Cyber Disobedience: Re://Presenting Online Anarchy

by Jeff Shantz

  One of the most notable coordinated responses was a website blackout that occurred on January 18th, 2012, with an estimated 7,000 other websites arranging a blackout in protest of the SOPA and PIPA bills. Notable participants in the SOPA/PIPA blackout included Wikipedia, who argued that if these two bills pass, it would be devastating to the free and open web. Wikipedia Foundation’s Executive Director, Sue Gardner, stated: “Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.”9 Once the mainstream media caught wind of the global fight, industries throughout the U.S. began to pick sides. On one side, open information websites like Wikipedia and Reddit stood against the proposed bills; the other side included industries such as Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Sony Electronics, Inc. In a retaliatory effort, those who supported the proposed bills were subject to a string of attacks by Anonymous hacktivists10 warning and demonstrating that the “online pirates” hold the power of the Internet and possess the knowledge to shut down websites, much like U.S. law enforcement. Although, unlike the police, Anonymous hacktivists deface websites and oftentimes post alternate replacement websites in order to relay messages to the public and the companies by directing threats to their economic capital. Even more troublesome for private industries, emails and personal account information are often released to the public. A problem that lies behind American governments is that if they decide that they are going to put breaks on the Internet, there will always be an alternate venue to by-pass domestic and foreign laws. Anonymous members illustrate that Internet security is largely an illusion, as it only takes one skilled computer programmer to be able to overcome a network. Furthermore, Internet users anonymity is also equally susceptible as hacktivists sometimes fail to take the necessary precautionary steps in order to protect their identity.

  In 2011, Sony Entertainment, Inc. was supposedly hacked by a group of six members. The hacking led to 24.6 million Play Station Network users being shut out of service. Information that was obtained from the attack included 12,700 credit card numbers and expiration dates, email addresses and passwords, birth dates, gender, phone numbers, and 10,700 direct debit records for customers in Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Spain.11 The attack on Sony also led to their network being down for over a month due to the companies attempt to restore and improve the network security. On March 6, 2012, Hector Xavier Monsegur (aka Sabu) was arrested as a “member” of Anonymous, Internet Feds, and Lulzsec (a splinter group), and pleaded guilty on August 15, 2011. Sabu was arrested as the suspected ringleader of an offset from the group “Anonymous” and was sought after by the FBI for causing a reign of cyber-terror during the summer months of 2011; he hacked websites including the CIA, Sony, and several financial institutions including HBGary, inc. and HBGary Federal LLC. The hacking caused damages to these institutions estimated in millions of dollars around the globe. Sabu was extremely brilliant and always took precautions to hide is Internet protocol (I.P.) address through proxy services. Despite this, he made a critical mistake of not hiding it when he logged onto an Internet Relay Chat and used his personal IP address. Monsegur pleaded guilty to 12 computer related charges on August 15, 2011, and was threatened with a sentence of 124 years in prison. But he has since become an FBI informant and will likely be rewarded for this. The arrest of Sabu was immense for the FBI; however, several Anonymous “members” and sympathizers have reassured the public via twitter that “an idea cannot be killed.”12 And this is an important point. How can criminal justice agencies effectively take down a collective that remains hidden through anonymity and masks? They cannot. And they should. More importantly, Anonymous service a purpose that creates good for society through so-called bad. As dependence on IT and the Internet grow, governments will have to make proportional investments in Internet security, incident response, technical training, and international collaboration.13 Nonetheless, the process will be indisputably complex and incredibly challenging for policing agencies to stay ahead of a younger generation born into an era of rapidly changing computing technologies. Moreover, there will be serious questions and social implications about whether or not government “protection” and law enforcement will preserve civil liberties and freedom online. We doubt this balance will be struck, but we hope that we will be mistaken.

