How Anonymous (Narrowly) Evaded the Cyberterrorism Rhetorical Machine
This is a modal window.
Das Video konnte nicht geladen werden, da entweder ein Server- oder Netzwerkfehler auftrat oder das Format nicht unterstützt wird.
Formale Metadaten
| Titel |
| |
| Serientitel | ||
| Teil | 42 | |
| Anzahl der Teile | 177 | |
| Autor | ||
| Lizenz | CC-Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland: Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen und das Werk bzw. diesen Inhalt auch in veränderter Form nur unter den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz weitergeben. | |
| Identifikatoren | 10.5446/32180 (DOI) | |
| Herausgeber | ||
| Erscheinungsjahr | ||
| Sprache |
Inhaltliche Metadaten
| Fachgebiet | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
00:00
XMLComputeranimationVorlesung/Konferenz
00:25
ComputerspielSprachsyntheseTypentheorieWellenpaketMAPGesetz <Physik>ÄquivalenzklasseGruppenoperationLeistung <Physik>MultiplikationPhysikalisches SystemTermZellularer AutomatE-MailNichtlinearer OperatorGewicht <Ausgleichsrechnung>VektorpotenzialFormation <Mathematik>ExistenzsatzPunktWort <Informatik>ChiffrierungRichtungEinfügungsdämpfungt-TestMultiplikationsoperatorRechter WinkelAssoziativgesetzUnternehmensarchitekturKategorie <Mathematik>BildschirmmaskeFamilie <Mathematik>CASE <Informatik>RahmenproblemMotion CapturingMaskierung <Informatik>CybersexComputeranimation
05:22
TermSystemaufrufRahmenproblemVerkehrsinformationSchnelltasteNeuroinformatikCybersexMehrrechnersystemComputeranimation
06:10
RuhmasseEinfügungsdämpfungEreignishorizontCybersexZweiComputerspielKatastrophentheorieGruppenoperationInternetworkingVorhersagbarkeitHaftreibungMultiplikationsoperatorComputeranimationVorlesung/Konferenz
06:57
HackerGruppenoperationLokales MinimumCASE <Informatik>RahmenproblemIsolation <Informatik>MultiplikationsoperatorVorlesung/Konferenz
07:40
ComputersicherheitNeuroinformatikDreiWort <Informatik>Extreme programming
08:09
Einfach zusammenhängender RaumSystemaufrufVerkehrsinformationBitVorlesung/Konferenz
08:37
SystemaufrufInverser LimesRechenschieberCoxeter-GruppeVollständiger VerbandKategorie <Mathematik>CybersexURLVorlesung/Konferenz
09:58
TypentheorieAggregatzustandWurzel <Mathematik>QuellcodeHypermediaWort <Informatik>VerkehrsinformationComputeranimationVorlesung/Konferenz
10:46
ExpertensystemComputersicherheitVerkehrsinformationApp <Programm>ComputerspielAggregatzustandMereologieInternetworkingCASE <Informatik>UmwandlungsenthalpieExtreme programmingMultiplikationsoperatorDienst <Informatik>Twitter <Softwareplattform>EinsVorlesung/Konferenz
12:01
PunktRahmenproblemVorlesung/Konferenz
12:38
SoftwareExpertensystemMomentenproblemInternetworkingHypermediaRahmenproblemWeb SiteMultiplikationsoperatorDoS-Attacke
13:43
SystemaufrufFormation <Mathematik>SymboltabelleElectronic GovernmentDienst <Informatik>Vorlesung/Konferenz
14:19
CybersexMapping <Computergraphik>VerdeckungsrechnungVorlesung/Konferenz
14:44
Bildgebendes VerfahrenTransformation <Mathematik>Arithmetisches MittelGradientenverfahrenMereologieBildschirmsymbolSymboltabelleAssoziativgesetzGamecontrollerVorlesung/Konferenz
15:24
GruppenoperationHypermediaAnpassung <Mathematik>AutorisierungMultiplikationsoperatorAssoziativgesetzComputeranimation
16:15
ApproximationSelbstrepräsentationVorlesung/Konferenz
16:41
TypentheorieAggregatzustandEinfacher RingGruppenoperationMereologieCASE <Informatik>DifferenteAssoziativgesetzOrtsoperatorPhysikalischer EffektKontrollstrukturElektronischer ProgrammführerVorlesung/Konferenz
17:49
RechenschieberQuick-SortMultiplikationSystemaufruf
18:14
Vorlesung/Konferenz
18:37
MultiplikationSymboltabelleGanze FunktionMehrplatzsystemSchnelltasteElement <Gruppentheorie>Vorlesung/Konferenz
19:36
DatenmissbrauchResonatorFlächeninhaltMessage-PassingBitLeistung <Physik>PunktEreignishorizontSymboltabelleVorlesung/KonferenzComputeranimation
20:21
SpeicherabzugComputeranimation
20:43
SpeicherabzugE-MailInternetworkingNichtlinearer OperatorWort <Informatik>InformationExogene VariableDesign by Contract
21:07
PrimidealAbstimmung <Frequenz>Electronic GovernmentMessage-PassingDoS-AttackeVorlesung/Konferenz
21:33
