Internet Vigilantism

[Ahvaren]

Recently, we've heard from those that refer to themselves as Anonymous (it can't be called a cohesive group) when they attempted to hack the Israeli government websites and successfully hacked some of North Korea's official government feeds. Anon's stated goal in the former case was to protest the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

 

In the past, Anon was one of, if not the first, case of internet vigilantism assisting in the arrest of a pedophile, and they are actively involved in anti-child-pornography activities. Their main method of protest is cyber-attacks against the websites of those that they wish to protest. Take a look at the wikipedia article for more info.

 

Anon isn't the only group that actively engages in internet vigilantism. 419eater.com (link goes to wikipedia) is a website with dedicated members who purposefully waste known scammers' time and resources. They give fake information to the scammer and try to 'bait' them for as long as possible, working off the theory that if this scammer's time is wasted on them, a mark that isn't going to fall for the scam, their time cannot be spent elsewhere, scamming people that will fall for it. Some baiters will attempt to acquire pictures or other artifacts from the scammers, others will get the scammers to fly out or travel to a false location to pick up money that doesn't exist. In the 419eater community, actions like this are seen as badges of pride.

 

Internet vigilantism without a clear group or focus behind it also exists. These cases are often public shaming turned up to eleven, as was the case with the (now infamous) Dongle incident, where a woman knowingly tried to use public shaming against two men, and received a backlash from the internet that lost her her job.

 

Some people-- particularly the scammer-and-pedophile-baiters-- argue that the proper authorities don't put the kind of time and effort into catching criminals online, so internet vigilantes pick up the slack. Political activists that use hacking or other types of internet vigilantism to achieve their goals argue that this is a valid form of protest. For arguments against, of course, search for times when internet vigilantism resulted in disproportionate retribution, or stirred the pot where keeping things calm was the best option.

 

What do you think?

 

1) Is internet vigilantism a valid form of political protest, such as in the way that Anon practices it?

2) Is public shaming on the internet in any way justified, or is it out of hand?

3) What about those like the 419-baiters, who argue they take these actions because no one else will?

4) What causes internet vigilantism, and are there any 'real world' situations that can relate?

 

Edited: Edited for typos.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Ahvaren

[Nintii]

1) Yes.

 

2) Justified if the shaming is done to paedophiles, for others we have courts of law.

 

3) Send them medals and heaps of cash so that they can continue.

 

4) a ... Failure by governments and law enforcement agencies the world over to actually do something

b ... No comment as there are tooo many.

[Tidus44]

First, calling these individuals vigilantes is a misnomer. A vigilante is one who enforces a law, but without the authority to do so, because they do not believe the proper authority is enforcing it.

A person breaking the law, even for the reason of protesting, is not a vigilante, they are a criminal.

 

Those who identify them self with Anonymous like to have people feel they are vigilantes, but they are not. Their record of "protest" shows they mostly support criminals and attack those who would remove criminals from society and childish actions like posting an insulting picture of Kim Jong Un. I'm sure all the people in NK saw the picture and were suitably influenced by that.

The other problem with this group is they have made mistakes and hurt people who did not deserve it and then deny any responsibility when their error is pointed out.

Anonymous is not a vigilante group, they are just at best bullies and at worst criminals, who would like to have people believe they are just protesting for the "common" good. A prime example is the hacking of Steam (2011) and stealing credit card and other information on Steam users.

How is Steam doing anything illegal that law enforcement will not take action against? Many may not like Steam, but how did stealing personal information and credit card numbers change anything or hurt anyone but users?

I highly doubt that the Anonymous hackers were looking to change Steam by stealing personal information and credit card numbers.

Same thing with breaking security codes on PS consoles and posting the information on how to do it for PS users. Anonymous says it's to allow "freedom" for SONY console users. A protest would be to advocate not buying SONY equipment, not breaking the security code and posting it to the internet to allow piracy - which is just another form of theft.

As for suggesting such action is a civil disobedience in the form of protest, that's a load of organic fertilizer.

The worst part is these supposed protest actions hurt those who are protesting legitimately and legally.

 

419eater is not a vigilante site either. No where on the site is the suggestion of vigilantism or protest or enforcing laws that enforcement agencies will not or do not enforce properly or doing anything unlawful or illegal.

419eater offers information on avoiding criminal activity related to internet scams and on how to waste the time and resources of criminals involved in scamming. While it is a form of protest, it isn't exactly focused at legal authority who are not enforcing laws nor is it illegal or unlawful to waste someone's time who is trying to steal from you.

 

I find those who associate with Anonymous tend to be criminals working behind what may have started as a legitimate protest group but, because it is not bound by any rules or organization it is used by anyone and everyone for whatever purpose, including criminal activity. I am at least cautious and more so suspicious of anything associated with Anonymous.

[Lisnpuppy]

Civil disobedience is a tricky thing. How you look at those performing these acts is usually relative and subjective. As many of you remember, Thoreau wrote a great work on the subject and basically said that governments were to be treated with suspicion and that all citizens had a duty to stand up for their conscious.

 

The problem was then and remains now the definition of civil disobedience and what acts each of us sees as this or a crossing of the line. This is different for different people and has fluctuated over time.

 

For example..there is these internet hackers that say they do these things to protest. However the internet allows so much more anonymity than ever and thus these people are often not held accountable for their actions. This to me is an important thing as in the past, people who disobeyed did so in public and outright and knew they faced persecution and arrest for what they did.

 

Lets look at another example (without getting off topic) as there are many Sheriff's or law enforcement people that have said if certain gun control laws pass that they will refuse to enforce them. This is considered by many as act of civil disobedience. They are breaking the law by not enforcing the laws passed and are doing it not as private citizens but as publicly elected officials. Now folks are for gun control may see this as something beyond mere "civil disobedience" and believe that should this be so they should be removed from office and perhaps arrested.

