I was reading about Anonymous yesterday... I find myself supporting them, more or less, until (or if) they do something stupid. I figure if the Westboro baptist church think they can abuse free speech by crashing funerals (for the sake of a disgusting cause at that) they deserve any and every (non-violent) abuse they get.

I also note that they supported the occupy movement and were urging peaceful protests when things got a little out of hand.

And they attack pedophiles and oppose laws like the anti-homosexuality ones proposed in Uganda.

They've done some things I don't agree with, but I don't know that I'd consider the things they have so far done bad. Yet.

I remain cynical... but for now I think they're fine.

I support them. As far as you can support them really. Because while they work under one name, anyone can use that name. Anon are not a single unified group, and I think that confuses people.

There was someone in the UK who hacked an abortion clinic and released that info under the anonymous name. I don't support that. But when you get people doing things like the Westboro stuff under the Anon tag, I support that.

I don't think that they're the big problem tbh. I think they're a response to it.

The media is heavily biased (it's all about sensationalisism), so outside sources are becoming more accurate or atleast give us a more balanced view of things. We get to find out about these things that would otherwise be hidden away.

As for breaking the law... we all break the law all the time, speeding, sharing music, etc... Yes they say they are 'hacking' computers, but there is a lot of stuff you can do that people would call 'hacking' but which is just being very good at getting data out of the internet. The amount of information out there on the internet is rather easy to find and get to. It could have been as simple as making a fake FB account and getting added to these guy's accounts and finding the information out that way. There is not much privacy any more. (I'm a web programmer and learned young that there is no privacy on the internet. Therefore I've learned to live my life in a way where I am not embaressed by whatever may be found out about me.) These guys did something far beyond some data mining.

What I fear for is the reaction the public will have, and can take against these guys, when it should be the legal system that takes care of them. Sadly the legal system often fails which is the sad truth, but one still has to believe in it. For Public Shaming is not going to fix thing and is just another name for justifying bullying.

I'm glad that this particular crime can't be swept under the rug anymore, and I'm glad that the victim has a chance to get justice now. And overall Anonymous seems to be exercising better judgment than I would have expected when they first came to prominence, so for now, at least, I guess I mostly support them.

Definitely Robin Hood in this situation. The problem is that in doing why they've done, they've also violated the privacy of this girl to some extent. It should be her choice whether or not this information gets published if it features her name or her person at all. Anonymous has their nerdy 'nice guy' rage over theses dirty footballers touched 'their women' which is pretty gross.

So far... I haven't seen them use their powers for (macro) evils. Certainly, hackers have used their nefarious means, but usually on the micro level. If they can keep this kind of thing up.... I'm willing to call it a net positive for the universe.

Anonymous have always been operating in this gray zone - and I have yet to see any real big action by Anonymous that would cross the line.

In Germany they first got "famous" for action taken against Scientology. Then, they came back in full force against ACTA, but in between, there has always been going on a lot.

The thing ist: the "big" stuf Anonymous are doing are only possible becuase with the big action, there are a lot of paricipants. But since no-one is actually the "masterbrain" behind Anonymous, the people participating only do so if they want, the danger of THAT MANY people participating to get a really big hit on something that will affect a LOT of bystanders in a real bad way... those odds are not all that high. And if a bank can gte ALL their records deleted by an outside power... I would rather know that this bank sucks so much in terms of data security, so I can get to another bank, and FAST. (seriously, Anonymous is not actually that "good" - and most of the stuff they did was more annoying than hurtful (like arraging so many hits on a site that the servers crash...), and not seldom the "published" information is not all that private - and could be accessible for anyone already, if he searched right.)

So basically: I don't think Anonymous is actually that big of a danger for the "normal" bystander. They are working in a gray zone, and I don't agree with all their actions - but neither does anyone who actually is a participant in any Anonymous activity, since they just are a network of people who exchange Ideas for "Robin Hood"-like projekcts - and with every project, everyone can and will decide, if he is participating again.

