Chapter Nine

Clandestine Dissent

Given the problems with PR for dissenting groups, and the issues, especially, with public protest tactics such as marches and sit-ins, it is understandable that some groups shun publicity altogether, at least at the beginning of their political movement. As Chenoweth and Stephens (2011) point out, retreat can be as effective as action, and even a movement that does use public protest can benefit from occasions of withdrawal and contemplation. Mindless or un-thought-through marching about injustices or annoyances is unlikely to have much political effect at all. Being reactive at the expense of strategic is simply a waste of time. While marching and occupations may be cathartic and raise morale for a time, in the long run, if timed badly or not considered properly, they may do more damage than good. There is something to be said for discretion. Covert groups such as Anonymous and WikiLeaks, for instance, have arguably been more successful than groups that rely on protest in terms of affecting political change.

Anonymous

Anonymous presents a public image defined by secrecy – its members wear masks inspired by the graphic novel and film V for Vendetta, itself a story about Guy Fawkes and revolution. While Anonymous does organise public protests, these masks ensure anonymity for its members, and drive home their point that “we are many, they are few” – a united front rather than disparate, disorganised people, as other protests have a tendency to seem. It is their actions, though, that have given them renown, rather than more traditional publicity. The various groups and individuals who identify themselves as ‘Anonymous’ have hacked into big companies, institutions and even governments, such as PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, Sony, Tunisia, Israel, the Church of Scientology, the West–boro Baptist Church, and child pornography sites, among many others. Rather than a single group, Anonymous is more of an ‘Internet gathering’, decentralised and therefore harder to undermine, from a security perspective. While individuals have been arrested for specific crimes, the movement persists in part because of this structure. Problems have also arisen from that structural characteristic, however, including a lack of consistency and focus in the movement’s aims, which has led to internal strife. For a sprawling, anarchic group, though, it has shown resilience: despite arrests, internal disagreement, and lack of a specific philosophy, Anonymous as a movement shows little sign of disappearing or even being undermined by state or corporate action against it.

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks, while also a mainly anonymous movement that uses the Internet to affect political action that has also been described as hacktivist, differs from Anonymous in significant ways. Firstly, WikiLeaks does have leadership, and that leadership is not at all anonymous. Julian Assange, the Australian founder of the movement, is so well known and controversial that a film has been made about him. With infamy comes consequences, though; Assange at time of writing is still on house arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy and regularly appears in the press on the other side of the story.

WikiLeaks describes itself as a journalistic organisation, in that it publishes exposés such as news leaks and classified information from various (usually) anonymous sources. These leaks have become front-page stories many times, including a corruption investigation in Kenya, the Collateral Murder video, shot during a Baghdad airstrike in 2007, the Iraq War Logs, and classified documents relating to Guantanamo Bay inmates.

WikiLeaks differs from normal ‘journalism’, however, in that the emphasis is on the investigation – the finding out and divulging of secrets – rather than the writing up and the ‘story’. Some describe WikiLeaks as a form of espionage rather than journalism (the US government, for example); perhaps it falls somewhere in between. The relationship of WikiLeaks to the press is an intriguing one, anyway. Famously falling out with the Guardian, whom they previously collaborated with to bring stories to light (or rather, to turn data into stories), WikiLeaks have had issues with the media, especially regarding differing practices and opinions regarding editing or editorial policy (or lack thereof). These disagreements have also occurred within WikiLeaks itself, notably sparking the departure of former German representative Daniel Domscheit-Berg in 2010.

WikiLeaks, despite its secrecy, has become something of a story itself, furthermore, and here it also has an interesting relationship with the press. While WikiLeaks describes itself as ‘journalistic’, its members are not journalists, but rather associates of them. They are the whistle-blowers and investigators, the enablers whose leads are then written up and articulated by the press. Nevertheless, WikiLeaks has changed journalism. It has also arguably endangered freedom of press in the sense that it has pushed the boundaries of ‘legal’ journalistic investigation to the point where it has broken laws over and over, and so this law-breaking clashes with the supposedly sacred ‘right’ of the press to its freedom. At the very least, the WikiLeaks exposés and controversies have raised questions about press freedom and what it means to have free speech that requires more defence and persuasion from the press and its supporters than ever.

Both Anonymous and Wikileaks have had the advantage of seeming legitimate to many people, as well as non-violent, even if some of their actions have been nevertheless illegal. The balance of illegal behaviour to perceived legitimacy is of course very important. While certain illegal action may be justified if it will be perceived as legitimate, it is a risky strategy. Snowden’s leaking of the NSA intelligence, for example, while illegal, has been seen as a legitimate and justified act to many people, and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because of this action. He has also been in exile for years now and faces life imprisonment for espionage if he returns to the US.

Anonymous, meanwhile, has operated as its name would suggest – covertly – but this hasn’t prevented the authorities from findings and punishing several key operators, such as Jeremy Hammond, who pleaded guilty to violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for being part of an attempt to break into the network of geopolitical analysis company Stratfor Global Intelligence Service. Mercedes Renee Haefer was arrested for being part of ‘Paypal 14’, which allegedly carried out a cyber-attack against PayPal, and Christopher Doyan is on the run after being arrested by the police in 2011 for attacks on Sony, PayPal, the Tunisian government, and the county website of Santa Cruz, California. If caught, he faces at least fifteen years in prison.

So, although these groups may have widespread support among the public depending on the action and the situation (some think of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden as heroic for standing up for American civil liberties, while others think of them as traitors, namely the government), the risks of lengthy jail terms still stand.

Illegal Internet activity such as WikiLeaks’ use of illegal documents and Anonymous’ hacking into government and commercial sites, therefore, can be effective for specific operations, but risks harsh punishment and repression. The risks need to be balanced against the gains, taking into account the likely perceived legitimacy of the action. ‘Illegal non-violent’ is generally a better image than ‘illegal violent’, however, and less likely to be termed ‘terrorism’. This is always a good idea if a group wants to have any public support or perceived legitimacy, which is important no matter how obviously moral or righteous the cause seems to its own supporters. While it is perhaps good to have faith in one’s cause, and to be loyal, it can be helpful to imagine things from the point of view of others, rather than dismissing them off the cuff. Most political movements probably think they are right and good; and yet every movement has its enemies and critics. While I am not suggesting that we should all pay attention to our critics unquestionably, it can be useful to understand why others may not agree with a specific set of ideas. Sometimes a simple reframing or explaining can bring in support and understanding. Other times of course the chasms can deepen. But paying attention to what makes a cause seem legitimate to people seems a sensible exercise for anyone whose success depends on a fickle public.