Civic hacktivism, Wikileaks, online protests; they’re all founded in the same principle of freedom of speech, which has been around for decades. It’s just teaching an old dog new tricks. Or rather, new dogs, learning the old dogs tricks and reinventing them.
“ʻThe Internetʼ is the new trick. This amazing device – full of youth, verve, and energy” – Anonymous, 2003.
Asking whether sites like Wikileaks is wrong, is not a new debate. It’s an old debate, reinvigorated. Speaking out against Governments or revealing the truth behind what the mass media tells us has been going on for years, the digital age and the Internet have just given news means of doing so, and effectively made it easier to reach the “uninformed masses”. Therefore I believe the debate lies in the effectiveness of it.
There is a big difference between one lone user calling himself a civic hacktivist by having a rant on his blog, and a site like Wikileaks.
About 7 years ago a group emerged known as “Anonymous”. They were a group of people, essentially functioning as single entity, focused on hacktivism. The group is primarily composed of members from forums and image boards, however they have no single location or base. There is no leader, anyone can join and work towards the same collective goal as the rest of the group. They became famous however, through “Project Chanology”; their protest against Scientology.
My presentation for DIGC202 was on activism + hacktivism. We discussed Nestle Kit Kat and their battle with Greenpeace as well as online hacker group Anonymous (as you've mentioned above).
ReplyDeleteWe found in our research that you could not really tell who Anonymous is, because they're anonymous. However, there were many people online claiming to part of the group but then again who is to say that they are or are not. How do we know who Anonymous really is. It was amazing to see how much information we found on them. It also turned out that on the day of our presentation Anonymous was actually going to 'Invade Wall Street' (http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/operation_invade_wall_street_anonymous_is_that_really_you/).
It is so interesting to see the level of knowledge these guys have and their operations/ efforts towards their protest. I mean, they have hacked into many systems and companies over the past 7 years of their operation. I think this group is growing with others who call themselves 'Anonymous'.
I found this a really interesting aspect of hacking. I have come across a few Anonymous YouTube clips in my browsing, in particular one scary one on internet privacy and Facebook. Although they may not be harming anyone directly, are they making any kind of social change? What is the point of it- merely awareness? How do we know what they're really doing and what their motivation is?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree the argument over Wikileaks being wrong "is not a new debate. It’s an old debate, reinvigorated."! This is a debate that i feel will never come to any real conclusion and will just be recycled throughout time. Free speech and the publics right to information is just one of those tough questions, it is hard to know when something has gone too far it can some times be such a fine line. Hacktivism and Culture jamming are two methods of free speech that i can not help but love. you should check out Adbusters http://www.adbusters.org/ if you havent already if your interested in culture jamming it is a good read.
ReplyDelete"Asking whether sites like Wikileaks is wrong, is not a new debate. It’s an old debate, reinvigorated. Speaking out against Governments or revealing the truth behind what the mass media tells us has been going on for years, the digital age and the Internet have just given news means of doing so, and effectively made it easier to reach the “uninformed masses”. Therefore I believe the debate lies in the effectiveness of it."
ReplyDeleteLOVE this. I totally agree. Hacktivism is all about what they achieve in the end--not what they say they are.