GruppenoperationAbstimmung <Frequenz>VerdeckungsrechnungRuhmasseSymboltabelleDoS-AttackeComputeranimation
21:57
EDV-BeratungWeb SiteVerdeckungsrechnungMultiplikationsoperatorDigitale PhotographieDoS-AttackeSpieltheorieElementargeometrieMereologieRuhmassePunktComputeranimation
22:31
SpieltheorieBitSymboltabelleMultiplikationsoperatorDigitale PhotographieVorlesung/Konferenz
23:07
MomentenproblemMessage-PassingBeweistheorieEreignishorizontVorlesung/Konferenz
23:38
Ideal <Mathematik>Extreme programmingSymboltabelleFigurierte ZahlRahmenproblemComputerspielMathematikHackerAggregatzustandLeistung <Physik>MereologieRandverteilungQuick-SortHypermediaMetropolitan area networkDatenfeldMetadatenFahne <Mathematik>CybersexAssoziativgesetzTransformation <Mathematik>Radikal <Mathematik>TermNichtlinearer OperatorArithmetische FolgeVorlesung/Konferenz
27:23
GruppenoperationMereologieProzess <Informatik>Weg <Topologie>LoginRadikal <Mathematik>RichtungSichtenkonzeptVorlesung/Konferenz
28:19
Computeranimation
Transkript: Englisch(automatisch erzeugt)
00:23
It's a pleasure to be back in Republika. This is my second time. When I came here in 2011, I started to research Anonymous, and I just published a book in the fall. And what I'll be talking about today actually is some of the material that never made it into the book, but I'm just going to jump right in. So to kind of set the mood for the talk, I would like to quote Cory Doctorow, who
00:45
in fact will be talking, I believe, on the stage in a couple hours. Making us suspicious of each other, calling dissenters traitors, the point of terrorism is to terrify us. The Department of Homeland Security terrifies me.
01:03
And this is from his wonderful book, Little Brother, which I really recommend. So we live in a world not of terrorism, but we live in a world of multiple and proliferating terrorism. Now even though the term has been in existence for a long time, it has proliferated in
01:22
recent times. As we know, government officials across the Western world use the term to trap and catch multiple types of people and activities in its nets. Along with jihadists, the American government, for example, has successfully labeled environmentalists,
01:41
animal rights activists, anti-war protesters, and others as terrorists. Now in some cases, changing the law dramatically helps to define an activity as terrorism. For example, in 2006, an existing law which was called the Animal Enterprise Protection
02:04
Act was changed to become the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Since then, animal rights activists in the United States have been indicted under the law, including a group who simply protested using speech in its non-violent form of protests.
02:24
As we know, in the United States, the use of the anonymizing tool TOR can also be grounds for suspicion. As quoted extensively in the news, the former NSA Director General Keith Alexander stated that all those communicating with encryption will be regarded as terror suspects
02:41
and will be monitored. On this side of the Atlantic, French government officials recently invented a new, very troubling category, and it's called the pre-terrorist. And this classification was applied to a collective group called the Tarnac Nine, who allegedly
03:00
orchestrated a non-violent act of direct action and sabotage against the train system in France. There was no loss of life or even any threat of loss of life, but nevertheless they're being considered pre-terrorists or terrorists. One of the interesting things as well is that because the collective did not own cell
03:21
phones, this was also considered one of the reasons why they were called pre-terrorists. And I recently gave up my cell phone, so I guess I might also be a pre-terrorist in France. So one of the reasons why I'm interested in who is labeled a terrorist is because I study and wrote a book about Anonymous, a very rowdy protest ensemble that has engaged
03:44
in hundreds of political operations since 2008. Now because of the prevalence and because of the power of the terrorism frame, I assumed over the course of my research that law enforcement might be able to successfully brand Anonymous as a new dangerous breed of cyber-extremist or terrorist.