  A notable hack with tremendous impact occurred during the holiday season in an operation entitled “LulzXmas.” Hackers released 75,000 names, addresses, CCs and md5 hashed passwords to any customer that has ever paid Strategic Forecasting, Inc. In addition, they released 860,000 usernames, email addresses, and md5 hashed passwords for everyone who had ever registered on their website. Strategic Forecasting, Inc., more commonly known as Stratfor, is a non-governmental private global intelligence agency founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas. The privately owned company operates on a subscriptionbasis, for individual and corporate subscribes, by providing access to geopolitical analysis on international affairs. The corporation prides itself on gathering information via open-source monitoring and its global network of sources. Its founder, George Friedman, argues that Stratfor’s work differs from other news sources, as theirs requires documented sources, research, logic and inferences. The intelligence organization media focuses on and records what is happening, why it is happening, and what will happen next (2012, n.p.)14. This hack was significant and posed a serious threat to the agency and to law enforcement. Members who hacked into the website also declared that on New Years Eve, they would hack into police department websites in order to protest the arrest of Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning. Manning was arrested in 2010 on suspicion for having released a controversial video, July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, displaying U.S. soldiers killing 18 innocent civilians and journalists in Afghanistan to whistleblower website Wikileaks; moreover, she was suspected to have released 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables and video footage of the May 2009 Granai airstrike15 in Afghanistan. Manning faced a life sentence, and although her crimes were punishable by death; the prosecutors did not seek the death penalty. The case and trial was a serious issue for the soldier who leaked the cables. It is odd that in the Age of Information we punish the soldier who released the cables, yet we do not punish the soldiers in the videos who killed nearly two-dozen innocent civilians. The entire case has displayed throughout a military “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. It is a serious miscarriage of justice to sentence a 22-year old soldier for leaking the cables when the documents do not appear to cause any imminent harm to U.S. soldiers. Furthermore, the events are several years old. There is a serious problem in sentencing a person to life if the U.S. army truly feels that what they are doing overseas is right and that the act, or mistaken enemy killing, was nothing to be ashamed of and simply an act of “collateral damage.”

  The question then becomes: how much information should be readily available to the public? Unquestionably, information that may contain “sensitive” information such as personal addresses or security information should remain out of the public light. Although, we believe that in the case of war, the more information that is accessible, the better. The public, especially in the United States, subsidizes an extremely large portion of the war. So much so that it has nearly bankrupted their country and destroyed their credit rating. If the public had access to raw unfiltered data and cables, perhaps the war would have been over years ago or perhaps the war would never have been supported in the numbers that it were. In any given war, governments lie. It is the only way to get the public on their side. Instead, the general population is bombarded by media companies serving corporate and hegemonic ideas that instill and identify the “enemy” as anything that falls under their definition of un-“American”; or any person who interferes with capital for that matter. And that is exactly what Chelsea Manning
did. She created a gap between those capitalizing off of the profits of war and those who are paying the bills. In any situation, it is a lose-lose. The capitalist lose a hefty income source from the war and the public loses confidence in their governments as they churn out truthiness.16 But maybe it’s a good thing. Perhaps the masses of information available to us are paving the way for the Age of the Awakened. Still, the public will only remain awake if the information is accessible, especially online. But as previously discussed, this is changing and it is changing at an alarming rate. Even though the some in Anonymous strive for anarchy, in fact what they have created is one of the most democratic systems in the world. In a sense, they have allowed anyone around the world to organize under an “Anonymous” banner and allow for people to express unfiltered opinions. The work that Anonymous engages in at times involves a criminal element; however, perhaps it is necessary for the idea to continue and in order for a new generation to steer away from the icebergs that lay ahead if governments continue to censor our free speech and spy on us online.

  Without a doubt, the ideas laying behind the mask of Anonymous is something that governments, law enforcement agencies, and policy makers will have to pay attention to as the world moves further into the Age of Information. To date, countries around the globe have responded on a policy level to the threat of Anonymous by creating new laws around Internet usage, and several arrests have been made. But why is all of this important? The anonymous hacktivist group has interfered with and will continue to interfere with the production of capital. Even more problematic for some, Anonymous is an idea. As a result of their hacktivism, the costs of their political ends have cost industries millions of dollars; and there are no signs of them slowing down. Governments around the globe exist and survive by allowing for the ongoing production of capital by industries. When surplus value is under assault, companies and capitalists alike come forth and lobby the governments or law enforcement agencies to take action. This reality is not new. But the responses of these agencies will have to be reinvented. While logistically, it is one thing to go into a physical territory and arrest hundreds of people in support of an anti-globalization movement. It is more challenging geographically to target Internet hacktivists who hide behind masks and who possess a widening range of computing technologies. With politicians wrapping themselves in a flag, it equalizes Anonymous “members” hidden behind masks.

  The big question then becomes: what lies ahead? The world is at a crossroads in relation to freedoms of speech and expression online. Up until this point, the Internet has served as an open exchange of knowledge and as a canal of intellectual development. But it is currently under threat. The dichotomy of ideas represents a foundational concept of expression and state control. On one hand, the crossroad can lead us further into the Age of Information and as knowledge expands at an exponential rate, people will enter into the Age of Awareness and governments may become more accountable or transparent. This new age will offer enlightenment and essential change, as societies become more informed—and more connected—while asking questions and challenging the current status quo. On the other hand, governments may travel down a path of suppressing their citizens. Personal freedoms and expressions will be placed under greater scrutiny, and a greater division will be formed between those who are working to maintain the status quo and those who strive for transference and knowledge. In any society, governments historically exist to control the masses. When groups of people become uncontrollable, or when persons challenge the established—through not agreed to—norms of society, state intervention can take place. The government and the bourgeoisie have always been afraid of labor and social organizations—albeit union organizations or social movements—and this will never change. When people organize and become too powerful; states expel their powers onto the opposing force and attempt to hinder them from drawing outside of the conventional lines of society.

