Why
A anarchist magazine should be interested in the hacking? In
recent months there have been many attacks on banks, companies
linked to the military and intelligence agencies, government
sites, ecclesiastical, and much more. These attacks, brought
under the collective name for several groups of Anonymous is
not coordinated with each other all over the world (but mostly
Anglo-Saxon), were sometimes devastating. If a bank's website
(it happened to Visa and Paypal, as following the directions
of the U.S. government have prevented the donations to the
Wikileaks project) is hacked, officials jump, there are also
serious financial losses, customers flee, stock markets
tremble and if a government site is tampered with, jumping
politicians, public opinion polls, police and intelligence
services are mobilized. In short, the actual effects of
hacking and cracking can be enormous. The repression is
concrete, though in Italy the dozens of arrests of children
more or less grown up (U.S., UK, Netherlands) indicated as
responsible for the actions are passed over in
silence. Recently, some participants in the actions of
Anonymous took to the streets and protests have resulted in
more traditional, often using the mask of Guy Fawkes (V for
Vendetta) to emphasize their being anonymous, always against
the usual targets: global capital, freedom of information and
speech, the military, large corporations (of which the
churches are a demonstration). Some commentators, as expected,
did not hesitate to say: this is the chaos, they are
anarchists! Independently, some groups of Anonymous, in the
digital world as in the real, began to call themselves
anarchists.
Ippolita
|
According to many, the political movement known
as Anonymous suggests one thing: anarchy. I got to see to make
this association so many times that I thought it might be a good
idea to explain in some detail the points where the connections
between Anonymous and anarchism can mislead, debunk some myths,
and ask some questions for further research. It is essential to
note immediately that the term anarchism can mean very different
things so let me give you three relatively narrow definition,
which also do not cover all of its meanings and concrete
manifestations.
First, I will consider what I call Contemporary
Political Anarchism (CPA). To help define it, extensive use one
of its most prominent journalists, thinkers and participants,
the anthropologist David Graeber. The CPA has experienced some
turmoil, particularly evident during the heyday of
anti-globalization protests. The CPA is diverse and includes
many strands and different philosophies, and shows regional
differences. However, without raising too many arguments we can
say that his latest incarnation is marked by a sensitivity to
the left, an ethos of anti-capitalist and anti-neoliberal, a
commitment to consensus, and new ways of imagining the direct
democratic action. Graeber describes it this way: "No
matter how we choose to reconstruct their origins, these new
tactics are perfectly in accord with the general inspiration of
the anarchist movement, which is not so much conquering state
power but rather to expose, disrupt and delegitimize the
mechanisms of government, at the same time gaining more and more
autonomous spaces against it."
Secondly, I want to explore the link between
Anonymous and what many people associate anarchy: anything goes
and there is no rule. This is not the idea or political
philosophy of anarchism, anarchy, but simply as the word is used
without thinking in a kind of popular "common sense".
Finally, I would consider a smaller type, but
very prominent anarchist tactic, perhaps the best known face of
anarchism at the level of media images, seen as the media likes
to describe it in detail during the protests: the black bloc.
The media, understandably, like to care for them during the
protests because they are dedicated to the destruction of
private property, and they do it well covered with blacks
clothes and masks.
Contemporary Political
Anarchism
The first question to consider is whether
Anonymous is an instance, or is at least connected to the recent
wave of contemporary political anarchism, in the sense outlined
in great detail by David Graeber (1). The
answer on which I point, in its most basic form, is "no",
but of course it is always more complicated than that. Anarchism
is varied, like all traditions, but the currents are different in
some way dialogue between them and the recent wave of anarchist
has become intertwined and fertilized with the anti-globalization
protest movement, inspired by developments in the global South,
such as' EZLN. Assuming a sociological and historical
perspective, Anonymous does not come from either the CPA is fed
substantially, even if, as I will explain in a moment, there are
certainly some anarchists involved. Anonymous
has different historical roots in the world of trolling and the
board of 4chan images(2), that I have
examined somewhere else (3); political
ideologies of Anons tend to be very heterogeneous in nature. It
is difficult to detect by Anonymous ideological point of view,
but there is a point that seems indispensable, bubbling to the
surface of all the different Anonymous nodes: a particular
version of free speech, free speech, (as he explained a Anon,
"freedom of speech is not negotiable") (4);
often Anonymous seems to appear when censorship shows up, as is
well demonstrated by the recent OpBart action (5).
