By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Correspondent for In Homeland Security
The next great wave of cyber warfare might already be here, existing between non-state actors, state proxy cyber war and cyber vigilantism. After the Charlie Hebdo Massacre in France by ISIS affiliated terrorists, the group known as Anonymous declared war on international terrorists. So far, they claim to have taken down hundreds of accounts and perhaps as many as 800.
A video announcement by Anonymous states: “The terrorists that are calling themselves the Islamic State are not Muslims. ISIS, we will hunt you, take down your sites, accounts, emails and expose you. From now on [there is] no safe place for you online. You will be treated like a virus, we are the cure…we don’t forget, we do not forgive. ISIS, expect us.”
Anonymous are technically savvy, moralist, populist, cyber activists that come from all walks of life, as admitted in the video. Their origins are highly Western, but they are an international techno-ideological movement. Due to the loose and leaderless structure of the collective, it is uncertain which actions are legitimate or representative of the group. Technically, anyone can claim a hactivist attack and affiliation by the group. However, if an action is taken without a virtual consensus of other affiliates or sponsors, that action will be condemned loudly as illegitimate. So in that respect, it resembles the structural model of al-Qaida that relies more on inspiration, example and innovative new methods. Therefore, Anonymous has an advantage in being a non-religious cyber revolutionary movement that involves the citizenry of a multinational base in staunch opposition to the international jihadist movement led by al-Qaida or ISIS.
Anonymous is well known for its denial of service attack against the U.S. government and other governments that it disagreed with in practice or for retribution of abuses. It has committed cyber theft and populist espionage. They have been labeled as passive Western programmers with rebellious and quasi-anarchic natures. They are passive in the sense that their actions tend to be non-violent. Attacks are usually that of protest or prank varieties. They view themselves as the techno-guardians of the Internet and the people’s digital ally against government invasion of privacy or Internet control, criminal matters of child exploitation and now, terrorism.
Perhaps it is better for states to be more “anonymous” when fighting enemies like al-Qaida or ISIS. Traditionally, this has been the role of intelligence and law enforcement. Sure, states have covert intelligence agencies, but maybe a better weapon may be a much larger commitment to black operations similar to something closer to groups like Anonymous, whose sole mission becomes the digital, and perhaps, eventually, the technological neutralization of the international non-state terrorist enemy.
The CIA footprint is too large when it uses physical and kinetic measures in coordination with Special Operations, for example. It is also off target. That is, it does nothing to stop the real enemy—the international terrorist or pseudo-jihadist movement. The repercussions of being visible in Muslim countries often far outweigh the short-term gains by states, as a lesson that should be well learned and appreciated right now.
There are other advantages for a state to engage in covert cyber warfare in the future. If there is no name or a pseudonym or passionate third party group, then there can be plausible deniability. The group’s positive pro-liberal ideologies could spawn many organizations that also target unfriendly regimes and even keep foreign government abuses in check.
Anonymous might be a larger phenomenon than we realize today regardless of whether the method is adopted or not. Between cyber activism and cyber vigilantism demonstrated by Anonymous and cyber terrorism demonstrated by al-Qaida and ISIS, a phenomenon of political power struggle becomes more complicated. The global power share is hinged upon a digital cyber framework because that is where the money is—in ones and zeros. It is also where everything else is connected or is headed in the direction of digitalization. Cyber security receives a great deal of attention, but cyber power struggles have been avoided by the mainstream and must become a central focus for future decision makers.
Anonymous represents a contender, therefore, of international political power in the interests of non-hierarchical populism. The future may involve a more decentralized power structure, depending on how effective or how yielding cyber terrorists and activists are in this new cyber warfare matrix. So maybe, it is better for states to be anonymous and take up their cyber model of digital and technological monitoring and response. On the other hand, following and or supporting this model will increase the acceleration toward a more decentralized political power structure. It would seem that the leaderless international ideological movement may be an inevitable trend in international politics and warfare.
Related: Obama to Create New Cyber Threats Agency
Note: The opinions and comments stated in the preceding article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
Comments are closed.