Summary Of Anonymous's Expect Us

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

Today most people would tell you that the stocks, pillory and other tools of public punishment are barbaric. We’ve moved passed them, having figured out more humane ways to deal with crime. Why, then, the resurgence of public shaming, namely the mainstream acceptance of the “dox,” which, in its purest form, is the digging up of a target’s personal information—name, phone number, address, Social Security number, familial relationships, financial history—and exposing it online to encourage harassment from others? This practice has gradually been popularized by Anonymous, the amorphous collective of trolls and “hacktivists” that alternately terrorize tween girls and disable government websites.

There are few places on this Earth, if any, where the possibilities are truly endless. However, if you detach yourself from the physical world and emerge into the “online” world, you find that this just might actually be accurate in this realm. The World Wide Web has had so much to offer to us since the early 1990s, but with this comes controversy. Unleashed onto a plane of seemingly immeasurable freedom of anonymity, was the world ready for such responsibility? Since those early days when new emerging technology changed our lives immensely, have we at all become a better place, or have we bitten off more than we can chew, and doomed our human relations forever? Exploring these concepts are three in-depth articles, including: “Growing Up Tethered” by Sherry Turkle, “The Loneliness of the Interconnected” by Charles Seife, and “Cybersexism” by Laurie Penny. Although it is thought that the Internet brings the world together, it actually does not help us politically, culturally, and economically like one would believe, as it makes us unable to be independent, isolates us from different points of view, and encourages real-world violence against women and other minority groups.

Using and managing a sockpuppet is an endeavor that necessitates vigilance, training, and proficiency. The role of the sockpuppet is still developing across the Internet, and it is important to recognize the historical significance of pseudonyms and anonymous speech. Additionally, it is critical to remember the unique, primarily autonomous nature of online communities, and the negative impact that mandated identification could have on free speech. The value of anonymity found in the use of a sockpuppet is profoundly connected to the establishment of the United States of America. Although John Hancock and several others signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with their real names, pseudonyms forged the journey to the freedoms outlined in those documents. These early examples of sockpuppets disseminated publications which united colonizers to fight for independence. The question of anonymity was not as important as working together to fight persecution. The Silence Dogood letters, Common Sense, The Federalist Papers, and other writings exemplify an author's purpose for anonymity. This initial use of sockpuppets during the American Revolution carved a precedent for the importance of anonymity and pseudonymity in the United States, and, therefore, led to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The goal is to inform the public of the facts about hackers and the influences from pop culture and mainstream media that have changed society’s perception of hackers over time. I will also discuss statistical data about society’s fear of hackers and how it has changed the perception of hackers. If I can convince the readers that hackers are responsible for many of the technological innovations over the last 50 years, it will help me argue my point and hopefully persuade people to reconsider their opinions of hackers. The ultimate goal is to persuade people to redefine their definition of hackers and hope that society will use the correct classifications when reporting about them or describing their character in pop culture, but I would be satisfied if I could just create a platform for the next step on the road to change. One thing that absolutely amazed me was the amount of new information that is created and distributed every year. I learned that it is important to make sure that the message is strong and loud so it will not be lost amongst all the other information. An argument must be clear and maintain focus so that the audience will not become disinterested or

They’re calling for hackers everywhere to unite for a common purpose, to bring down Lex Lu-- Donald Trump. Appalled by his divisive ideas and witnessing the looming threat to civil liberty. Anonymous are seeking to rip the legs from under his high horse by revealing to the world who Donald really is, a self absorbed child who's only looking to benefit

“Dragnet Nation” author Julia Angwin and Bruce Wayne are surprisingly similar. Both have struggles with keeping private life private, dealing with baddies, and being a bit paranoid. However, unlike Batman, “Dragnet Nation” isn’t groundbreaking. Yet despite stating obvious facts, and doing more to entice paranoia than inform, Angwin does have a solid underlying point: They key to online privacy is pseudonymity. Providing false information in order to protect oneself and others, is quite simple to apply, and can deter social engineering attacks. Be that as it may, pseudonymity can be used for less noble purposes.

Kenneth first premise is that hacktivism with political motivation is digital civil disobedience. She argues that the characteristics of hacktivists and the motivation of the act decided

In todays time just one hacker can infiltrate governments and companies and release mass amounts of private information and details. The secret hacking group, Anonymous is a group of unknown hackers that have recently been hunted down by governments around the world (mainly the US and British). They should not be looked at as “domestic terrorists” but as protesting citizens. Terrorists put fear into people, but Anonymous interests the public. They have even been called “Digital Robin Hoods” (Carter, 2012). Since Anonymous mostly goes after companies and organizations they believe are corrupt or bad, and since they don't do any physical harm to anyone they should not be persecuted and put in jail. They release private information about the websites of companies, religious groups, and governments to show the public who they really are and what they are really doing. They also use a tactic called DDos which is basically where Anonymous overruns a website so much nobody else can then on go on that website.The U.S. government goes after anonymous hacktivists and similar groups but turns a blind eye to pro US/anti Terrorist hackers. A con of what Anonymous does is that when they release private government documents via Wikileaks or different sources, other governments like China and Russia can access the information released which can possibly be threatening to the U.S.

The loose-knit hacking movement “Anonymous” claimed Sunday to have stolen thousands of credit card numbers and other personal information belonging to clients of U.S.-based security think tank Stratfor. One hacker said the goal was to pilfer funds from individuals’ accounts to give away as Christmas donations, and some victims confirmed unauthorized transactions linked to their credit cards.

Adam Segal’s “The Hacked World Order” reveals many prevalent issues in today’s technologically centered society. Starting at Year Zero, June 2012 to June 2013, the battle over cyberspace witnessed world-changing cyberattacks. This was accomplished due to the fact that nearly 75% of the world’s population has easy access to a mobile phone, and the Internet connects nearly 40% of the total human population, which is nearly 2.7 billion people. With that being said, cyberattacks are becoming a more realistic form of terror.

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

The film Killswitch was about the government trying to monopolize and control user traffic on the internet. Whether it is for security purposes or financial gain, our system of democracy is being compromised at a technological level. Several speakers including Tim Wu, expressed how “hacktivism” was a revolutionary tool used to take a stand against government interference.

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

To be able to properly analyze and apply political theories to a cyber-realm, we must understand that connecting to the internet is much like a social contract. When you sign on the internet you are