I am very critical of internet vigilantism, or really vigilantism in general. For me, it's not even about the dangers of what hackers or vigilantes could go on to do - I find it problematic enough if they go after crimes that are sure to (rightfully) enrage people and release personal information related to those crimes, with people then deciding to harass and/or "punish" the alleged perpetrators, without any process to check whether they pointed to guilty persons.

In most countries, there is a justice system for a reason. If, as it seems in the Steubenville case (which I don't know much about) that justice system utterly failed, then the right point of attack would be to reveal the corruption in the justice system. I can't really see what revealing the alleged perpetrators' and apparently also the victim's personal information accomplishes in that respect - except to stir up people who take "justice" into their own hands. This case seems to have needed publicity in order to negate the local hushing up, and it also seems to shine a light on what terrible things can happen if local communities decide that "boys will be boys" - it's good that that publicity was achieved and that consequences will hopefully follow. I just don't think that releasing the personal information is helpful.

Some years ago, there was an online video in which a young woman was shown drowning puppies. It garnered a lot of outrage in certain online communities, who tried to find the person responsible. Someone posted the full personal information of a young Bavarian woman online, claiming she was the perpetrator. She received all kinds of abuse, including death threats that were taken so seriously that she was assigned police protection. Her full personal information is still online with claims that she did this; I found it in two minutes of googling. The problem with the whole thing: She had nothing to do at all with what happened; the perpetrator was a completely unrelated woman from Croatia, and someone who seems to have had it in for the Bavarian girl threw her to the masses. Googling the name of the girl who was accused still gives pages and pages of results, all having to do with puppies being drowned. If she wants any kind of professional future, I guess she will need to change her name and make sure no one connects it with her old one.

And then we had this - a teenager here in Germany was arrested in relation to a girl's murder. He was quickly released again (and another person was found to have committed the murder), but not before a lynch mob, incited through Facebook etc., had gathered outside the police station and demanded to have the teenager handed to them. His personal information, too, became known in his home town.

So, whenever I see people saying in online discussions of crimes "Oh, I hope Anonymous gets on the case!" and applauding vigilantism, I think of those two young people, who were threatened by people convinced they were "doing the right thing" and going after people who had done terrible things, because by a system without any checks and balances someone somewhere had decided they were guilty.

Here in Germany, personal information of people involved in crimes and accidents is protected - this includes victims, people accused of crimes, and people who are convicted of them. Neither state authorities nor the press may reveal them. I think there are good reasons for this.

Personally, I am against all these wikileaks/anonymous hacks, everything. Part of it is because of what I do- I'm a naval officer, and I have absolutely zero sympathy for Private Manning in his prosecution for releasing classified material to a foreign run website. It's treason, plain and simple. I have a very black-and-white view over releasing protected information, and in the government there are very clear definitions of what is considered protected (even if NOT classified) material, and home addresses, SSNs, even phone numbers do actually count as such.

I have a very similar views on these things, as much as I abhor the rape and assault on this young women. If there is information out there that would not normally be readily available, than these hackers and Anonymous groups have no business putting that information out there. One reason is, as you said, tainting a potential jury pool, seeing as our legal system ought to be "innocent until proven guilty." Things like this can lead to case dismissals, or approved appeals later on due to jury tampering or unfairness.

Another is, what if Anonymous identifies the wrong person? What happens when another innocent gets harrassed and vilified and their lives made living hell, for something they didn't do?

Did the Steubenville police do their job in this case? It is hard to say. Does it look, from the outside, like there was a huge cover up to protect everyone but the victim? Absolutely. But why should the rest of us put the defense of this woman at risk?

This whole situation has turned my stomach since I first heard about it. But I will never support what Anonymous and their ilk do, even when it is in support of causes I support.

