• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

| | ⅜ Articles E-Bandits in Global Activism: WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and the Politics of No One Wendy H. Wong and Peter A. Brown In recent years, WikiLeaks and Anonymous have made headlines distributing confidential information, defacing websites, and generating protest around political issues. Although many have dismissed these actors as terrorists, criminals, and troublemakers, we argue that such actors are emblematic of a new kind of political actor: extraordinary bandits (e-bandits) that engage in the politics of no one via anonymizing Internet technologies. Building on Hobsbawm’s idea of the social bandit, we show how these actors fundamentally change the terms of global activism. First, as political actors, e-bandits are akin to Robin Hood, resisting the powers that be who threaten the desire to keep the Internet free, not through lobbying legislators, but by “taking” what has been deemed off limits. Second, e-banditry forces us to think about how technology changes “ordinary” transnational activism. Iconic images of street protests and massive marches often underlie the way we as scholars think about social movements and citizen action; they are ordinary ways we expect non-state actors to behave when they demand political change. E-bandits force us to understand political protest as virtual missives and actions, activity that leaves no physical traces but that has real-world consequences, as when home phone numbers and addresses of public officials are released. Finally, e-banditry is relatively open in terms of who participates, which contributes to the growing sense that activism has outgrown organizations as the way by which individuals connect. We illustrate our theory with the actions of two e-bandits, Anonymous and WikiLeaks. n January 17, 2012, officials from the U.S. Fed- and information security’ threat to military operations.”3 ⅜ eral Bureau of Investigation and Scotland Yard The report warned that the potential leaking of secret O had a phone conversation that revolved around a U.S. military documents on the WikiLeaks website could strategy to take down the hacktivists1 known as Anony- “influence operations against the U.S. Army by a variety mous, among other like-minded groups. Unfortunately of domestic and foreign actors.”4 Unfortunately for U.S. for them, the very group they sought to investigate had Army Intelligence, WikiLeaks procured the classified report compromised their e-mail systems. On February 1, Anon- about itself and subsequently leaked it on its website.5 ymous posted a recording of the conversation.2 The ensu- Are they freedom-of-speech fighters or tech-savvy ter- ing embarrassment for both national-level investigative rorists? Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), social agencies also revealed key information about ongoing inves- movements, or a new international criminal? We argue tigations. Similarly, in an internally-circulated 2008 clas- that WikiLeaks, Anonymous,6 and other groups engaged sified Pentagon report, U.S. Army intelligence concluded in what has become described as hacktivism are “extraor- that WikiLeaks “poses a significant ‘operational security dinary bandits” (e-bandits), adapting Hobsbawm’s iconic “social bandit” for the challenges of politics in the digital age.7 E-bandits do not fit well in our existing analytical Wendy H. Wong is Associate Professor of Political Science categories for a number of reasons. Introducing new ter- and Director of the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict minology allows us to capture the essence of such actors in Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of global politics while demonstrating the limits of existing Toronto ([email protected]). Peter A. Brown is tools from international relations (IR) and sociology. Using MA candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto anonymizing technologies to create a transnational “poli- ([email protected]). The authors would like tics of no one,” e-bandits are principled actors8 who cap- to thank David Welch; Mark Sedra; Ron Deibert; Todd Hall; italize on the Internet and other information technologies Marcos Ancelovici; Stefania Milan; Stefan Kroll; Lilach to lead disembodied, virtual attacks against physical tar- Gilady; the participants of the Workshop for Transnational gets in order to encourage political change. On the one Linkages, Institutional Building, and the Reconfiguration of hand, e-banditry is liberating—it allows whoever wants to Rights and Justice Regimes; three anonymous reviewers; join a movement to join, and “atypical” activists have joined and especially Jeffrey Isaac for helpful comments. Brown’s political movements. It also allows for groups to impose contribution to the research has been supported by the Social physical costs without a physical presence. On the other Science and Humanities Council of Canada. hand, e-banditry by its very nature creates problems of doi:10.1017/S1537592713002806 © American Political Science Association 2013 December 2013 | Vol. 11/No. 4 1015 ⅜ | | ⅜ Articles | E-Bandits in Global Activism coherence, lack of directed action, and multiple and mul- Finally, e-banditry is relatively open in terms of who par- tiplying goals as participants join for their own purposes ticipates, which contributes to the growing sense that activ- without revealing their identities, and therefore their inter- ism has outgrown organizations as the way by which ests. Our current understandings of the roles of transna- individuals connect. To the extent that we can identify the tional social movements and non-state actors in IR are “groupiness” of Anonymous or WikiLeaks, what one can just beginning to grasp the importance of the Internet, say is that both organizations appeal to broader audiences largely focusing on the role and responsibility of the state than ordinary activist groups. As others have found, Anon- in digital governance.9 By contrast, we intend to advance ymous’ founding credo was anything but political,11 and the thinking on how non-state actors can harness infor- its actions continue to be precipitated and fueled by dif- mation technologies for political gains on a transnational ferent kinds of activists than those attracted to other groups level through engaging in a new politics of no one. heavily reliant upon the Internet, such as Moveon.org. What e-bandits show us is that technology changes resis- Participating in Anonymous’ actions online is not an option tance. To date, many have considered the role of technol- for just anybody, as there are baseline technical knowledge ogy as a way to retool existing ways of participating in requirements.12 As a consequence, the anonymity under citizen movements. Instead of collecting signatures for peti- which e-bandits act provides us with a conceptual and tions in parking lots, people can use digital signatures theoretical challenge in terms of how we place these groups. procured by mass e-mails. Groups can cut costs using list- Here we first review the extant scholarship on transna- servs for a planned protest. Webpages serve as publicity tional social movements, NGOs, and international crim- vehicles for activists, and blogs democratize who can opine. inal networks (ICNs) to demonstrate how each of these Here, we argue that the anonymizing potential of the Inter- extensive literatures falls short in capturing the work of net challenges some of our fundamental assumptions of e-bandits. We then briefly introduce both Anonymous who can use technology, and for what ends. Prior to the and WikiLeaks. Next we develop the concept of the Internet, protest occurred much in the “old way”— e-bandit to show the importance of the politics of no one citizens gathering in public demonstrations, holding plac- for IR and global activism. We will show how Anony- ards, and making speeches against state policy or corporate mous and WikiLeaks epitomize e-banditry. We conclude greed. Neither WikiLeaks nor Anonymous10 necessarily with the implications of identifying e-bandits in politics ⅜ employ these techniques in their methods of holding actors and the future of a research agenda focused on the politics accountable and expressing discontent with policies or of no one. actions. Instead, both organizations hold others account- able in a way that does not reveal their own identities, and Varieties of Transnationalism as such, the threat of their action is both a threat from IR has struggled since the 1970s to define political rela- nobody and potentially from everywhere at the same time. tionships outside of linkages between states, or between This “politics of no one,” in which e-bandits make demands states and a catch-all category called “non-state actors.”13 without revealing who they are, or who they speak for, We often have difficulty classifying and understanding the affects the way that we conceive of contemporary forms of role and effect of such actors. To illustrate, at various times, global citizen action. critics have accused Anonymous of being a terrorist group, The politics in which e-bandits engage are anything and some American politicians, including U.S. Vice Pres- but business as usual in new technological clothing; the ident Joe Biden,14 have painted WikiLeaks with the same actions of e-bandits are extra-ordinary. First, as political brush.15 We find this characterization inappropriate, given actors, e-bandits are more akin to Robin Hood than the standing definitions of terrorism in political science, which American Association for Retired Persons, politicking not emphasize violence against civilians,16 implying (at least through lobbying, but by “taking” what has been deemed the threat of ) physical injury or death, rather than prop- off limits. Furthermore, Anonymous and WikiLeaks both erty damage, virtual or actual. However, we do take the explicitly see themselves as taking from the powerful to characterization of e-bandits as “international criminal orga- empower the disempowered with information and access nization”17 seriously, as we see parallels between these two to the political process. Second, e-banditry forces us to types of actors in the ICN literature.

Load more

  19

Copy Link