This blog is not anonymous. Even simple google searches will let you lock me down to a first name and probably a last name as well. You can easily determine the city I live in and probably also the suburb. But Anonymous is anonymous.

Anonymous is a group of internet users/vagrants who formed out of the seedy underbelly of the internet – 4chan. 4chan is a nasty place where bad people hang out and anonymously post bad things. It’s most famous for its Random forum where absolutely anything goes. 4chan itself does have rules but the rules for Random itself are summed up as follows

1. ZOMG NONE!!!1*
2. Global rules 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are enforced.

You’ll notice that rule 3 doesn’t apply, being:

Do not post [...] Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: “lol u tk him 2da bar|?”), anthropomorphic (“furry”), grotesque (“guro”), or loli/shota pornography.

4chan is big on memes[1] and one meme which has developed in the life of 4chan is that of Anonymous. It started out as an idea/attitude[2] and developed through a groundswell of disgust[3] into a concrete form. Today Anonymous is a group of people who are best known for their anti-Scientology protests known as Project Chanology. This protest started in response to the much discussed Tom Cruise Scientology video posted on Youtube in January 2008.

Tom Cruise loses it

Anonymous responded to Scientology’s reaction to the world’s reaction[4] to the video in a video of their own entitled Message to Scientology in which it accused Scientology of internet censorship. This escalated into a series of Denial of Service attacks aimed at Scientology web sites and a variety of real world protests.

Anonymous loses it

All of this has brought Anonymous to where it is today; a mysterious, vulgar, unregulated, non-hierarchical, not-accountable organisation which has no agreed upon goals, agenda or modus operandi. Right now they seem to be focussed on their plans for Project Chanology, but I have a feeling that it will be around for some time.
Personally I don’t entirely agree with their take on anonymous protest[5], but that’s a topic for another post. So well done to Anonymous. I am glad that you are here. More power to you, more power to all of us.

But that’s not really the point of this post. What I actually want to write about is Wikipedia, or more specifically Wikipedia’s article on Anonymous and precisely about the image displayed on the article – the one below.

Anonymous
Because none of us are as cruel as all of us

There is an ongoing battle being fought on Wikipedia about whether this image should be removed or not. It comes down to a disagreement on whether the Wikipedia policy on non-free content (i.e. the image) allows for content which cannot be attributed to any person or definable group to be used in an article. This is a subtle and fascinating issue. But first, how cool is the contrast between Anonymous and Wikipedia? Anonymous is all about personal outrage, disregard for institutionalised protection and rejection of any sort of accountability. Wikipedia is all about verifiable references, attributability and community-agreed-upon policy. 4chan (from which Anonymous was spawned) is all about uploading images without any sort of copyright/ownership. Wikipedia has long-running, principle[6] arguments about whether a single image should be allowed. Anonymous sees no value in laws/rules[7] while Wikipedia, on a daily basis, builds its policies into laws based on precedent and forum discussions. Interesting.

But back to the story. So Wikipedia is having a long argument about this image; here’s some of it.

Will: Speedy delete – in big letters: will perpetually fail WP:NFCC#10a because we can never know who holds the copyright. I seriously can’t believe people want to keep images that are blatant violations of our Non-free content criteria. Will
        Comment NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as well (although this is not relevant as a source was found that could be linked to…again, the undercurrent and implication of where the first source for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous).

Ayla: Overturn and keep. After re-reading the relevant policies and discussions, I have come to agree that the WP:NFCC#10a issue is addressed by the fact that the copyright holder of the image is either Anonymous (the group) or anonymous (undisclosed). Given the nature of the group, it is more than likely that such would also be the “copyright holder” for any alternative logos. Ayla

st47: Delete per WP:NFCC#10a. Our non-free content criteria are not up for debate here. st47

IronGargoyle: Comment again. As I clarified on my page (to which Sceptre has decided to conspicuously ignore, uncivilly shout down opposition, and use blatantly misleading speedy deletion tags to game the system–all due to his conflict of interest), works that are explicitly created anonymously are copyrighted–this is clear to most parties I’m sure. As such, for explicitly anonymous works, that anonymous individual (or group) is explicitly the copyright holder (and we don’t know who they are any better or worse than any of the many pseudonymous editors of Wikipedia). It’s not that we don’t know the provenance of the image (cf. some random picture without source on the internet). It was quite obviously created by a member of Anonymous. A little good faith and common sense on that point would be excellent.