This commitment is not present in anarchy, but had a more
important role in the traditions of liberal and libertarian (and
more generally among hackers from different backgrounds). It
should also be noted that the participants come from various
political Anonymous and different traditions. When you
participate in clubs or organizations explicitly anarchist, you
tend to do that as anarchist. When you enter Anonymous does not
tend to do so explicitly as an anarchist, social democrat or
libertarian, but as Anonymous, with few exceptions (6). But
if there are strong connections between historical and social CPA
and Anonymous, it is possible to trace other connections? In
fact, other types of connections seem to be a little 'more
consistent. First, there are certainly some anarchists
participating in Anonymous, that is, Anons has attracted
activists who participated in IRL (7) to
anarchists and anti-capitalists movements. And now there are
Anons anarchists. But there are also a lot of libertarians, the
Social Democrats, and others who do not identify with any of
these traditional political currents. The second connection,
perhaps the most substantial, is at the level of organizational
culture. Graeber quote again: "[Anarchism] strives to create
and develop horizontal networks rather than structures based on
reports from top to bottom as states, parties or corporations;
networks based on principles of decentralized responsibility,
non-hierarchical consensus democracy. " For those who
know Anonymous, the issue now seems obvious. Anons trying to
implement ways of interacting non-hierarchical and decentralized,
even if, as a collective, they have the tendency to theorize
their mode of operation and management as part of the anarchist
tradition or one of the anarchist tradition, or to link their
actions leading to some anarchist thinker Bakunin or Kropotkin. I
noticed that some of this bond formulated individually or in
small groups, even though the reference seems to be often Deleuze
and Guattari thinkers, the main theorists of the rhizome. 'S
commitment to consensus method can also be seen in the wider
circle of geeks (geeks) who have put into practice both in the
past and the present day: from the IETF procedures (Internet
Engineering Task Force, http://www.ietf.org,
https://www.ietf.org/rfc.html). The
question is: we label as 'anarchist' consent, a decision which
embodies a very important non-hierarchical form of organization
among hackers and geeks? In my opinion, it depends. Sure, it
should be noted that the consent has been theorized and developed
by anarchists, and is a form of social democratic type widely
represented in many different societies and periods (Graeber
raises the question very sharply in his Fragments of an anarchist
anthropology). But I also think it is important to note that many
embodiments of the agreement, including those by Anonymous, are
not explicitly conceptualized by the actors involved as part of a
broader anarchist tradition or specific.
It's anarchy!
Many people who know nothing of a political
tradition known as anarchism tend to use the term anarchy as used
in common language, giving the word a combination of meanings:
anything goes, chaos, lack of rules. Many anarchists are
deeply troubled by this use of the word anarchy, because it makes
you think that anarchism is simply something that has to do with
the chaos and the absence of rules, which could not be further
from the truth. Of course, anarchists flout strict rules. To put
it mildly, are not enthusiastic supporters of the State, right or
liberal, but I'm pretty obsessed with organizational forms,
ethics of the debate and decision making, and in fact have been
criticized for allowing what they call "process "
subtract vitality and energy to their meetings, and
organizational forms (actually, the process takes a long
time). But we put in brackets for a moment the issues of
naming and try to ask: anarchy, meaning "anything goes",
captures the prevailing social dynamics of Anonymous? There are
certainly elements of Anonymous that conform to this sense of
anarchy, as has often characterized the unpredictability of the
political wings of Anonymous. There are also times, especially
during large-scale operations, where Anonymous seems to teeter on
the brink of chaos. But this meaning of the word anarchy does
not fit well. First, from my point of view of anthropology, in
Anonymous there is a bit 'too much order with respect to what the
word means anarchy in the usual sense, as I have investigated in
detail in the article about lulz (8). There
are rules, there are specific political and technological
resources are tightly controlled. Perhaps the best word to use
is random. Several of the best-known works of Anonymous have
emerged in a rather accidental in the course of any action,
without which everything had been planned in advance. Even the
operation Avenge Assange has emerged in the first instance in
this randomly, I would write about this in more detail.
The Black Blocs
The last link is to explore the following: we may frame the
Anonymous hacking operations under the umbrella of black bloc
actions? I believe that this association may bring some fruitful
insights, even if there are important differences. But first a
word on the operations of hacking and then something more about
the black bloc. Anonymous is, as has been repeatedly stated,
not singular, but always plural. It consists of many individuals,
networks and operations. Even if the hacking operations in the
last three months have the lion's share, attracting media
attention, there were many different interventions on multiple
networks. There is no doubt that hacking operations have become
important, partly because of the success of the operation Antisec
(and its predecessor and ancestor lulzsec), which generated a
significant stream of merry hackers. And in recent months,
attacks have been less for the lulz and much more politically
oriented. For those who know what the black bloc is, this is
not the scope to enter into a detailed explanation on the
history, tactics, ethics (in each case, the page provides an
introduction in English Wikipedia decent basic for those who do
not know anything,
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Black_bloc. I
do not know if the internal goals and motivations of the
participants are motivated by hacking Anonymous Black Bloc
anarchist principles explicit, this is not the connection I'm
trying to draw here. Instead, comparing the operations of the
Black Bloc and operations as hacking Antisec will highlight some
interesting aspects. What they have in common:
Radical challenge
Hard attacks to the
police (STFU, Shut The Fuck Up)
The desire to make direct attacks
The tendency for smaller groups to be willing to
engage in more risky tactics, risky as it is controversial
within the areas between which moves both the BB and the Anons.