04:05
Under the right circumstances and with the right propaganda, it would be possible to represent them as the online equivalent of Al-Qaeda, and then in the prospect rob them of their political power. Now I don't think this has happened.
04:21
Anonymous is controversial, but I think most people don't consider them terrorism. And to give you two little data points to kind of back this up, I've gone through many news articles in the English-speaking world, and the great majority of them refer to them as hacktivists or activists and don't use the T word.
04:40
Now my second example is my favorite one. About once a week, I get an email from very enthusiastic high school students from around the world who are like, dear Mrs. Coleman, I'm writing a research paper about Anonymous because I really like them. Can we interview you? And you know, if they were considered like ISIS, I don't think you'd have scores
05:03
of high school students writing term papers in these very positive ways. So I think they escaped the framing, but let me tell you three distinct reasons why I think the association was in potential right for making. Some of these are gonna strike as obvious,
05:21
but they're still important to lay out. So the first one is the longstanding cyber warfare and cyber terrorism frame. So government officials across the West have been pounding loudly and consistently this drum for decades. And this is precisely what I find interesting. It's not simply a post-9-11 phenomena.
05:41
In fact, some of the very first warnings of cyber terrorism came in the early 1990s. So I'm gonna show you a quote from a report called Computers in Risk that was published by the US government. And they claim tomorrow's terrorists may be able to do more damage with a keyboard than with a bomb.
06:00
Now of course, after 9-11, this rhetoric only intensified massively and a new term was invented that has been just used over and over again. Then that's cyber Pearl Harbor, a catastrophic event that would lead to massive loss of lives. Now the second reason concerns anonymous itself.
06:23
I don't think their activities qualify as terrorism or violence, but as Cory Doctorow put it, there is insane risk taking in the collective. There's a lot of high risk activity. Take the summer of 2011. By this time, anonymous had jumped
06:41
and made an unpredictable leap from hell raising internet trolls into activists. Breakaway groups in the summer of 2011, in specific, LulzSec and AntiSec, were hacking nonstop and hacking with impunity.
07:01
They targeted Fortune 500 companies. They targeted NATO. They targeted military defense contractors and many, many more. They told the FBI to fuck off. Anons themselves became paranoid. One hacker confessed to me he was scared of being caught and being shipped off to some terrifying place
07:22
like Guantanamo, where at minimum, would end up in solitary confinement. It had been the case for Chelsea Manning. Even if anonymous' actions did not constitute terrorism, they were, again, high risk. Framed just the right way,
07:41
anonymous could be cast as computer extremis. Third, and this is where it gets quite interesting, even if the US and other governments rarely called anonymous extremis, or use the T word, others absolutely did. So for example, in February of 2011,
08:03
after Anonymous ruthlessly hacked a security firm by the name of HBGary, its president, Greg Hoogland, told a reporter, what they're doing right now is not hacktivism, it is terrorism. And the more interesting bit is that even if the US government did not officially call
08:22
anonymous terrorists, in secret, they were making those connections. Thanks to a recent leak, we know that the FBI placed one anonymous hacker, Jeremy Hammond, on a secret terrorist watch list. Hammond is currently serving a 10 year jail sentence for hacking an intelligence firm called Stratfor,
08:43
but to be clear, he was not tried as a terrorist. Had he been, I assure you, his sentence would probably have been two decades, not one decade. Thanks to the Snowden leaks, we also know that the British GCHQ demonized Anonymous.
09:00
In a presentation slide evaluating various uses of Tor, hacktivists like Anonymous are slotted firmly into the bad category, immediately adjacent to pedophiles and other criminals. But most important, on one single occasion, the US government made a very public attempt
09:21
to associate Anonymous with terrorism. It was on February 21st, 2012, in an article published by the Wall Street Journal. It reported that Keith General Alexander, who was then the director of the NSA, had briefed officials at a secret White House meeting.