Will: Comment The point is, with Wikipedia, we can know who uploaded it (example, we can differentiate between you and I with uploads). With 4chan, you can’t. Nearly everyone, especially on /b/, posts as “Anonymous”. We don’t know which “Anonymous” uploaded it, whether it was 123.45.67.89 or 98.76.124.3. Will

Coffeepusher: Overturn this is abserd, and at least the 5th dispute I have seen that is WP:GAME against the Anonymous/Project C (I really can’t spell it) that has occured since the wiki creation…Involving editors whos interests in the project are apperant disruption of the articles themselves and a complete contempt of consesus. it also is in direct conflict with the spirit of the rules that are beeing quoted. The Non-Free image rules are created to keep from stealing someones work without giving them credit. If it is imposable to find a spicific individual, and no one will be able to validly claim that it is her/his work, no one has any actual claim on the image (orgonizational or otherwise)…?!?Coffeepusher

Stormfin: Comment This shows the massive gaping flaw in Wikipedia policy. This is an image produced by a loose group that falls under the vague ideology of anonymous. Anything produced by this community will and indeed is expected to be edited, changed, saved and redistributed. To me, this is obviously the same as having no copyright license attached. Of course, to the blinkered view fostered by WP Policy ‘it *must* have a copyright. Which it doesn’t. So we end up here. Again and again and again. The online world plays by a different set of rules to the real one, and if Wikipedia doesn’t realise this soon then it might as well give up covering online communities and websites.

Ale_Jrb: Delete – WP:NFCC#10a – the copyright holder cannot be identified. WP:NFCC isn’t randomly optional for some images, and as the creator of the image cannot be identified, it doesn’t matter what it’s of. Ale_Jrb

And it goes on and on.

This is a very relevant debate to Wikipedia policy and is best summed up by Stormfin in saying ‘[...] to the blinkered view fostered by WP Policy it *must* have a copyright. Which it doesn’t‘.

In my opinion what is missing from this debate (and by extension from the Wikipedia policy) is the issue of intent. Copyright[8], by its very nature, comes with a specific intent on the part of the owner to protect its claim to content that it has produced. In the case of Anonymous the intent, the principle founding idea, is to, as identifiable natural persons, not lay claim to or be held accountable for anything that they do or produce. The Wikipedia policy does not make provision for this: intent to remain anonymous.
To Wikipedia, keep the frickin image. Anonymous has no will, no hunger or identity – but it never forgets. And Wikipedia just cannot deal with that.

Several blogs have reported on plans by the Westboro Baptist Church(famous for GodHatesFags.com[1]) to picket the memorial service for Heath Ledger. They even produced a flier. I’m not sure whether the picket did go ahead, but the point is that they are protesting him for being a ‘fag enabler’ for his role in Brokeback Mountain.
For those who do not know the Westbo Baps, they are a bunch of lunatics from Topeka, Kansas. In the words of Wikipedia, they condemn lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT), Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as populations it believes are supporting the forementioned groups, including Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, and Americans.. It is their belief that all disasters/tragedies/problems in the world can be attributed to society’s condolence of homosexuality in that these are all results of God’s punishment for tolerating homosexuals. Their MO is to protest by means of picketing with slogans that are meant to shock and offend.

Hate

The family that hates together stays together

Hating for God out in the cold

Hating for God out in the rain

And so the Heath Ledger tie-in is obvious. He enabled fags(probably was one himself) and this here funeral sho’ will generate a mighty amount of media.
This is also not the first time that the Westbo’s have taken their unique form of Christianity to funerals. In 2006 they picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder. The Snyder family sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants were eventually found guilty on the latter two charges and damages totalling some $10million awarded to the family. All ends well then, the balance of the universe restored and fag haters hated upon by the just and decent court, right? Well, not so fast there dude.

In his instructions to the jury U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett stated that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide “whether the defendant’s actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection”. [...] also [in another case - Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - ] certain personal slurs and obscene utterances by an individual were found unworthy of First Amendment protection, due to the potential for violence resulting from their utterance.