 

Now we can look at a similar situation of law enforcement in the American South in the 1950-1960s. There were many laws passed that were passed either to establish more rights for African-Americans or to take them away. Law enforcement on both sides would refuse to perform duties or follow the law. Like not arresting people when they committed acts of crime against blacks (for example when they desegregated schools.) They believed these laws made by the government were wrong and would not support them.

 

Now we look at these things and maybe see them miles apart but they really aren't.

 

I do not always like what these people do. If they cause death or injury then they will need to be held accountable (as is the risk of civil disobedience) but civil disobedience is an important part of holding government accountable. Breaking the law is often part (but not always) of the civil disobedience and we as a society will have to decide what is ultimately acceptable and what price those who go to far, must pay.

[Tidus44]

A bit confused by the post on civil disobedience. What does civil disobedience have to do with vigilantism? They are not related.

 

Civil disobedience is the deliberate refusal to comply with laws or government demands that are felt to be unjust in order to advocate change of the law or demand. Civil disobedience is generally non-violent using means such as boycotting, picketing and nonpayment of taxes. It can escalate, but that would be more revolution or armed confrontation than generally accepted civil disobedience.

 

Thoreau was initially upset because he had to pay taxes and churches didn't. He didn't like paying taxes to support an army involved in what Thoreau felt was an unjust war and he was also against the injustices of slavery laws.

Thoreau was against what he felt was unjust, corrupt or just plain wrong morally in government. He felt that voting was a useless endeavour because all governments require people to be unjust in one way or another and that only the individual could determine what was just or unjust and follow their conscience. Thus, disobey what one feels is unjust and take the consequences of that disobedience as a form of protest.

 

Marin Luther King was strongly influenced by Thoreau and said;

I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest. The teachings of Thoreau came alive in our civil rights movement; indeed, they are more alive than ever before. Whether expressed in a sit-in at lunch counters, a freedom ride into Mississippi, a peaceful protest in Albany, Georgia, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, these are outgrowths of Thoreau's insistence that evil must be resisted and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice.

 

To even suggest that those associated with Anonymous are fighting injustice is discourteous to every person who has upheld the principles of civil disobedience to fight injustice. We need to keep things on track here because Anonymous isn't about injustice or civil disobedience or vigilantism. Let's be honest,

 

Copyright protection is not an injustice.

Buying music, video games, movies or other entertainment forms is not an injustice.

Restriction of the illegal exchange of property is not an injustice.

Making a profit in business, including obscene profits, is not an injustice.

Expressing one's right to freedom of religion is not an injustice.

Expressing one's right to freedom of speech is not an injustice.

Being wanted by police for committing illegal acts is not an injustice.

Refusing to associate with persons who are involved in illegal activities is not an injustice.

 

Hacking a web site to post an insulting picture is not civil disobedience, it's just stupid and childish.

Hacking a web site because you don't like paying for something or because the company makes money is not civil disobedience, its advocating theft.

Hacking a web site to steal personal and credit card information is not civil disobedience, it's just plain theft.

Hacking a web site to deny access to the web site isn't civil disobedience, it's having a tantrum.

 

Anonymous is not about injustice or vigilantism or civil disobedience. They are about someone telling them they can't just do what they want regardless of the consequences or at the expense of others.

 

If you want an example of civil disobedience, read this - http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-vow-kill-pakistani-girl-shot-going-school-131916069.html

 

People who fight injustice do so in person and standing for what they believe - not hiding away like criminals or terrorists.

[Lisnpuppy]

I bring it up as many that support their activities are claiming they use these things as acts of civil disobedience....I should have been more clear as to where my thought process. And I believe they do get intertwined but I am not going to go further with this. The OP brought up activities of hackers in general-not just the one-and many of them and their supporters claim what they do is civil disobedience. I am not saying I agree or disagree.

 

However wow...I didn't say I even thought that what they did qualified (in my opinion and as I said how we look upon civil disobedience differs from person to person) and in fact I even said:

"For example..there is these internet hackers that say they do these things to protest. However the internet allows so much more anonymity than ever and thus these people are often not held accountable for their actions. This to me is an important thing as in the past, people who disobeyed did so in public and outright and knew they faced persecution and arrest for what they did."

 

As for your quote:

"To even suggest that those associated with Anonymous are fighting injustice is discourteous to every person who has upheld the principles of civil disobedience to fight injustice"

 

Well I see you feel strongly here (maybe I feel you are coming across a bit too strongly) and since I have no desire to maybe take this debate in a way it was not intended to go by the OP and have no desire to repeat the reads of things I learned when I got my history degree I will leave you all to this.

 

Have fun.

[rizon72]

Most of what Anonymous has done has actually swayed me against them.

[JimboUK]

The way to avoid being on the receiving end of 419Eaters antics is to not try and cheat people out of money, I have no sympathy at all for those who get the tables turned on them. I have mixed feelings on Anonymous, some of it I'm OK with, attacks on the North Korean state for example, attacks on the UK government for it's surveillance proposals I was also OK with. I've been less impressed with their support for the pirate bay. Internet vigilantism has the capacity to do good and well as harm, I'd rather we had people willing to fight for what they believe in than a populace made up entirely of compliant drones.

[TailAbNormal]

Anonymous is an un-unified legion. It can be either a virtual unabomber, or the next julian assange.

[Lisnpuppy]

This topic has not been touched in over three months. As such this means that folks have lost interest in this topic and this is thread necromancy. Please don't post in dead threads. Thanks and have a nice day.~Lisnpuppy