Cyberlibertarianism which appears to have coincided with the early creation of the web, adhere’s to the libertarian worldview that emphasizes human rights, anti-authoritarianism and protection of privacy. It is a movement which “led to the rise of the hacker subculture” (Mitew) a subculture that detests any form of state censorship or surveillance of the internet, action’s which it perceives as a threat to a healthy exercise of democracy and injures the economic development of nations. It is this movement that has fed and encapsulates individuals and organisations such as Wikileaks, Anonymous, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. It has become a form of political protest that utilizes computers and computer programming. In many ways this subculture represents the gradual radicalization of the internet. As Julian Assange stated to Eric Schmidt in April “That’s the most optimistic thing that is happening – the rationalization of the Internet-educated youth, people who are receiving their values from the Internet,”
Early hacktivists of the 90’s such as Barlow viewed the internet with a strict ideological purity. With Barlow stating in “A declaration of the independence Cyberspace” “We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies.” Written in 1996 Barlow in an interview later reflected “We all get older and smarter.”Newer populist movement have in many ways replaced these older civilized and more principled groups. For example 4chan’s no rules /b/ imageboard which became inundated and generated the hacker collective Anonymous. It was conceived following a series of 4chan-directed attacks on Scientology websites in 2008 and is made up of the politically motivated and trolls. It has employed Dos attacks and disruption to achieve its goals.
Many of the prominent hacktivists are small collectives of specialized and talented programmers, rather than large-scale political movements. They appears often at odds with traditional activism, in that a few individuals can create such a disproportional amount of havoc without having to navigate the internal politics that plague the older and larger movements.
Often the core ideals of the hacker subculture; the free exchange of ideas and the importance of individual privacy are injured by the very movement itself. Defamation, identity theft, publication of personal information and encroaching on an individual’s seclusion or solitude are all actions which have happened as a direct result of hacktivists.Total freedom of expression can in many cases become an oppressive force. The anonymity of the Internet in which online lives can be carefully maintained provides protection and enables bullies, such as those responsible for the “fappening” to violate peoples privacy.
Interestingly their exists, extremely skilled counter-hacktivists such as the Jester, a pro-US government hacktivist who claims to have served in the US military. In 2010 with varying success he targeted Libyan media organisations, Jihadist websites, 4chan, Lulzsec, Wikileaks and Julian Assange.
When Edward Snowden went public, he alleged that he did so, in an effort to protect his own personal safety. With a public persona it would be much more difficult for the CIA to discretely rid themselves of Snowden. But in doing so, the focus shifted from the NSA and its illegal activity, to the persona of Edward Snowden, his personal history and background. People seemed to forget that not only was the NSA spying on ordinary citizens, they were making enemies out of allies by surveilling countries on a global scale.
Snowden was largely demonized despite there being no real evidence that the NSA revelations had a substantial impact on safety in the US or that the NSA’s widespread surveillance of communications improved national security.In actuality the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, appointed by the President, conducted an in-depth investigation following Snowden’s allegations concluded that the mass surveillance program was ineffectual and should be concluded as it operated in direct opposition to human rights and civil liberties. The leaks only really conclusively tell us that without any judicial support the government seized the phone calls of Americans without authority and that the NSA tracks user data from sites. Snowden recently stated that, “these programs don’t make us more safe. They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak, think, live, and to be creative.” Most importantly of all perhaps is that it violates the first amendment, as it violates freedom of speech in a very real way, as we have now all been labeled as guilty until proven innocent. The governments actions are not only illegal but they seen to provide no other benefit than to military contractors.
Now residing in Russia on a three year residency permit, its ironic that the country responsible for some of the greatest acts of espionage in the cold war Russia, is now providing asylum for an individual facing 30 years in jail for two counts of violating the Espionage act and theft of government property. Rather than fuelling further debate about the accountability of government in what should be the strongest democracy in the world, people have chosen instead to focus on the ethics of the individual himself. Yes Snowden did violate an oath of secrecy, but hasn’t the American government committed a greater crime against its own people.
The same can be said about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Although he may be a raging narcissist from most accounts, debate was squarely centered on him as a figurehead rather than the institution that chose him as a face for the name. Collateral murder, the wikileak’s video that depicts the brute murder of civilians and civilian children was blunted by the personal politics and hero worship of Assange. Even when reading the blogs for this weeks readings, debate raged over the figureheads Assange and Snowden, rather than whether government accountability is more important than national security and the rise of the hacker subculture. Much of the outrage about what the leaks themselves revealed was muted. It is understandable why organisations such as Anonymous want none of the personal politics involved with such public scrutiny.
References
Khatchadourian, R. (2010) ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency’ The New Yorker, June 7. [URL: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian%5D
Benkler, Y. (2011) ‘A free irresponsible press: Wikileaks and the battle over the soul of the networked fourth estate’, p. 1-33 [URL: http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wikileaks_current.pdf%5D
Sterling, B. (2010). The Blast Shack, https://medium.com/@bruces/the-blast-shack-f745f5fbeb1c
Sterling, B. (2013). The Ecuadorian Library or, The Blast Shack After Three Years, https://medium.com/@bruces/the-ecuadorian-library-a1ebd2b4a0e5
Midly disgruntled, Permanently Interested 
Wow, you’ve put a lot of detail into this topic, thats phenomenal. I did not know about ‘Jester’, so i found that point really fascinating. I liked your points on the shifting focus due to the public scrutiny of Assange and Snowden, I for one can see both the benefits and downsides to living in the public eye in such a way. Excellent work!
LikeLike