Unworthy of First Amendment protection. The US generally holds the First Amendment to be the best thing since wooden false teeth and the crowning glory of their democracy. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you have to say, you’ll always have the First Amendment[2]. But lo! you don’t. If your statements are extreme and outrageous they might be deemed so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection. An obvious problem, then – what qualifies as extreme and outrageous? Well, it seems that a jury of your peers will decide. And their concept of extreme might include anything from statements of very strong blasphemy to aggressive racial hatred. And what qualifies as statements that have a potential for violence resulting from their utterance? But what is pertinent here is that this concept of extreme includes, in the case of the Snyder family, verbal attacks on people in a state of severe emotional distress.

This is an problem for anarchism – not that it cares about the US constitution or how it is interpreted by the US judiciary. Emma Goldman wrote Free speech, means either the unlimited right of expression, or nothing at all. The moment any man or set of men can limit speech, it is no longer free. It follows that she would have supported the Westboro crew’s right to spit their hate at the Snyder family and that if the cops were to attempt to prevent the Westboro picket she would be right there with the haters shouting down the cops. But is that fair and equal treatment for the family of the deceased? In my opinion there is an aspect to coercion here as well. The foundation of anarchism is the rejection of all authority and all coercion (whether physical, psychological or emotional). Is the Westboro picket coercive? Well, it’s not coercive in the sense that it does not try to force(coerce) the targets of the picket to do anything against their will[3]. But I do think that it is coercive in that it unduly crushes the spirit of another person, coerces them into despair.

So what would be the anarchist thing to do? Here’s my opinion (which I feel clunky about giving since I am only an observer in this situation and not committed to any action on it). Firstly, obviously, the Westboro Baptist church should have the right to picket and say whatever they want, no matter how hateful or personally and viciously hurtful it is. No-one has the right to prevent them from doing that[4]. Secondly, if the authorities were to try to shut down the picket I would have to side with the Westbo’s in keeping the picket going. But, most importantly, my sensibility would have to – must – picket in opposition to the Westbo’s and in compassion with the family. This is the key, my understanding of anarchism is that the Westboro church should be allowed to picket and shout whatever obscenities and accusations they want, but not without opposition. And that opposition should not be in the form of louder or more aggressive shouting back at the Westboro assholes but in the form of quiet and genuine support and respect for the Ledger family’s grief and their right to a dignified memorial and funeral.

[1] I was wondering whether I should link out to them – not that my one little inbound link would boost their google rank, but still. Yes, they are morons, but it would be unfair to not link to them when I always do link to the idiots in my other posts.
[2] And the second, the right to bear arms. There is no other commandment greater than these.
[3] other than to repent their perceived sins
[4] anything less and I wouldn’t be able to claim the right to busk outside my local church on a Sunday morning with an acoustic guitar singing Crass’s Asylum.

One of the long running[1] threads that I hope runs through thecages is the ideas promoted by Anarchism and Taoism, their intersection and divergence. To be honest, thecages is not an anarchist blog and nor am I a traditional activist anarchist. And I certainly am not a taoist. Anarchism and Taoism are also only two of the ideas that interest me and, in all fairness, can make for some heavy reading. Therefore they’re not exactly the most active topics on this blog but they have been central to what thecages has become about: individual freedom.

In this first post of 2008, I want to come back to Anarchism and Taoism, and to Taoism for the last time. Returning readers will notice that I have removed the Taijitu from the headmast of this blog. It has served its purpose and it is time to move on from it.

I first became interested in Taoism after reading a book that I bought for some bucks at the Greenpoint flea market before it was swallowed entirely by african curios and World Cup construction. The book is The Elements of Taoism by Martin Palmer and it is one of the most inviting introductions to a social tradition/philosophy/religion that I’ve read. It also manages to be balanced and realistic while remaining sympathetic to a religion that includes some really crazy ideas.
Taoism is founded on a fascinating and simple idea and what makes it unusual is that it immediately states that what it is about to try to do (explain how the universe works) is not only impossible, but unwise. Whereas the Torah/Bible starts by stating that ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ Taoism starts by saying ‘The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way. The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name’. And even more importantly it emerges that not only is it not possible to explain the taoist origin, it is not important to do so. This subtlety and simplicity appealed to me. But, as is always the case with teachers, there comes a time to kill the Buddha and to be honest that time has already passed, both for thecages and for me.