09:41
Alexander claimed, and this is a quote, that Anonymous could have the ability within the next year or two to bring about a limited power outage through a cyber attack. Even without using the dreaded T word, and I found it curious that they decided
10:01
not to use the T word, but nevertheless were basically saying so in this quote. His claim was meant to portray Anonymous as a grave menace, as a threat, like the same type of threat posed by Islamic jihadists. It was the most vigorous attempt to convince the public that Anonymous was at root nefarious.
10:23
Now, as the news spread all over social media, I wondered, would this claim stick? I mean, the Wall Street Journal is, after all, a very reputable news source. But in the end, the story proved unconvincing. First of all, there was no known evidence that was given to the reporter,
10:41
and I have to say I'm very disappointed that the Wall Street Journal would basically publish state propaganda without evidence. It fell flat on its feet, and subsequent news reports actually quoted security experts who dismiss the NSA's claims as ridiculous and unlikely.
11:03
So the government's most vigorous attempt in casting Anonymous into this well-worn, scaremongering trope of extremism failed, but why? Why, when they've been successful in the past? So for the rest of the talk, I'm gonna offer five reasons as to why the state failed in its attempt.
11:22
I think that there's many more, but I've picked the ones that I could fit in for the rest of the talk. So first, as is the case with so much in life, part of the reason concerns the importance of timing and, in specific, who Anonymous decided to support early on in its activist life.
11:41
So if you all might recall back in December of 2010, much of the internet was pissed off, and I have a great little quote from Twitter that will take us back in time. Of what have either Assange or WikiLeaks actually been convicted that allows Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon to withdraw service this week?
12:01
This, of course, refers to the banking blockade after WikiLeaks releases the diplomatic cables. Everyone is royally pissed off. In fact, US government officials at this point tried to put the terrorism frame on Assange himself. Sarah Palin famously says, Assange should be hunted down with the same urgency
12:21
we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Now, everyone is very upset at this blatant act of censorship, and the largest and most visible entity to rise up in support of WikiLeaks was Anonymous, who targeted PayPal, MasterCard, and Amazon with a distributed denial of service attack.
12:43
And in the aftermath of this DDoS, the media attention was simply frenzied. I've never seen so much media attention on Anonymous. And Anonymous even landed a couple of times on CNN, which is America's biggest network.
13:00
And one of the crucial moments was when a liberal commentator, a moderate, came out in support of the DDoS. I wanted to show you a clip, but it's now gone from YouTube, but you can see here, social media expert Nico Mele says he admires supporters of WikiLeaks who are shutting down major websites like Visa.
13:21
So this kind of erected an initial important framing for the American public, but subsequent interventions were important for extending the positive frame. Up until then, Anonymous tended to focus on internet issues or censorship, but during 2011, Anonymous intervened in every single one of the revolts,
13:43
which so exceptionally captured the world's attention. In solidarity with the Tunisian people, Anonymous hacked into government websites. Many of the indignados in Spain who occupied Plaza del Sol adopted the symbol. And Anonymous played an integral role
14:01
in disseminating the call to occupy Wall Street, and they continued to offer its propaganda services, and then many other nones actually went to the camps across Europe and the United States. Their engagement with revolutionary movements was crucial. Had Anonymous only stuck to hacking
14:21
and never assisted in these historical social movements, it might have been a lot easier to simply peg them as cyber extremists. Now the next one is probably my favorite example. It's the adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask. Out of all the explanations, this might be the most ironic, but the most important.
14:40
Guy Fawkes, or Guido Fawkes, is an actual historical figure, and for most of history, he was portrayed as a villain, as a terrorist, because he and other Catholic dissenters tried to murder and overthrow the Protestant king in 1605 by trying to blow up Parliament. Now the British state for many, many years, again, controlled the image of Guy Fawkes
15:02
and portrayed him in a negative light. But eventually, they lost control over the meaning associated with the icon. Today, Guy Fawkes has more positive rather than negative associations. He is the quintessential symbol for revolutionary dissent.
