Ethics kak 101

In this case study we will investigate the existence of the so-called hacker group “Anonymous”, as well as determine what actions they have carried out and what their motivations are. We will then analyze Anonymous as a group from various ethical perspectives in order to answer the moral question of whether their acts are justified or whether they should be condemned.

Do they really exist , and if so, who are they?

In order to answer the question of whether Anonymous exists, one first has to realize what Anonymous is (and what it is not). Anonymous is not an organization in the traditional sense. There are no official leaders, there is no structure and anyone (and everyone) can be a member.

Anonymous started on the website 4chan.org, an imageboard on which one can post anonymously. When doing so, one’s name appears as “Anonymous”. A running joke on the site is that there are only two people posting, you and Anonymous. Therefore, Anonymous started out as everyone who posts on 4chan anonymously. Posters often refer to the loose collective that is Anonymous as “the hivemind”. Anonymous has since spread to other websites, most notably the other “chans”, such as 7chan, 420chan etc, and their own wiki sites, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica.  In order to become a member of Anonymous, all one has to do is to identify as one. As there are no leaders to tell members what to do, participation in Anonymous’ actions are entirely voluntary, and actions to be undertaken are chosen by consensus amongst members.

Therefore, as long as there are people who identify as Anonymous, Anonymous exists.

What do they do?

Occasionally, when something or someone attracts the ire of a member of Anonymous, he/she will suggest said person, website or organization as a target to be attacked - usually by making a post to 4chan’s /b/ imageboard. If the target is deemed to be valid by a large enough group of posters, they will go on the attack. Popular targets include “emo” teenagers, the Church of Scientology, the Westboro Baptist church (a group of ultra-conservatives notorious for their picketing of soldiers’ funerals), or any target deemed to be “lulzworthy” - which is to say, any target that would provide suitable amusement when attacked.

Originally, actions taken by Anonymous were mostly limited to online mischief such as attacking websites (commonly by making use of SQL injection or DDoS attacks), spamming forums and blogs, sending thousands of black pages to fax machines (in order to use up all the target’s ink), placing orders for pizza in the target’s name, making prank phone calls etc. However, more recently Anonymous has also started taking part in “real-life” actions such as protesting.
When attending such protests, Anonymous members often wear masks - most commonly Guy Fawkes masks - or cover their faces in some other way, in order to maintain their anonymity. They will also commonly carry signs making reference to “memes” - internet in-jokes which are considered to be the height of comedy by Anonymous. Recently, Anonymous’ existence has come to public attention due to a number of high-profile incidents.

Recent Anonymous activities

Invasion of an Epilepsy Foundation forum.

In March 2008, Anonymous assaulted an epileptic support forum and posted flashing animations and JavaScript code in order to induce seizures in the (presumably) epileptic people that frequent the forums. Anonymous blamed the Church of Scientology for the attack, claiming that the Scientologists did it in order to give Anonymous negative publicity. Anonymous often places blame for their actions on groups such as the Church of Scientology or the members of the forum eBaum’s World. This is considered hilarious by Anonymous.

Attack against Support Online Hip Hop(SOHH).

Some users on the SOHH forum insulted Anonymous and they found out about it so members of Anonymous started flooding the forum until it was shut down. At a later stage, Anonymous performed a DDoS attack against their website and successfully eliminated 60% of the websites service capacity. 5 days later, Anonymous defaced the main page of the website with satirical images, racial slurs and stereotypes.

Attack on HBGary and CEO, Aaron Barr.

HBGary, a security company, who is contracted to help the US government to deal with Anonymous has recently been attacked by Anonymous. CEO Aaron Barr claimed to have broken into the proxy service used by Anonymous and identified some members of the group “high up” in the hierarchy. Upon the press release, anonymous reacted with a full blown attack on the HBGary website, defacing it. Aaron Barr was also attacked directly. His social accounts where hacked and  personal information was leaked on the Internet.

Anonymous attack on Sony Playstation domains.

After Sony took legal action against GeoHot, a hacker notorious for jailbreaking the PS3, Anonymous prepared an attack on most of the Playstation web domains. The motivations behind the attack were based on Sony’s restriction of the flow of information and condemnation of paying costumers who want to use their products as they see fit. The attack consisted of DDoS attacks and the acquisition of personal details of customers on the Playstation network.


Attack on Scientology.

