COMM 352 - Blog #5 - Anonymous & Hacktivism

"Anonymous has always come to the defense of whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked information from the military to WikiLeaks; Aaron Swartz, the co-founder of Reddit who leaked academic documents and may have also contributed to WikiLeaks; and Barett Brown, who is facing 100 years in prison and did detailed research into the inner workings of American security firms. But of course, a murderous ex-cop is a lot harder to defend than these nonviolent liberators of information." -Patrick McGuire, Vice.com

This explanation of the "hacktivist" group known only as "Anonymous" by Patrick McGuire of Vice.com can probably tell you more about them than I could.  I only first became aware of "Anonymous" when they got involved in the Aaron Swartz situation (late to the game, I know) and in response to his death and the persecution of other "information liberators" like him, "Anonymous" hacked the Department of Defense's website and left this eerie message.

So, what exactly is "hacktivism"? 

Wikipedia defines "hacktivism" as: "the use of computers and computer networks as a means of protest to promote political ends." 

Now, other hacktivist groups exist, but "Anonymous" is perhaps the most well known, and now with the recent events involving Christopher Dorner, they are back in the light again.  As far as many can tell, "Anonymous" seems to be leaning towards defending Dorner due in most part to the contents of his manifesto.  In his manifesto, Dorner essentially accuses the LAPD of not only wrongfully firing him but he also accuses them of being corrupt.  "He describes racist harassment from fellow cops and writes about his being fired from the force after he made a complaint that an officer kicked a homeless man, a complaint dismissed by a judge" (McGuire, Vice.com). 

In regard to these claims, Patrick McGuire also states in his Vice.com article that "there is obviously some uncertainty from official channels surrounding the truthfulness of Dorner's claims, but even if the LAPD wrongfully fired him, he had no good reason to allegedly murder the daughter of the LAPD officer who represented him during his termination hearing, her fiancé and two other cops who got in his way."  I completely agree with McGuire's statement.  Whether or not these claims of LAPD corruption were true, Dorner did not have the right to go around on some self-prescribed "vigilante" killing spree.
  
However, according to McGuire, the biggest issue that "Anonymous" has with the recent turn of events involving Christopher Dorner was the apparent censorship of his final standoff with the LAPD.  According to McGuire, "Authorities were, in fact, telling news crews not to broadcast live footage of the cabin, and—while there is the reality that no one wants to see another human being shoot themselves on live TV again—footage appears to show LAPD officers yelling “burn this motherfucker," indicating that there may be a larger reason why the LAPD didn’t want live close-ups on the scene."  As well, a representative of "Anonymous" stated that "CNN, FOX, and every news affiliate present at the scene are suspect. They were complicit in concealing the truth by allowing the police to dictate what information the American public deserved to be privy to."  While I do not agree with "Anonymous" on defending Christopher Dorner, I do understand and agree with them that the public has every right to know what is actually going on; media censorship and controlling what the public can and cannot see is wrong.

So right now, at least when it comes to the issues stated above, I would say that I stand on the fence for the most part when it comes to "Anonymous".  But, perhaps as I learn more about them, that stance will change.