15:21
So how did Guy Fawkes undergo this transformation? I know what everyone is thinking here. Alan Moore's graphic novel and the 2006 Hollywood film Adoption V for Vendetta, absolutely helped secure the leap from terrorist to champion of the people. But the metamorphosis of Guy Fawkes started much earlier
15:42
back in 1841 with this book. Guy Fawkes, or The Gunpowder Treason, it was a kind of romance novel. The author represented Guy Fawkes for the first time in a slightly favorable light. And then children's books started to be published in the early 1900s that started to portray Guy Fawkes
16:02
as an action hero. But in contemporary times, it is the graphic novel and the film which really cemented and secured the positive association. These media went the extra mile. Guy Fawkes became woven into the fabric of popular culture and around the globe.
16:25
I think there's other reasons too why the film and graphic novel matter. After the Snowden revelations of 2013, the representations in the film, I think, strike many less as fiction and more as an approximation of reality. Even if the British and American governments
16:42
are not quite as fascist as portrayed in the film, we do know, again, thanks to Snowden, that these governments extensively monitor their citizens and blatantly lie to them. Famous slogans from the novel, which have been widely adopted by Anonymous,
17:00
such as people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people, ring more true than ever. In short, the positive associations with Guy Fawkes as well as with the film, I think, have been partly transferred to Anonymous. More important, if the film and graphic novel made Guy Fawkes part of popular culture,
17:23
Anonymous took this cultural and fictional material and made it part of everyday protest culture. Okay, next, Anonymous's flexibility and incoherence. As everyone knows, Anonymous has no single creed, it has no single philosophy. It's a name that's been used by different groups of people
17:41
to get involved in very different types of causes, from publicizing rape cases to fighting state corruption in Peru. This sort of collectivist activist phenomena is not entirely new. It's an example of what Marco Desirès calls a multiple-use name.
18:00
Ooh, and my slides are stuck.
18:29
Okay, so back to the talk. Okay, multiple-use name.
18:43
And Anonymous is not the first multiple-use name in history. Two other examples are Luther Blassett, which was invented by Italian activists in the early 1990s and became a symbol that was adopted by leftist activists in Europe to lay claim to a bunch of pranks.
19:00
And then Captain Swing was a name taken by farmers in the English swing riots of 1830s to protest the introduction of new machinery. But what's so interesting about a multiple-use name like Luther Blassett, like Captain Swing, like Anonymous, is that it's difficult to brand an entire multi-use name and ethos as a single thing.
19:21
When something is not limited by scope or membership or creed, and when it displays a diversity of manifestations, it's hard to characterize and dismiss it as a single pejorative thing. So what is often seen as a weakness of Anonymous if they have no single message, in some ways, can be its strength.
19:42
Four, the name Anonymous has powerful resonance, I think, today. Anonymous has undeniably dramatized the importance of anonymity and privacy in an era where both have been severely eroded. Given the ubiquity of government and corporate surveillance, I think that there's something important
20:01
and appealing in Anonymous's protest against surveillance, but especially its powerful symbolism around anonymity. My final point is a little more elaborate, because I think it's quite important. I'd like to highlight now the importance of a single notable event that made it just a little bit harder for the government
20:21
to portray Anonymous as extremists. It was January 2012, and governments all over the world were considering the ratification of a US-led trade proposal, which was called ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement. Now, Anonymous, like many people across Europe, were against ACTA.
20:41
They thought it would control and limit the core freedoms of the internet. On January 19th, 2012, the Polish government announced they would sign the treaty. In response, Anonymous issued the following ominous press release. Welcome to Operation Anti-ACTA began. We encourage you to spread the word
21:01
of Anti-ACTA far and wide. The top priority is to steal and leak any classified information, including email and documentation. Prime targets are Polish government websites and other high-ranking establishments. Now, these government websites were indeed knocked off with a DDoS. It sent a clear message to politicians
21:21
who were gonna vote yes. By the final week of January, over 10,000 citizens had assembled in Krakow in a last-ditch effort to influence the vote, and then something unexpected happened. On January 26, 2012, while casting their votes in parliaments, a group of Polish parliamentarians
21:42
concealed their faces with a Guy Fawkes mask. At the height of an anonymous DDoS campaign, government officials adopted their symbol. One anonymous activist blogged about it and about the importance of the act. Anonymous is not unanimous.