Anonymous originally chose Scientology as a campaign target because of the events surrounding the now infamous Tom Cruise Scientology video. While the video itself was not enough to spark interest, the untamed aggression of the Church of Scientology to remove it did. Since the campaign began, Anonymous, along with numerous former Scientologists, has uncovered or brought into the public eye many illegal actions, fraudulent activities, and human rights violations perpetrated by the Church of Scientology.

Threat against Westboro Baptist church.

Westboro Baptist Church is an ultra-conservative church that is known for its extreme stance against homosexuality. They protest at military funerals and generally express hatred towards gays, the military, and anyone that might serve to draw attention to themselves. In February 2011, Anonymous allegedly threatened the Westboro Baptist Church, telling them that if they didn’t stop their protests and shut down their website, Anonymous would irrevocably eradicate the Westboro Baptist Church. The Church then told Anonymous to “bring it on” and insulted them. Anonymous denied that they posted the threat, stating that as it was posted on a publicly editable site, it could have been written by anyone. In a press release they claimed that perhaps it was a member of the church that posted the threat in order to provoke an attack and receive more publicity. Eventually Westboros’ website was attacked and taken down by lulzsec (specifically by a member going by the name “Topiary”, who is also a suspected member of Anonymous), however nobody knows who made the initial threat.

Operation Darknet.

In October 2011, Anonymous attacked the hosting service called Freedom Hosting, in an attempt to bring down child pornographic websites on the Tor anonymizing network. The attack was a success and over 40 child pornography sites were brought down. Account details of over 1500 members of the websites were posted on the Internet by Anonymous. The Tor network is infamous for being a place where people can post illegal content that they don’t want to be linked back to them. Anonymous attacked by using SQL injection to get the user database and then used a DDoS attack to bring down the sites. Anonymous claims to be strictly against child pornography, however some illegal images have from time to time been known to appear on Anonymous’ home turf, 4chan’s /b/ imageboard. 4chan’s moderators are usually quick to remove them however.



Ethical Analysis

What is ethics?

In order to analyze Anonymous’ actions from an ethical perspective, we must first determine what ethics is and how it can be applied in this case. Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality. That is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc. There are a number of different sub-branches of ethics, and a number of competing theories within each branch. We will be looking at normative ethics - the study of ethical action. It is the branch of ethics that deals with how one should act, which actions are “good” and which are not. It should however be noted, for the sake of clarity, that although ethics refers to the study of morality, one’s sense of morality can differ from one’s sense of ethics. As a doctor, one’s ethics (either by law, the rules of one’s hospital, what is expected from one, etc.) would force one to act in a certain way that would contradict one’s moralistic beliefs. As a soldier, the same rule applies. Within the branch of normative ethics, the main theories are the following:

Consequentialism

Consequentialism, also know as teleological ethics, holds that the consequences of an action should be the basis of any judgement about the moral correctness of said action. Thus, from a consequentialist perspective, a morally right action is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. Consequentialist philosophies include Utilitarianism and Egoism, of which Utilitarianism is likely the most well-known. Utilitarianism is based on the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number", or the maximum utility. Egoism contrasts with this in that it prescribes doing what is in one’s own best-interest (as opposed to what is in the best interest of the group).

Deontology

Deontological ethics, or deontology, is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. It is sometimes described as "duty", "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics. There are a number of theories within Deontology, including the Divine Command theory and Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative; the former of which states that an action is “right” if God has decreed that it is right, and the latter of which states that a person must act from duty, and that consequences are not what is important but motives. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted with consequentialist ethical theories, according to which the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics focuses on being rather than doing. According to virtue ethics, a person’s morality is determined by their possession of desirable characteristics, or virtues. A person’s actions, therefore, are not moral in themselves, but instead are a reflection of a person’s inner morality (determined by his/her virtues). The philosopher Aristotle lists some virtues as wisdom, prudence, justice, courage, temperance, fortitude and magnanimity, amongst others.


Introduce the case in your own words;
Summarise key points of some ethical perspectives covered in the course, at least three (3);
Critically analyse the scenario by applying the ethical perspectives;
Rationalise your perspective on \Anonymous";
Write a 10 page report, include references and referencing, also in LATEX*; and
Prepare presentation slides from your compiled report*.



Identify moral question
List philosophical views that can be applied and discuss them
Apply the philosophical perspective to the moral dilemma
Make a standing from a perspective and give reasons