It seems appropriate in this post to address our concerns with groups who both attempt to preserve their anonymity whilst exposing what they deem as worthy of public knowledge. Both Wikileaks and aptly named ‘Anonymous’ are ‘hacktivist’ groups that exercise their ability to gain authority online and embed a lasting online legacy whilst attempting to ‘reveal truths’, acting as what they would consider vigilantes. It’s important to note that in this context, regulation and censorship are two very different concepts, as only self-regulation is indirectly conducted (though not acknowledged) by hacktivists, whilst the latter is downright opposed!
In the face of our previous discussions regarding narcissism and the dangers of the cyber self, especially in the phenomenological sense during the digital age, its often hard to equate these groups with the neoliberal values they seem to uphold. Its no wonder positions are so often slanted towards either that of skepticism and hatred to that of utter devotion, as if these groups posses some sort of sacred qualities. Its why groups like Wikileaks get labelled anything from divine intervention to cyber terrorists. They try so hard to maintain their own privacy it seems contradictory for them to remain anonymous whilst they expose others. The most recent scandal again involves Amanda Todd, (who is proving a timely example time and again!), where Anonymous attempted to reveal the name of the man who supposedly caused her so much grief. The article I have hyperlinked makes a very good point – the shift from governments and corporations to individuals seems a violation made purely for attention. It’s often hard to ascertain where these groups actually stand, and just what lengths they’ll go to for information. It’s equally confusing that many of their hacking attempts verge on exploitation over reason, as if designed purely to flex their digital power over government agencies. Julian Assange’s rise as a figurehead has roused speculation as to whether his recent speeches are designed to garner attention rather than spread a set of ideals. It’s that air of mystery, that desire to discover a seemingly private individual, that seems to overshadow the objectives of Wikileaks and has figures like Lady Gaga lining up at the Ecuadorian Embassy to understand the man behind the movement. The rest of the hacktivists seem to hide behind masks, quite literally, as they attempt to ‘control’ the internet. The 21st century digital celebrity is one we don’t really understand at all, which makes him, and the faceless movements he has become synonymous with, all the more appealing. Our society’s desire for information is what feeds these hacktivists, complete closure and transparency in the information society is why privacy has become an issue.
It appears the only transnational bodies attempting to regulate these groups and understand how to adequately find a democratic balance online are the UN and its sub-organisation, the ICU. This may be a discursive means of slanting my views on hacktivism by making this connection, but it’s important to note that the UN is attempting to fight cyber terrorists (yes, they’re not always hacktivists) with heavier incentives and localized control, recognizing the severity of these criminal organisations. The ICU or International Telecommunications Union, will be having a summit in Dubai at the end of the year discussing hacktivism and privacy. They have been attempting over a number of years to ascertain a means by which countries can standardize digital policies and control net crime.
Until idealism becomes reality and there are tangible consequences for internet crime, it seems the issues of privacy and the contradictions of hacktivism will always work against finding an answer. Does hacktivism pose a threat to privacy, or is it legitimately creating a better space on line? Are we seeing the dawn of digital self-regulation or blatant self-absorption?
Sound off below…unless your are part of, or wish to remain Anonymous.
whybl0gger 