Thursday, February 14, 2008

Anonymous vs Scientology


The story of Anonymous has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood epic. A roguish accidental hero, a wise sage, a great and powerful enemy. The war between hacker-group Anonymous and the Church of Scientology began with a lone act of censorship. A church of scientology indoctrination video featuring Tom Cruise was hosted on the youtube video website. Cruise’s manic laughter and his claim that scientologists are the only one’s who can help in the case of a car accident were mocked by commentary.
The church, citing the digital millennium copyright act, forcibly removed the video. Soon after the removal a video featuring a dark robotic voice set to stock images of storm clouds appeared on the video site, declaring war on the church. In response the sages of this tale “Wise beard man” , GlaDos and an unnamed scientologist spoke out, supporting the cause but urging caution and non-violence in letters and video posts across the web.
In mere days, anonymous achieved a campaign of protests that would be the envy of any activist. Scientology centres throughout the United Stated, Canada, the UK, Europe and Australia were “raided” by thousands of masked protesters. The Church of Scientology official website was shut down by hackers prompting international media coverage.
The public relations line is that anonymous chose their name as a defence against Scientology’s alleged attacks against individual detractors. In truth the group existed long before “Operation Chanology,” the manoeuvres of which have sparked protests at scientology centres around the world. “Anonymous” was born on the Chan group of message board websites. Think of these as the toilet wall of the Internet. Users post gory pictures, pornography and crude messages in the name of shock humour. Like the toilet wall, when someone wishes to post a message without fear of social consequence they may choose to remain anonymous. Over time users of the site began to refer to anonymous as though he were a real person. Many conversations can be found between “Anonymous” and the identified users of the site.
The entity known as Anonymous became HG Well’s invisible man, acting without fear of retribution and ultimately without morality. Their early operations on the internet reflected this. Operation Myspays (sic) was a sophisticated effort to obtain the passwords to the personal pages of myspace users. The targets then had their personal profiles plastered with homosexual pornography. The goal of the mission was ”lulz,” hacker slang for laughs. Their moniker “The Internet Hate Machine” is well earned.
Cruelty is a common theme among the users of the site, “Anonymous” have made prank phone calls to the parents of a teenage suicide, made bomb threats and convinced girls to post nude pictures on their site then tracking down their details to publicly name and shame them.
The Internet Hate Machine is fuelled by media attention. Media reports are collected and celebrated as trophies. The favourites are usually the most negative coverage. When fox news dubbed Anonymous “Hacker’s on Steroids,” the site erupted in jubilation. The report was dissected, set to music and is frequently featured on the site as an in-joke. Even their most innocent activities suggest a desire for attention. A long-standing hobby of anonymous is meme-pushing. Attempting to move their in-jokes into the internet domain. The community is accredited with creating many pieces of internet miscellanea. Lolcats; pictures of cats with humourous descriptions originated on the chan sites, as did the popularity of Tay Zonday’s song, “Chocolate Rain.”
There is talent among the community, for an organization without formal structure or hierarchy they show a great deal of sophistication in their raids. Operation Myspays featured a series of spoof pages promising access to Myspace through work or school filter systems. Unwitting users entered their passwords that were disseminated through the community to begin the attack. They are experts in manipulating media, websites, and social sites to manipulate people in the name of cruel laughs.
Ironically it is this remarkable ability which may prove the undoing of Anonymous.
The goal of the war on scientology may have been laughs, but the cause has struck a chord in the community. The chan message-boards are attracting new ideological members, combating the current leadership of scientology with noble sentiment. One of these new members of anonymous suggested a list of future causes “His fellow anonymous” could support, the following reply was received.
“We are not your fellow Anonymous. We are not V for Vendetta. We are an Internet Hate Machine, we do whatever we want for the hell of it, for our own fun. The rest of the things you heard about us was just propaganda so you would all help us.” –anon. Other users posted gory images of traffic accidents and medical procedures in an effort to ward off idealistic newcomers.
Others have welcomed the change as serendipity. One longstanding member of anonymous encouraged detractors to welcome the newcomers and accept that the group had evolved a sense of social responsibility. The anonymous communities growing on mainstream sites such as facebook and myspace are largely unaware of the hacker roots of the group and oppose the current form of Scientology for their litigious nature, alleged suppression of the media and the “Fair Game” policy, where Scientologists were encouraged to attack SP’s or suppressive persons by any means. The Church of Scientology states that this policy is not in use.
With great passion on both sides the media war is not likely to reach a stalemate any time soon. In the mean time one question still remains to be answered; What does it mean to be anonymous?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

it feels just like I feel right now. Cromulent.

Anonymous said...

The original concept of the anonymous messageboard had a much more innocent intention than concealing the identities of troublemakers. The idea wasn't so much that a person could voice an opinion without repercussion, but that his/her words would be valued for their own merit rather than for the person who said them.

Anonymous said...

Hold me