Edited at 2013-01-05 12:22 am (UTC)

The thing about Anonymous... well, the thing is that it's made of people. People from pretty much all ages and backgrounds and classes, everybody from the ten-year-old hacking her school's records for the lulz to the wangsty teenager who should burn their poetry to the ninety-year-old grandpa who shows off his tattoos at church gatherings. And the thing about everybody is that it eventually includes the patriarchy-soaked rectal phrenologists who would be quite happy to cheer for the attackers and join in shaming the victim.

All that said, I find it really difficult to be mad at people who are actually trying to see real justice done.

I tend to think that most morality is contextual: what Anonymous does would be wrong if done to innocents, but is fine when it's someone we know deserves it.

As has been pointed out above, "know" is a bit of a sticking point, though, and there are questions of interfering with the justice system and so forth. So, in the end, I'm fine with them when their targets are public organizations like Westboro and Scientology, but less so when they're individual people and the potential for error is greater.

They're both, to be perfectly honest. They can be really horrible people, but they can also be really amazing people. And I don't feel that posting the real-life addresses of anyone is a good idea, ever, because it could endanger someone, but making a stink about something like this is something that absolutely should be done.

I go case-by-case. So far, I am 100% behind them on the Westboro action. I would even donate what lil money I have to help the cause, and whatever time/service I could.

This Steubenville issue...as someone pointed out, the people who SHOULD be targeted (I guess), are the people who are letting these guys get away with it, but at the same time...if Anon/Local JUST focused on those enablers, then the rapists would probably end up getting off scott free, and THAT I can't stand the thought of.

So I guess you could say I'm 75% behind them? I think they're on the right track going after the rapists, but I also think they need to target/expose the people who are trying to let them get away with the assault.

~Angel

Tammy,

If you're interested in learning more about Anonymous, in order to fully crystalise your views (whatever they may end up being), I heartily recommend this to you. It's called We Are Legion and it's an independently-produced, 100 per cent free online documentary about the movement, its driving forces and its history. The whole thing's up online at that link and it's fascinating viewing. It's certainly helped me figure out where I stand on these guys and gals.

I don't support Anonymous, Wikileaks, etc. I don't agree with what they do, or how they go about it.

A very small part of me is conflicted on this. I hate that the victim's name is now out there because she has already dealt with something so horrific.

But the vast majority is glad that Anon is on the job. The people that should have done their jobs in Steubenville in the first place completely failed. They tried sweeping this under a rug, hoping to make it go away because after all, these are "good boys" and "football is king" and "really, she may have not been raped" and whatever other revolting bullshit excuses they were making up just to make this go away. If Alexandria Goddard and then Anon hadn't stepped up and made such a big stink, would anyone outside of Steubenville even be aware of this? Would ANY of them ever have been brought to justice?

Personally, as I put it on my face book, this is what I want to see happen.

Anyone that physically assaulted her or put drugs in her drinks so she could be assaulted be tried for rape. Anyone that helped carry her from house to house or held her down, be tried for accessory to rape. Anyone that took picture or video and posted it on the internet be tried for possessing and distributing child porn. And all of these people? Be made to register as sex offenders. Anyone that assisted in covering up all of this? Be tried for whatever they can under the current local and state statutes. Bring in special prosecutors to handle this-preferably Federal. Make examples of them all.

And the school district needs to vacate any and all wins by the football team and keep them out of any playoff games this season. Any players involved who are not graduating this year? Off the team for good. I don't buy the "but they are good boys. Don't ruin their lives" BS that is prevalent. You know what? They are teenagers and old enough to know right from wrong. And if you (as a parent) didn't teach them that you do not assault another human being then you need to let them live with the consequences. Which may include jail time and a permanent record. As a sex offender.

I tend to think of the actions of Anonymous as similar to acts of civil disobedience. I think it's up to the individual to decide whether the point being made or the information being released is worth the punishment. If you're not willing to accept significant negative consequences for an action, that's a pretty good indication you probably shouldn't proceed.

In this particular case, I feel that the light shined on this horrendous crime is probably the best chance of providing the victim with any modicum of justice. And that's worth a hell of a lot. But if any crimes were committed in the process, those who committed them should be held responsible. It seems to me that's the only way we can balance the multitude of moral grey areas in life.

