Subject: RE: Anon |
From: "Timothy A Ellis" <Timothy.Ellis@SutherlandGlobal.COM> |
Date: 1/3/11, 18:21 |
To: "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> |
Here’s what I’ve got – let me know your thoughts.
There is no more fundamental assault on human liberties than
seeking to control the very thoughts which define us as individuals and as a
species. Despite this, attempts to do so are so commonplace as to be almost
unremarkable.
It is, perhaps, this ubiquity which blinds us to the ongoing
struggles of places like Tunisia. In a tragically familiar story, the
government of Tunisia has made a mockery of democracy, gripped with corruption
and political repression. As reported by <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201113102452251132.html"
target="_hplink">Al-Jazeera,</a> "[a]ny criticism of
the President can lead to persecution and imprisonment, torture is routine and
opposition parties are almost nonexistent. Not a single human rights monitoring
group is allowed to operate legally and freely in the country."
Tunisia has additionally sought to control access to Wikileaks
cables referencing the African nation, going so far as to <a
href="http://thenextweb.com/me/2010/12/07/tunisia-blocks-wikileaks-everyone-referencing-it/"
target="_hplink">block access to any source </a>even
referencing the information distribution site. These events have not happened
in isolation - the citizenry of the nation have <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gly3tXD8WF5737WC-Kl19E58ux1w?docId=bd0bae9167b1412abc7f50296e89b12f"
target="_hplink">been up in arms</a> about dire economic
conditions, corruption, and police brutality in the service of state
repression.
Enter Anonymous. This loosely-organized band of defenders of the
free flow of information took this assault on Wikileaks and informational
freedom personally, and - as is their wont - decided to act. Tunisian
government websites have been under attack since Sunday (1/2/2011), either
taken over to display messages from Anonymous or shut down entirely.
It is telling that these partisans of informational freedom have
chosen to fight fire with fire - they would deny access to the free flow of
information to those who have sought to do the same. This puts Anonymous in the
enviable position of having an unassailable moral high ground. Accept that the
free flow of information is an essential right, and Anonymous is standing up
for that right by turning its denial back on those who first violated it. Or,
believe that the free flow of information is not an inherent right - in which
case Anonymous has done no wrong.
What is perhaps the most important point to take from this
episode, however, is simply that organizations such as Anonymous and Wikileaks
exist with the power and capacity they have. There have always been groups
willing to take on the state's attempts to monopolize the flow of information -
now, they are increasingly able. For anyone with an interest in the
preservation of genuine democracy - a form of government by consent which
depends on accurate and freely-accessible information - there can be no more
reassuring thought.
From: Barrett Brown
[mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:19 PM
To: Timothy A Ellis
Subject: Anon
Never in human history has there been a period that compares to
our own in the degree to which the terminology employed at the end of a
twenty-year period would have been entirely incomprehensible at its beginning.
This is, or should be, the first sign that something is afoot. All significant
human activity is the result of human collaboration, and over this same period
the potential for human collaboration has exploded in a manner that has never
before been seen. This is the second sign, and the fact that these developments
and their implications have been greeted with the usual mix of silly and inane
commentary for which our career media personnel have become known even to
themselves is in turn a perfect indication of why this period has been so
necessary, and why many of us are working to ensure that the dynamics now in
play continue to accelerate.
Wikileaks, a force that was ignored by a news media incapable of
identifying important trends until such time as it became impossible to
disregard, has ushered in a new period of human history in which state actors
have lost the privacy that they never deserved in the first place. Anonymous, a
similarly misunderstood harbinger of the coming age, has taken a series of
actions to defend that organization, including information campaigns and DDOS
attacks on national governments - including Tunisia, as of this writing - that
have welcomed the new age with tighter controls on what their citizens are
allowed to see. As someone who has worked with and promoted certain factions of
Anonymous for a number of years, I would like to explain what it is that is
happening and why it will continue until such time as individual liberty
escapes its controversial status.
Throughout history, the majority has been consistently wrong and
consistently willing to initiate violence in service to the local flavor of
foolishness. Not long ago, many took for granted the divine right of kings - and
some still do, of course. Today, many in the West believe that anything is
moral just so long as it is done in some accordance with the will of the voting
population of a particular nation-state; to some, even a king’s intent will
suffice. Actions of extraordinarily lesser negative impact on the innocent,
taken by any organization that lacks the arbitrary status of a “state,” are
meanwhile denounced with a fervor that the more fair-minded might reserve for
those who routinely cause the deaths of women and children - for instance, the
large majority of American voters who have exercised their “rights” to topple
one dictator while propping up others, and who pat themselves on the back for
their participation in a civic entity that has made such a mockery of the rule
of law that those of us who were born too late to see the America that once
existed no longer feel any loyalty to its government whatsoever.
This is the context that has turned Anonymous from a Dadaist
cultural phenomenon into a geopolitical harbinger. Its first notable target was
the violent white supremacist and FBI informant Hal Turner; its second was the
Church of Scientology and the degenerate manner in which it deals with critics
and apostates; its third was the government of Australia on the occasion of a
proposed internet censorship policy that would have opened the door for further
state control of expression, as such policies always do.
Over time, Anonymous has changed. Some of us are no longer
anonymous, for one thing; my associate Gregg Housh was outed by the Church of
Scientology after they discovered he was one of the five participants who
launched the Chanology raids via a YouTube proclamation, and thus now gives
interviews to those outlets that care to know more; my associate Sean Carasov
killed himself last month after a great deal of legal harassment from the
“Church” that helped to ensure that his career would never see a revival.
Others have been arrested as well, and more will be arrested in the future.
This will stop nothing. And the typically flawed reception that the movement
has received from those who will justify most any government action will not
change the fact that we have entered a new age in which individuals around the
world can form their own entities to counter those that now exist, and will do
so increasingly as the implications of our time become more widely understood.
And they will indeed be made understood, soon and forever after, to all who
choose to listen.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302