Prankers, Tricksters, Game Changers

The network known as Anonymous has been associated with many names since their birth in 2008. Some of those include masters of exploitation, digital robin hoods, hackers, pranksters, anarchists, and even terrorists. At the Internet Research Conference on Resistance + Appropriation on October 24, 2013, guest speaker Gabriella Coleman introduces attendees to the background of Anonymous, their endeavors, style and players. Coleman, is worlds foremost scholar on Anonymous according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Anonymous, being “everything and nothing at once” is a slippery concept that even Coleman struggles to define. This ‘hacktivist’ group, who are associated with Guy Fawkes masks (think V for Vendetta) and an emblem that contains a man without a head, represents a leaderless organization that is not an organization at all. There is no mission, no organizational hierarchy and no end goal (that we know of). Rather, it is a loose network of people who use resistance to exploit societies prevalent technological ignorance. To many, herein lies the issue with such a network. Who determines whom they exploit? And to what extent? Are they inherently good? Or bad? They have orchestrated the take-downs of over 60 child pornography sites, the Westboro Baptist church website when they publicized plans to picket the funerals of the Sandy Hook Elementary victims, the Ugandan government websites in protest of the anti-homosexual legislative movement to warrant Capital Punishment for the LGBT community, and a white supremacists radio show website, among many others. They were early supporters of the Occupy Movement, Wikileaks and the Arab Spring. But, not all of their actions are purely for the benefit of persecuted or underserved peoples. As staunch opposers of anti-digital piracy campaigns, they have published sensitive information of innocent people in order to get their message across; which could be interpreted as a self-serving one. Who more likely to oppose the ability to pirate online than hackers themselves? Accounts have also been reported of nonsensical acts of “trickery and tricksterism” to unsuspecting victims. This notion of hypocrisy is central to the Anonymous theme. Coleman validates this by acknowledging they seek to expose state and corporate secrecy, but they are in part a secret society themselves. They are simultaneously sensible and insensible.

The question remains, are they in fact the quintessential robin hoods for the weak, utilizing their anonymity to provide a cloak for their constituents to undertake tasks that would warrant legal persecution (because it is typically against the government in the first place), or are they perpetual tricksters employing their craftiness to self-serve? I think that would depend on which Anon you posed it to. Since 2008 a frequent disagreement within Anonymous (as reported by Coleman) is whether the focus should be on pranking, or on more serious activism. Since this reality cannot be defined at this time, a reality that can is that of consequences. Coleman eloquently phrased the idea “to choose is to exercise freedom, and is typically a deeply moral act.” She is right, and sometimes those choices result in retribution, warranted or not. At this point, dozens have been arrested around the world, including Jeremy Hammond. Hammond is a political activist who awaiting a prison sentence for publicizing internal files on a global security firm through the whistle blower website Wikileaks.

So, what residual effect does this have on us as Communication academics and professionals?  Coleman offers:                                                                                                             

critical engagement will yield important lessons for scholarly and journalistic approaches to digital media, protest politics, and cyber-security. Instead of merely depicting hackers as virtual pamphleteers for free speech or as digital outlaws, we need to start asking more specific questions about why and when hackers embrace particular attitudes toward different kinds of laws, explore in greater details what they are hoping to achieve, and take greater care in examining the consequences.

The implications of the Anonymous network are game changers for media, politics and government. Now, there is a world-wide phenomenon that is not shaped by age, race, gender, ethnicity, profession, or affluence. While their end-goal remains unknown, the possibilities could be endless.  In Shakespearean plays, the “fool” or “trickster” is usually a clever peasant or commoner who use their wits to outdo people of higher standing. Anonymous is embracing this role, and utilizing it to change the game as we know it.