wrong..." (SMH 2011) Charged and bought before court, the hacking was not seen as protest by authorities but more akin to cyber-terrorism. Whilst the 'real world' allows avenues for protest, as in registered street marches...the Internet has no such outlet, with the exception of self-publication on forums and social media. This has led to a situation where online collaborative protest seems to lead frequently to vandalism in the form of denial of service attacks. Meet the hacktivist who tried to take down the government (2011) Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/meet-the-hacktivist-who-tried-to-take-down-the-government-20110314-1btkt.html#ixzz1L9cdAeuE