  If a person, or group of persons, establishes theory and actions that places capitalism under threat, these groups will consequently be silenced and deemed as the “enemy.” But why does the government want to silence Anonymous? One answer may be that they threaten capitalism. Even more threatening, a generation has now grown up with the Internet and people today have infinite access to information. Unlike previous eras, people can readily gain access to a network that provides answers to pertinent questions, anytime. In relation to economics and private enterprise, a new generation seeks answers to their queries and challenges the philosophy of our so-called “free market.” Communities are not buying into the same hegemonic ideals. But the challenge that lies ahead is establishing and uprooting a new social order that moves away from social inequality and the oppressing role of the state. Some fear that we are moving further into an era where “Big Brother” will be watching our every move. And this belief holds especially true today in light of the plethora of international Internet laws being passed or debated by governments. But there is a flipside to all of this. More and more people around the globe now have greater access to technology—most of which is Internet enabled—and the vast majority of the population is connected through a cyberspace medium. Although it is a metaphysical realm, information is being shared around the globe with a propensity for partnership. It may be true; the Big Brother may have their lenses set on infiltrating greater access into our personal and social lives. But the general public is looking back through the same infiltrating lens, except in the general publics situation, they are greater in numbers and do not adhere to the same legalistic or bureaucratic principles.

  The tensions and disorders that culminate in any skirmish between the government and the laymen ultimately pave the way for change, good or bad. And that is what we are experiencing today as hacktivists are being forced to walk the plank as they fight against piracy laws, and Internet freedom of speech and expression. In many respects the communist manifesto is accurate in saying, “the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.”17 And in a world dominated by technologies, it is likely that the enemy of the state will be hidden behind a mask or an Internet users smiling face. Perhaps if governments can steer a steady course between living in a society that promotes freedom of speech, future generations will be better able to move into an Age of the Awakened whereby knowledge is free and accessible. But until then, anonymous will continue to engage in hacktivism and governments will continue to criminalize their actions.

  Chapter 4

  Applying For Netizenship: Foucault, Cybercrime and the Digital Age

  There is a trust and distrust shared by citizens and governments. In the twenty-first century, contingents of both parties understand the power of an individual online. At present, international debate on cybercrime and the regulation of the Internet has commenced. Citizens of the Internet want online freedom, yet sovereign states have never advocated for a community without control of rules or conventions. This paper shall investigate how Michel Foucault’s discussions on disciplinary power and governmentality can be applied to the online virtual community. Trends in both prevalence and incidence of cybercrime, as well as discussions on possible Internet regulations, will be explored. To date, the Internet has become a domain that has mobilized and radicalized the existence of online and offline communities. Much of the progressive online development is akin to those who challenge the constraints of modernity and a global commitment to security. Accordingly, efforts to qualm crime conducted via the Internet have been brought about through mechanisms of hierarchical observation, normalizing judgments, and examination online. The inherent confrontation and its consequence of online subjects have also created new techniques and strategies to respond to these circumstances by virtue of governmentality. As individuals continue to embrace the online virtual community, discussions of digital security and the role that nations assume will be of vital importance in the years ahead.

  The Internet has come to be one of the most significant i
nnovations of our time. The foundation of the information superhighway can be traced to precursors that date back to the 19th century, such as railways and telegraphs, along with other revolutionary technologies that led to booms and busts over the years (McLuhan 1962). Its formation can be attributed to military exploration, academic study and private investment. The driving force for new methods and measures of use online is largely accredited to computer programmers and hacker subcultures that explore uncharted territories, take risks, and break new ground. Prior to the age of information, power and knowledge were neither readily accessible nor arrangeable without significant time or expense. With an increase in diverse modes of wireless communication, people are connecting with distant environments on a level unparalleled in history. Without a doubt, the Internet has become a powerful tool for revolutionizing the way we think and how we live. In this day and age, society is impacted by the circular and reciprocal relationships between the online and offline environment. Accordingly, as globalization proceeds, digital and physical communities happen to mesh. The new circumstances for our contemporary way of life are redefining political and socio-cultural lines around the globe. The architecture of the information superhighway, however, like any community, is subject to risk, threat and vulnerability. At the present time, notions of community are changing as “individuality and privacy erode quickly in the search for power and profit” online (Mehta and Darier 1998, 108).