Hacktivists: Robin Hoods Of The New Millenia

As with most criminal activity, the government is basically impotent against cyber crime. As more people log on, there is more crime. The more applications and sophisticated the technologies, the more adept the offenders become at using them to facilitate their criminal acts or avoid detection.

We saw this played out last month when the group Anonymous took down the U.S. Department of Justice, Warner Music and the Recording Industry Association of America web sites on Jan. 19. The hacks were in retaliation for the shutdown of Megaupload, an Internet site used to facilitate sharing large files, such as movies and large caches of music. The owner of the site and three others were arrested. Several million dollars in assets were seized. The Justice Department alleges that Megaupload’s primary use was to unlawfully traffic copyrighted material.

The takedown of the DOJ and RIAA sites are the most recent in a slew of exploits Anonymous claims responsibility for. Should you be concerned? Hell yes. First, let’s talk about who Anonymous is. Second, let’s talk about what that means for us lawyers and, most importantly, how that might impact us in our pockets short and long term. Finally, I offer an observation on the future of Anonymous and our information and communications technology.

Barely known a year ago, Anonymous has emerged as a powerful hacktivist group. (Hacktivists are computer network hackers who claim that their cyber crimes are motivated by political activism.) The group uses the Guy Fawkes mask as its symbol. Probably the most notorious traitor in English history, Fawkes led the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 in England. The goal of the plot was to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Although nowhere near successful, the conspirators actually got gunpowder close to Parliament. Fawkes was arrested after one of his co-conspirators sent a note alerting one of the Lords. Fawkes was subsequently tortured and executed, but he maintained his anonymity for several months under questioning. The English celebrate Bonfire Night each year to commemorate his capture and the safety of the queen. Fawkes’ effigy is burned on the fires, and the mask has become his symbol. Today, the mask is an emblem of anonymity and audacious challenge to the government.

Facilitating Uprisings
It isn’t so much that Anonymous hackers don't like the government and big business. They don’t. It’s more that their allure is that they come off looking like the Robin Hoods of the new millennium. In a very short span of time, they have amassed an enormous following and garnered the support and respect of many. Anonymous was instrumental in facilitating the uprising in Tunisia and has been central to the Arab Spring. They have been very active in the Occupy Wall Street movement, referring to themselves as, “the 99%.”

Their overarching message in blogs, on YouTube videos and in media releases is that they advocate for truth, freedom, freedom of speech on the Internet, the right of the people to protest and assemble and to right wrongs. Who can argue with that?

They have no leadership, but there are many supporters and obviously participants in the collective have signifcant technical skill sets and knowledge. Their targets have ranged from the government of Tunisia to NATO. They claim responsibility for taking down Sony PlayStation service, the CIA web site and the San Fransisco Bay Area Rapid Transit system web site. In December of 2011, Anonymous hacked Straffor — a company in the business of information security and intelligence — and used client credit card information to make donations to charitable organizations.

After the technology security company HBGary claimed to have infiltrated Anonymous, the group retaliated by shutting down the company’s phone system, hacking its web site, and publishing e-mails and other documents taken from their servers. Other victims of Anonymous attacks include the CIA, Facebook and a rapidly growing list of governments, academic institutions and corporations.

Lost Confidence
Why should we care? Well, as with terrorist attacks, when institutions we trust are compromised, that threatens our security. Our economy still hasn’t recovered from the Sept. 11 attacks. Consider the travel industry. Airlines are forever changed. Our confidence is still shaken. The hacking and security compromises of government, academic and corporate information and communications technology by Anonymous have similar ramifications.
Although it is doubtful anyone will be dissuaded from making purchases online, I don’t think anyone who knows about the incidents has the same confidence that the Justice Department web site is secure or that the RIAA is safe from attack.

It doesn’t take much. That’s the theory and success behind terrorism and hacktivism.

One success reverberates to create a great sense of threat. That’s why we spent so much money on homeland security. That’s why we spent so much money on two wars. If you boil the impetus down behind all the billions of dollars spent on the security and all the billions lost in revenue by our economy, it all goes back to the events of 9/11 and the hijackers.

“Do you want to see Anonymous rise up? Try to shut down the message.” OK, we get the message that the group doesn’t want Internet censorship or oppression. But how does that jibe with law enforcement’s struggle to beat back the rising tide of cyber-wrongs — serious injustices such as online child exploitation, violent crimes, human trafficking, theft, fraud, and intellectual property infringement? If Anonymous really is the Robin Hood of the new millennium, right those wrongs for us.

Anonymous has hacked many child pornography sites and taken down large criminal enterprises in the past. If its members would concentrate more on righting those wrongs — maybe by developing technology to identify and obliterate images that depict child sex abuse or that infringe on intellectual property rights — that would free up a lot of law enforcement resources. It would also reduce our tax burden substantially. It may relieve me of a great deal of my workload, but it would be a reduction I’d be happy to take.

Reprinted from the Connecticut Law Tribune February 6, 2012