But there are also significant
differences. Curiously enough, the Black Bloc is much more
open. It becomes black bloc wearing black clothes, covering his
face and throwing stones, hacking requires more skills and
hackers who run the operations are not properly explain how to
participate in the solicitation (but it will prevent you from
giving way to another action simply could not let you into their
circle, taking into account the obvious legal risks). The
nature of the attacks, hacking and operations, both the Black
Bloc protests IRL have symbolic and practical aspects. In the
case of the Black Block IRL many have pointed out that the
destruction of property promoted by the Black Bloc is largely
symbolic, although obviously the affected suffer losses due to
damage to property (technically, it is their insurance companies
to suffer the loss). But the biggest difference is that when
you split a window, leaving no information. In the case of
Antisec operations symbolic elements are in play, and
organizations suffer losses because they spend resources to
"clean up" after the hack, but hack even if the
collateral damage appear to be higher and extended to ordinary
citizens, as have shown some aspects dell'OPBart hacking
(9). But not merely the
collateral damage to be remarkable in this kind the hack: there
are possible materials and long-term policies, which are caused
by leaked information. We saw this with the hack HBGary, which
prompted the resignation Aarron Barr and a motion in Congress for
an investigation into the security companies involved in
Cointelpro business-type (10). In
this regard, even the recent Vanguard
(11) is very
interesting. As for the other connections drawn, the fit is
imperfect. Yet there is something in the operations of hacking is
clearly distinct from many other operations that have emerged
from the wings by Anonymous policies over the past three years;
present a radical challenge, a risk level that appear to justify
further analysis on. This brief and inadequate investigation
of connections between anarchy and Anonymous is intended to
provoke a debate. Others have written about these bonds
(12) and I hope to see more
often these issues for discussion.
Biella Coleman
Originally
published on August 20, 2011 on Social Text Journal, “Is
Anonynmous Anarchy?”,
http://www.socialtextjournal.org/blog/2011/08/is-anonymous-anarchy.php. Gabriella
“Biella” Coleman is interested in
Anthropology of digital media, hacking, sociology of
communication. She teaches at NYU. Pubblication and
contact: http://gabriellacoleman.org.
Note
David Graeber, «The new
anarchists», New Left Review, N 13, Gennaio-Febbraio 2002,
http://www.newleftreview.org/A2368;
David Graeber, Frammenti di antropologia anarchica,
Elèuthera, Milano, 2006, ed. or. Fragments of an Anarchist
Anthropology, http://abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf
http://www.4chan.org
Gabriella Coleman, «Anonymous:
From the Lulz to Collective Action», The new everyday,
26 aprile 2011,
http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/tne/pieces/anonymous-lulz-collective-action
Calco della celeberrima frase
impiegata da Bush Jr. per giustificare la guerra globale al
terrorismo: «lo stile di vita degli americani non è
negoziabile», n.d.t.
Si veda il video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlsLmDOhQ5Y
Group
anarchist (libertarian communist or even better platform, to be
precise) in Anonymous
http://libcom.org/news/anonymous-anarchist-action-hacktivist-group-founded-10032011
In Real Life, counterposed to
IVL, In Virtual Life n.d.t.
Lulz
is a slang corruption of LOL (Laughing Out Loud, Laughing out
loud), widespread expression especially in online chat. Acting
for the lulz means mock, ridicule, teasing, even heavily, for
the sheer fun of it. Most of the actions of Anonymous claim the
spirit of the lulz, ndt
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/16/disguised_member_of_hacktivist_group_anonymous
That
is related to the varied and vast system of intelligence and
security, in particular in the U.S. has assumed even more
elephantine than in the past following the 9 / 11. "In
particular, COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a
program of infiltration and internal FBI counterintelligence
formally active between 1956 and 1971,
http://en.wikipendia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/vanguard-defense-industri_n_931405.html
http://blurringborders.com/2011/08/21/the-paradox-of-anonymouss-anarchy/
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anonymous-Anarchism-The-Y-by-John-Kelley-110811-124.html.
Ippolita
The
research group in 2004 Hippolyta has coagulated around the
writing of the essay "Open is not free - digital
communication between ethical hackers and global market"
(Eleuthera, 2005). Merge with different skills, from hacking
to journalism, from philosophy to design. A multiple, complex
and constantly evolving. Hippolyta is an old aunt, to whom we
owe much, our vocation queer, but also the name of the server
ippolita.net, a machine that hosts writing projects.
Collaborative writing of essays participatory science
communication, especially in the digital world, but also
writing computer code, ie, programs, software, bridges can
connect and relate the virtual worlds and real worlds.
Development of tools and methodologies to write together.
Writing to build networks organized in a self-managed, writing
to present to others what we do and who we are. Writing as a
way to radically change the world around them, to influence
dramatically. To build spaces of interaction is not
hierarchical, that is, communication that reflects our needs
and realize our desires. The texts can be freely downloaded
from Ippolita
http://www.ippolita.net
info[at]ippolita[dot]net.
|
|