When the Guy Fawkes mask made its debut in V for Vendetta almost a

decade ago, it inspired a movement against the overt censorship of politics

and the internet, and more specifically, the beginnings of Anonymous, the
self-proclaimed torchbearer of Internet freedom. Anonymous is defended as
a bastion for rights and freedom, as much as it is vilified for being a just a
destructive criminal outfit. The truth, inevitably, lies somewhere in the
middle.
Understanding Anonymous begins with an overview of their history,
beginning with 4chan, and evolving into a movement whose primary tools of
the trade became denial of service and hacking attacks, accompanied by
the public release of sensitive information, including the personal data of
individuals involved with the organization placed in the cross-hairs. The
public arm of Anonymous consists of press releases and videos that are as
much information about its activities as they are about its principles, but
also provide commentary on current events.
The group does act out against cases where miscarriage of justice or
corruption is concerned, and these are actions that, while controversial,
have merit. While hacking attacks are done to symbolize opposition to one
issue or another, leaking information is a practice that predates
Anonymous, but still remains a potent tool in revealing how organizations
and governments that would not otherwise release their information,
operate. The consequent fallout creates a public relations disaster for the
affected parties, but it is a reminder that society works best when there is a
degree of accountability and trust between governments and governed.
If Anonymous is around, is that a sign our social capital is critically low?
Social capital is an idea created by Robert Putnam to describe how much
members of society trust one another. Healthy social capital indicates high
levels of civic activity, regular voting and more time that people spend
talking to one another face-to-face. Conversely, low social capital occurs
when people are more isolated; in-person communication drops
dramatically, as does participation in social activities. The proliferation of
personal technologies and the many hours per day we spend on them is yet
another sign that our time is experiencing significant communication
problems, despite the fact you have 574 different methods of contacting
your friends.
To be fair, modern society requires us to be online so as to be able to
operate sufficiently in it. These days, verything from your health history to
your job applications is stored on a server somewhere. Anonymous would
therefore not be correct in compromising the personal information of
people, who choose to use those platforms and expect that their information
will not be compromised.
The overall impression one gets of Anonymous is that it is a force for both
good and bad, reacting as it does to what happens in the world. Internet
freedom is indeed important to upkeep, as the global protests against
SOPA and ACTA showed, for instance, and attempts to regulate it will be
met decisively, as Anonymous and its offshoots demonstrate. Further, if
openness and polarization in public affairs are critically low, Anonymous
shows that our society is having a crisis of trust and communication, leaving
the group to do the talking for us when that is societys job. However, this
isn't to say that Anonymous's exploitation of personal data is a lawful
practice.
Like it or not, Anonymous have become a force in cyberpolitics. Time will
tell how their role plays out.