22:00
An opinion on DDoS is perhaps more divided than any other tactic. Indeed, this very faction in consultation with anti-ACTA NGOs has been calling for a halt to the DDoS for the last several days. But after this photo of Polish politicians protesting ACTA went viral yesterday,
22:20
it is time we all reevaluate the role and legitimacy of DDoS. These parliamentarians were wearing anonymous Guy Fawkes mask while the parliament website was down due to a DDoS. I can't emphasize that point enough. This is a game changer. I think this gesture was just as important, was a game changer for how it legitimated
22:41
the collective as well as its tactics. This was the first time that government officials inside government chambers had taken on a symbol now irreducibly associated with anonymous. After this photo, it became a bit harder to paint anonymous as extremists or terrorists.
23:01
So perhaps it won't come as a surprise when I tell you this. Remember the Wall Street Journal article with Keith Alexander saying that anonymous had the capability to take down critical infrastructure? Well, that came a couple of weeks after this event, and I don't think it's a mistake.
23:21
I have no way to prove this, but it was likely one last desperate attempt to tarnish and feather the reputation of anonymous just at the moment when the US government was losing its ability to control the message about the protest collective. So what lessons may we draw from this story?
23:42
Why does this matter that anonymous escaped the extremism frame? First, I think it's that ideas and symbols really matter. Whether it's the ideal of anonymity, the figure of Guy Fawkes, or the contemporary figure of the hacktivists, symbols and ideas are part of the terrain
24:00
under which politics get fought and also determined. Movies and books and art can under the right circumstances change the world. Policy and legal changes are vital for transformation, but too often those that champion policy and legal changes discount the role
24:20
of popular grassroots movements whose power lies in part in their ability to package ideas and symbols in a compelling and artistic fashion. Ideas and symbols channeled through movies, books and other media are as instrumental insofar as they mobilize larger publics. Second, even if anonymous managed to avoid
24:43
being framed as cyber extremists, anonymous hackers and their associates are often punished on very extreme terms, especially in the United States. You don't need the label of terrorism to receive overblown punishments, and this alone can deter others from joining in.
25:01
Third, there's also no guarantees that in the future, hacktivists like anonymous won't be caught by the rhetorical trope of terrorism. The cyber warfare and cyber terrorism pumps have been so primed and for so long that all it will take is one hacking attack
25:20
on infrastructure to potentially demonize the entire field of hacktivism, so long as some credible association is made between the attack and hacktivism. And while I don't think contemporary hackers want to do this, the fact of the matter is the government spends far more on the surveillance apparatus than securing critical infrastructure.
25:43
And let's not rule out the very real possibility of a false flag operation, which could be used to justify more cyber spending and precisely be used to mobilize the terrorism frame to discredit hacktivists.
26:01
Finally, if the social life of symbols are essential for the success of political movements, they can be manipulated, they can be tarnished, they can be sullied. Or alternatively, like Guy Fawkes, they can be reclaimed by the people for politically progressive purposes. What we do know is that the states,
26:21
especially the American government, hold a very tight monopoly on what gets called terrorism. The U.S. government has engaged in many dubious and deeply troubling acts, such as killing people based on metadata alone, which was something that Michael Hayden, the ex-CIA director, admitted to.
26:42
This might be considered terrorism by some. As the famous saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Given the state's monopoly to label something as terrorism, citizens will always struggle to define what the government does as terrorism, but the state has enormous resources
27:02
to label who they want as extremists. Indeed, I think all radical interventions are so very susceptible to marginalization and to ghettoization through this sort of rhetorical pollution. But despite its radicalism, Anonymous managed to dodge the bullet for now.
27:22
Others, like Snowden and Manning and Assange, who also engaged in daring and radical acts of direct action, have similarly evaded this trap. I think they command considerable, even if not total, public sympathy. At least for now.
27:40
Will they in five years? Will they in 10 years? I hope so. But that's really up to us. Part of our job as engaged citizens is to ensure that people will continue to view hacktivists like Anonymous, like Assange, and others, not as rabid extremists, but as principled activists engaged
28:01
in some of the more essential acts of democratic resistance. Thank you very much.