Only in it for the Lulz

There's been a lot of commentary and discussion lately about Anonymous. This erstwhile group of hackers and activists were recently targeted by HBGary Federal (a security investigation firm) for what was apparently a publicity stunt to attempt to demonstrate the power of social media analysis when used to identify targets who wish to remain anonymous. Naturally the most powerful demonstration of these investigation techniques would be to identify the members of anonymous itself, who are obviously all anonymous..

Aaron Barr, the (now former) CEO of HBGary Federal recognized the power of such a demonstration in the eyes of the federal government and how much business this would drum up for his well-connected yet fledgling security company. The results were rather fascinating. Firstly, Aaron may or may not have identified the members of Anonymous, there were flat denials from the members ... but this would be the case regardless of the accuracy of the investigation. One member did note that Aaron identified his girlfriend. So while it may or may not be a very effective tool, it is at the least, a window into the world in which we live.

The response from Anonymous was direct, unrelenting and a tiny bit scary. A small team from Anonymous essentially took control of and shut down the HBGary computer system, publicly embarrassed HBGary (many times) and pressured for Aaron Barr to be fired. He eventually quit.

Not to be demeaning here, but elite hackers hardly hang around in open chat rooms discussing who they're going to hit next. Elite hackers are never seen, heard nor discovered and often don't even communicate with others about their conquests. They're also generally nothing to worry about, in the sense that they're driven by curiosity and a desire for knowledge and perhaps even power? Regardless of the skills of the Anonymous crew, they don't fit the traditional stereotype of the benevolent nor self-serving hacker. The behavior of Anonymous has been deemed hactivism and there is lots of discussion about the values, merits and detriment of such action.

'In it for the lulz' is the Anonymous catch cry. It's all fun and games. Again, this is a contradiction in and of itself. Anonymous declared war on the church of scientology. Apparently a unified response to an organization for which the Anonymous members had more than a little dislike. But if organizing global protests against massive religious groups and targeting large organizations is all for the lulz, then I just don't get it.

Whatever the motivation and cause, Anonymous currently has the governments, corporations and religions of the world on the back foot. The question isn't really whether what's happening is right, wrong or left but whether what's happening is the leading edge of the wave or the trailing crash of the foam. Should these HBGary like organizations get lulzed out of their false sense of security, we may well see a real world response. If they snooze too long, then in the years to come we may end up looking back at Anonymous as the founders of our new global moral consciousness.