In modern society, most, if not all, forms of lawlessness are frowned upon. Reactions and repercussions, however, vary depending on the crime and the criminal. If, for example, some banking executives were to get together and mastermind the ultimate long con—pushing millions of Americans into mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford—those executives could expect to pay some sort of insignificant (to them) fine and maybe have to reimburse some customers. That’s hardly a slap on the wrist for such an abuse of influence. Alternatively, if a few people get together and ping a server a few hundred thousand times (which by itself is not a crime), the FBI comes bursting through the door dressed for war, trial details are televised nightly for months, and the accused can expect to spend several years in prison with millions in fines. It makes no difference whether the target server runs a gaming network or a cult masquerading as a “church.”
Doing what’s right is essential, regardless of legality. The examples illustrated above should sound very familiar, as they’re both very true. This message will focus on the Anonymous movement and its ideals both in the early stages, and at its current core. Offshoots such as Lulzsec warrant another discussion entirely, and will not be referenced here. The Anonymous movement, herein referred to as “anon(s),” can often be described as a “gray hat” group. They are not true white or black hats in their respective definitions. Defining anon as either color depends entirely on one’s allegiances. Instead of trying to make them conform to one specific ethical standard, let’s consider their platform from an outsider’s view. While some bias from this author is unavoidable, its influence will be actively mitigated.
The world generally accepts that 1+1=2. This is a hard fact, proven over hundreds of years of research. Laws are most often the same; an act either is or is not illegal, though laws can be up to interpretation. This is why lawyers exist, and why the United States has a complex justice system for examining and applying laws to various situations. Ethics and morals, on the other hand, are far more subjective, relative to one’s own worldview. So, to define a social movement in absolutes is inaccurate.
Anons voluntarily break laws for their interpretation of the greater good. For the movement to remain effective and relevant, this must continue to be true. Early in the documentary “We Are Legion,” Steven Levy remarks that anons commit actions that are “technically…but not legally correct.” Take their interaction with the Church of Scientology. Many Americans would agree that Scientology is closer to a cult than a legitimate religion, and that their followers are misguided. To that effect, most Americans might agree that flooding their phone lines and forcing their website offline helps the greater good. Regardless of whether one believes this is right or wrong, it is illegal in the United States.
Some of the anon movement’s most powerful social ammunition is the idea of a “moral high ground.” This was used in the case of self-proclaimed neo-Nazi Hal Turner. While Turner was well within his legal rights to express his views, Anonymous used the collective dislike of Turner’s views to rally a campaign against him, ultimately removing his ability to spread his ideas and forcing him out of the public eye. Score one for the good guys, right? Good in today’s moral sense, yes, but still somewhat illegal. This example could be used to define Anonymous as a group of ethical hackers. The ethical hacker is essentially an honest criminal—one who, while knowingly breaking laws, does what they believe is the right and noble thing to do, no matter what consequences may come.
In general (that is, outside of hacker circles), honest criminals are rare. Vigilantism may sometimes stray into the “honest criminal” field, depending on specific details. Crimes of revenge may also be considered honest crimes, but are again entirely dependent on the individual circumstances. To use a specific example, take one of the most infamous bank robbers of the 20th century: John Dillinger. Many Americans at the time respected Dillinger and his crew, at least in the early stages of their spree. He was known for holding up a bank and the bank only; regular citizens caught in the bank during the robbery were usually immune. In Dillinger’s eyes, he was there for the bank’s money. He was there to hurt the rich, greedy bankers (and of course make money for himself), and not the hard-working Americans simply going about their day. The banks and bank managers could have their money replaced by insurance. Regular people could not, and he respected that. Some may use this to call Dillinger an honest criminal. Very few may earn that title.
So, is such an idea possible? Can one break laws, yet remain honest and noble? Anonymous believes they can, and they often do. Social change is rarely implemented in the background. It happens through strong activism and lots of public attention. Anons have become adept at both.
