Crossing back from the other side

Another Anonymous-themed post, however it is on a topic that is particularly interesting and is a continuation of my core thesis. Two events of Anonymous' actions of recent times have come to my attention, and highlight the continuing adaptation, change and development of the collective into new and interesting areas.

The first is a spinoff movement towards conducting a guerilla campaign of security analysis - first targeting the already under-scrutiny Chinese agricultural compay Chaoda Modern Agriculture; questioning profit margins, curious resignations of auditing staff and investigating offshoot offices and websites for more details of and examples of fraud by the senior executive staff, publishing their report for free and in its entirety online, claiming that more than $400m has been funnelled out of the company under the guises of legitimate spending, with the ultimate goal being the total delisting of the company as a result of this investigation.

The second is an open threat by someone operating under the banner (or should I say, mask) of Anonymous to expose Mexican officials, journalists and others who are involved with the Zetas drug cartel, as a response to a member of Anonymous being kidnapped by the cartel in the town of Veracruz.

The first example highlights the diversity of the movement as a whole, as well as its acephalous and almost anarchic nature, and the absolute adherence to the core ideology of absolute freedom of information, especially information that particular individuals have a highly vested interest to keep under wraps. However the second example can be seen as a clear divergence from this core ideology - something which is impossible to control due to Anonymous' unorganised and inherently leaderless structure. There is nothing to stop anyone claiming that they are part of the collective, or that their actions are a collective response. In fact, in an inversion of conventional structural and organisational hierarchy and theory, these events and actions become part of Anonymous as a whole, regardless of how reckless and destabilising they may be.

As such the movement changes, evolves and adapts at a constant and unrelenting pace. It is entirely possible that this kind of direct vigilantism could become increasingly frequent, in which Anons attempt to "right wrongs" more than protect freedom of information, even using that same freedom to do so.