(This mindset may be a result of reading about Tortallan chivalry at an impressionable age...)

Robin Hood or Robber? Which are they? I am damned if I know. What about you? What do you think?

Both. Having met some of the British contingencies of Anons at various events, much like any group of people, there are vastly different types. Some are intelligent, articulate and ethical. Some are silly socially-stunted misogynist gamer-types who I wouldn't give the time of day to until they grew up a bit and wised up to life outside Call of Duty Whatevernumberitisnow. I am glad they (generally) choose to whistleblow ethically and reveal institutional failings. With my left-wing-commie-socialist-down-with-Thatcher-and-misogynist-right-wing-oppression-rebel hat on I like them. However, with my elected official hat on, we have laws for a reason, and every action has consequences.

Unfortunately, this is the conundrum with any 'Robin Hood' or vigilante figure in real life. They might do good things, but then again.. they might not. And their methods may be questionable.

Regardless of that question, the group has already crossed a line. Posting people's addresses and personal information is not okay. Even if those people may be scumbags.

Alexandria Goddard had the right of it: make a big stink until people pay attention. And keep raising a ruckus until justice is done.

The reason it feels good when it happens to people like the alleged rapists in OH is because we like to get revenge on people we perceive as wrongdoers. And it is revenge; not justice. In this particular case, here is the truth: whether these boys are guilty or not, legally they are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. And any judge worth the robe and any defense attorney worth their pay will argue that these "hacktivists" have tainted their potential jury pool and demand a mistrial. This will delay justice for the sixteen year old girl who has been violated, and that is why I can't support what they've done.

I think that anyone looking to make an expose that big ought to think carefully about how their mission could damage itself. Anonymous doesn't seem to be run by legal or financial experts, but they have technological knowledge on their side, which makes them a huge contender as well as a danger to themselves or to innocent bystanders. </p>

In the instance of a high-profile trial, the jury in any case is bound to be biased the more prominent the trial is. Trying to find an impartial jury would be nearly impossible anyway, so I don't think much damage has been done here. But if we were talking about hacking a major system - say, a large financial institution, or a database of personally identifying information - then a hacker group had better come up with a plan to shield innocents from their plans. They'd have to plan against themselves, in other words.

By the way, I think those kids should be tried as adults. Just to throw that out there.

The whole wiping of financial records reminds me of what happened in Fight Club? I think things could easily get out of hand.

This is always the trouble with Anonymous. At the end of the day, they are a group of people, and any group of people is capable of both good and bad. The difference with Anonymous is that they have no leadership or universal guiding philosophy. Any rules they purportedly have are either memetic or simply loose guidelines. If one Anon takes up a cause, others may or may not follow depending on their own personal feelings. They are pirates, pure and simple. But yes, sometimes you need a pirate.

It's true that, given the context, you'd be hardpressed to shake your head and scold the young men who did this because the context is a girl who was wrong treated and not given justice. But the problem is the same as with all kinds of vigilante-type justices: where do they stop, and how do you differentiate between what is "just" and what is not when things get sticky? Sure, civilian-based justices can see through what is "fair" in some situations because they are free of corruption and unimpeded by legality, but it's a question of whether or not you're willing to compromise overall security and protection of privacy for that. Yes, those breaking the laws in the first place are taking advantage of the system, and the others are simply exposing them in a kind of public punishment that is frowned upon by our government but is wholly satisfying for those who want to see them get their just desserts, but...

I don't know enough about the case to make a stance on it. But I find it hard to stand up and applaud them if only I don't want to leave myself vulnerable to making a fuss if they turn to other "justices" that may or may not be "right".

I don't know if you've been keeping up to date with Mark Reads, but he's finishing The Song of the Lioness and is on to Wild Magic. He's been posting youtube videos of his reading/his reactions here: http://www.youtube.com/user/xpanasonicyouthx?feature=watch

I hope you enjoy :)