Awakenings

Something truly interesting has been happening in recent months throughout the hacker community and it's been circulating into the mainstream.  A renaissance of sorts has reopened a door that many of us have been shying away from over the years.  That door can lead to such things as full disclosure, pure mischief, and, most importantly, justice.

Nearly every news story this summer about hacking, or even about technology in general, focused on the "threat" posed by a group known as LulzSec, as well as the much larger and more established Anonymous.  Both organizations by definition are faceless and simply don't exist as groups in the traditional sense.  Members don't know other members, yet they often work in conjunction towards a common goal.  If one part of the network goes down, another almost immediately steps in as a replacement.  It's the authorities' worst nightmare as there is no conceivable way of stopping something like this.

It didn't take long for the mass media to draw parallels to faceless terror cells.  Yes, such a force could indeed be a significantly scary adversary and it's really easy to terrify the public into thinking that drastic measures need to be enacted to stop whatever it is that they're doing.  But this is where things get truly interesting.  What exactly are these unknown people all over the planet doing?  It might surprise you to hear that they're doing a bunch of good things.  It might be a real shock to be confronted with the theory that their actions are even necessary.

Consider what LulzSec has accomplished in their brief 50-day existence from May to June (supposedly ceasing operations at their own behest).  They revealed massive security holes in Sony and, in so doing, brought global attention to that corporation's legal actions against an individual who figured out how to jailbreak the Sony PlayStation 3.  They successfully hacked the site of Black and Berg Cybersecurity Consulting and turned down the $10,000 prize offered by that company.  They've brought further attention to the controversy involving WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning.  They've stood behind pro-democracy movements in foreign countries and helped to reveal corruption in their existing regimes.  Much of their actions are masked in bravado and mockery but, when you cut through all of that, you'll find what appears to be a genuine interest in getting the truth out and exposing corruption, incompetence, and hypocrisy.  Indeed, this can be considered an extension of the full disclosure goals of organizations like WikiLeaks, but in a completely different style.  Every major corporation and a lot of governments have much to fear from the skills and actions of a group like this.  And the rest of us have a lot to learn from what they reveal.

Much of this activity and philosophy can also be found in Anonymous actions over the years.  Many of us got our first taste of this organization during something called Project Chanology back in 2008, where the Church of Scientology was targeted for their treatment of critics, both online and off, as well as for their alleged abuse of their own members.  Thousands of net activists took part in everything from denial-of-service attacks to real-life demonstrations outside Scientology offices to engaging in technological tricks that moved stories about their activities further up on Internet search engines.  This action was a milestone because it woke a lot of people up to the fact that Anonymous wasn't just a mindless roving Internet gang, intent on causing mayhem and destruction.  There was actually thought behind the deeds and a desire for justice.  Even those who disagreed with their conclusions were able to see that there were real issues being brought forth here.

Over the years, we've seen more and more social debates focused upon by these anonymous organizations who have figured out a way to attack their adversaries and help move towards evening what was previously a hopelessly lopsided playing field.  The media has gleefully reported every time there is an arrest of one sort or another of a participant whose IP was traced or who made the mistake of briefly stepping outside of the cloak of invisibility.  But the structure of the organization makes it virtually impossible for such actions to have any lasting effect on the overall project.

Anonymity can work as a tactic, but there are obviously times when it's not enough on its own.  Consider what has been going on in the Arab world for the past few months.  People have been targeted and attacked by the authorities for speaking their minds and standing up for justice, in a very non-anonymous way, as is necessary in such a direct battle.  Always, there is the risk of interest levels waning in other parts of the world if there isn't significant change of some sort.  But global attention continues to focus on what is going on there, due to everything from smuggled video footage to leaked documents to hijacked websites of governments.  These are actions that people from all over the world are engaging in, some directly and some anonymously.  Both methods can work if there is thought behind them and each is stronger for having the other as an ally.

We've gone on record in the past as being opposed to some of the methods employed by a number of these online groups, specifically denial-of-service attacks.  Simply barraging an "evil adversary" with data and basically shutting down their websites aren't very creative tactics, and the idea of shutting people up who you don't agree with runs counter to a number of our beliefs.  Consider that, on many occasions, it's the words of your adversaries that wind up sinking them, so denying them the platform to show their true colors can actually work against your cause.  We also reject the parallel to civil disobedience, as people who engage in that courageous action are putting themselves on the line very directly, not acting from the safety of their homes thousands of miles away.  Granted, there may indeed be times when a site that is actively engaged in hurting people needs to be brought down.  But when we apply this to mere words and objectionable speech, we're legitimizing a tactic that can easily be turned upon us.  People who are not involved in the debate will instantly recognize the evil of someone being silenced, even if they don't agree with them.  We see such values expressed on the Internet constantly.  If you have to silence your opponent to win the debate, you've already lost.

Fortunately, we've seen a great deal of actual dialogue and clever bypassing of security in the actions of LulzSec and Anonymous and we believe this is what will make all of the difference.  Their sense of fun and humor, coupled with awareness of the injustices of the world, mixed in with a desire to show the world how not to keep sensitive date secure - these are the attributes that can comprise a successful social movement.

There is a reason why the masses suddenly act out against the authorities, from Syria to Libya to England.  Feeling excluded from the process, whether economically or socially, is always a ticking time bomb.  Corporate America isn't immune from this, nor is any government, religious institution, the mass media, and so on.  Walls are constantly being built up, but people will always come up with new and ingenious ways of tearing them down.  Not only is this a good thing, but it should be considered a necessary part of our existence in a free world.