Who Was That Masked Man?

With a mixture of righteous indignation and outrageous prankery, the hacker collective Anonymous has emerged as a surprisingly potent actor in global politics. But what do they actually want, and how should governments respond?

BY NATE ANDERSON | JANUARY 31, 2012

It's been denounced by NATO, targeted by the FBI, and subjected to dozens of frenzied editorials. Targets as varied as Bank of America, Sony, the Justice Department, and the government of Egypt have felt its wrath. Its trademark symbols have appeared everywhere from the streets of Cairo to Occupy Wall Street to the Polish parliament.  For a group that sprang organically from an Internet forum normally devoted to anime cartoons and cat videos, the amorphous hacker/prankster collective known as "Anonymous" has become a surprisingly potent actor in global politics. But to understand the forces that make the group tick, let's look back to a time before SOPA and the Arab Spring and consider the strange story of one "Agent Pubeit."

On Jan. 14, 2009, an 18-year-old man emerged shirtless from the New York City subway system and walked through Times Square, heading toward the Scientology center on West 46th Street. The man was about to become the face -- and hairy chest -- of the Anonymous movement. If his skin looked a bit shiny, this wasn't a trick of the light; "Agent Pubeit" had been slathered in petroleum jelly. Toenail clippings and piles of -- to put it delicately -- non-cranial hair had been carefully stuck all over his back, chest, and arms.

The effect was obscene -- but then, according to a sizable number of "Anons" -- so was the Church of Scientology. No longer content with the pure prankery of their early days, such as bombarding a California student with pornography and pizza deliveries for having the temerity to run a "No Cussing Club," Anonymous found in Scientology an adversary that provided a moralistic dimension for the group's antics. Anons argued that the church was, in fact, a dangerous cult that brainwashed its overcharged members and that its tax-exempt status should be revoked.

Throughout 2008, Anonymous's online campaign led to offline protests against Scientology around the world, in which the (mostly) young and (mostly) male Anons showed up with signs and wearing their signature Guy Fawkes masks from the movie V for Vendetta. Other Anons flooded the Scientology website with data, shutting it down for several days.

But nothing could have prepared Scientology for Agent Pubeit, who entered the 46th Street center and began, in the immortal words of the New York Daily News, to "'desecrate' the Church of Scientology with a wacky weapon -- Vaseline." Agent Pubeit touched everything he could put his greasy body on and then walked out of the center and into Anonymous infamy. A fellow Anon had followed him through Midtown with a camera to record the inevitable YouTube video that would accompany his exploits; the clip has been viewed 164,000 times.

The broader campaign against Scientology garnered Anonymous its first mainstream media attention, but it was the Pubeit operation that perfectly embodied the group's schizophrenic embrace of both morality and pranksterism. Anonymous routinely veers sharply among earnest actions against censorship and repression, online vigilantism, outright cybercrime, and pranks -- the more outrageous, the better. When Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly angered Anonymous in 2008, for instance, the group hacked his website in protest -- but the spat didn't end there. FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that some Anons couldn't resist using a credit card stolen in the attack to send "penile enlargement" products to one of the talkshow host's female fans; they then sent out pictures of -- in the FBI's own words -- "three men performing oral" to everyone in the woman's electronic address book.

MOHD RASFAN/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Nate Anderson is senior editor at Ars Technica, where he covers law and technology policy. He is also hard at work on a book about Internet policing.

MISSMUFFET

6:22 PM ET

January 31, 2012

Zippity do-dah...

Nate failed to note the real issue with Anonymous, the fact is they don't own the floor their electronics is on....usually coming from defunct, non-functional, not there or drunk/drugged parents who keep them for the while, they do what they will until they get a job/girl/boy and then slow creeps in...but there is always the new meat of guys (seems to be the Great All for now) coming out to play on the Internet. Not likely to function well in serving mankind in the long run....more like the High School Riot after the Big Game.

 

SEMICOLONBACKSLASH

10:05 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Anonymous

I think you're misjudging the primary participants in this. While the ones who have been caught or public have been 16-21 year old individuals, students, et al, the ones who haven't been caught, and have been conducting legitimate attacks (think Lulsec, which strangely wasn't mentioned by Nate) are well versed hackers who make their living off of their computer systems. It's convenient to think of them as youngsters experimenting on the net, but it's a very unwise position to play them off as juvenile delinquents.

 

MARKPEAR22

6:58 PM ET

January 31, 2012

I think

agent pubeit is a funny name.

 

KBC

7:45 PM ET

January 31, 2012

Anarchy Grows

Anons or Al Qaeda, internet is fast becoming an idea that is getting out of control. Not to mention the other good things about the net as well.

 

DIANA RELKE

2:53 PM ET

February 2, 2012

say what?

Out of whose control?

 

KBC

8:56 AM ET

February 3, 2012

authority

religious or secular, whatever onesays. The same authority that keeps us from killing each other and kills us to maintain itself.

 

SEMICOLONBACKSLASH

10:13 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Good read

Glad to see this getting coverage. The US is scrambling to put together an efficient Cyberbrigade to combat online threats such as these. The real issue being that these hackers make legitimate money in the computer industry and in their personal lives, money that would be hard matched by the DoD when they go around recruiting. And training a new enlistee in the level of programming to thwart these attacks is incredibly time consuming and resource draining.

The Anon campaigns that have occured can somewhat be characterized by the target and delivery method. While the attacks attempting to take down websites for a few hours, or prank are conducted by the group at large, some of the more technically accomplished tasks seem to be conducted by a select few concerning targets that are deemed incredibly important. When the outcome of an attack becomes email database lists, passwords, account numbers, et al, it seems to be a collection of hackers who coordinate under the concept of Lulsec . Hopefully we'll see more coverage of this from FP, as Anon gets joked about infrequently on other news sources, while they continue to become a viable "state actor"

 

JEM40000

7:59 PM ET

February 3, 2012

Who Was That Masked Man?

I ponder why Anonymous chose the Guy Fawkes mask as their symbol/avatar. Mr. Fawkes as a conspirator in the failed 'Gunpowder Plot' did not meet with the most pleasant of outcomes.