The traditional taoist sage

I want to wrap up Taoism’s time in thecages with a last look at the relationship between Taoism and Anarchism[2]. Previously I made two attempts at describing the relationship between these two political/social[3] ideas, focusing mainly on the areas where they are complimentary.
By way of a short recap, Taoism and Anarchism are schools of thought that hold personal freedom and equality among individuals as fundamental requirements for a healthy society. Herein lies the first agreement between these two, the need to remove of all hurdles to a naturally harmonious relationship between individuals.

The second agreement between Taoism and Anarchism is their concern with government as part of achieving a free society. Both propose to remove government entirely from the human landscape because government in any form is a hindrance to natural harmony among people.

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination.
Emma Goldman

and

The Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquility.
In this way all things would be at peace.
Tao Te Ching

The conclusion is that both Taoism and Anarchism promote freedom and equality and reject government. Where they differ is in how they propose to go about achieving their desired societies.
Taoism’s approach to the end of government is top-down, by educating the ruling class. It wants to awaken the emperor to the Tao and the principle of Wu-wei (action through non-action). And by addressing the rulers Taoism wants government to disappear of its own accord, not through a peasant revolt or the development of socialist systems, but simply because the world works better where there is no government.

In contrast to the taoist approach (disappearance from within) Anarchism wants to actively remove government, to act to bring about its end. Anarchist groups differ on the details of how to do this, but they all want to actively remove it.

Anarchism…stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral.
Emma Goldman

So here the two traditions diverge; where Anarchism wants action, active involvement in the process of dismantling every form of government and social or moral order, Taoism wants non-action. The taoist philosophy is for each person (the ruler and the common person) to abide themselves by what is natural, to withdraw into private contemplation of natural harmony and to live in tranquility. Anarchism wants you to stand on your chair and shout.

Shout ‘Me for President’!

So why has the time come for thecages to part ways with taoism? Firstly because I am not a taoist. Whether I am anything other than a jibber-jabber anarchist is another matter, but for now; I am not a taoist. But that is only a personal reason and not really relevant to this blog.
What is relevant is that the world is fucked up beyond measure. It’s been fucked up for thousands of years and it’s illness is accelerating. The world is accelerating and its fuckedness with it. To think that we can stop or slow down this deadly fireball is naive. The only thing that the last 6000 years prove is that humanity excels at consuming itself. And the way to escape this deadly explosion is to accelerate with it, kind of like Captain Ace Owens in Dr Strangelove.
It isn’t viable to think that you can withdraw from society or to try and restore it to some imagined simpler state. To really develop their ideas anarchists must immerse themselves in society and its absurdity. Watch more ridiculous television, inhale Britney Spears. Thecages is about looking into the monster, not running away from it.

So goodnight sweet Tao, you never really existed did you?

Let nations grow smaller
and people fewer and fewer,

let weapons become rare
and superfluous,
let people feel death’s gravity again
and never wander far from home.
The boat and carriage will sit unused
and the sword and shield lie unnoticed.

Let people tie knot ropes for notation again
and never need anything more,
let them find pleasure in their food
and beauty in their clothes,
peace in their homes
and joys in their ancestral ways.

Then people in neighbouring nations will look across to each other,
their chickens and dogs calling back and forth,
and yet they’ll grow old and die
without bothering to exchange visits.
Tao Te Ching

[1] though often neglected
[2] I can’t really claim to have given the subject any serious coverage, but hopefully enough to bring out the central issues of their intersection and departures.
[3] Seeing as I am not interested in the religious aspects of Taoism I have ignored these.

I ended up watching MTV’s Rock Chart[2] and was surprised at the liteness of it all.
Here’s some of what they had:

9 Nine Black Alps – Burn Faster: great song – especially the second half, see it here
8 Biffy Glyro – Folding Stars: good chorus, crappy verse
7 Good Charlotte – The River: I hate to admit it but ditto; good chorus, crappy verse
6 Sum 41 – Underclass Hero: see below
5 Linkin Park – What I’ve Done: utter crap

Of these the one that I’m interested in is Sum 41′s horrid teen anthem, Underclass Hero.

It’s not the crap deluxe lyrics or the squeeky clean ruff punk look of the dudes that interests me; though, before we continue, have a slice of some of the lyrics.

Well I won’t be caught living in a dead end job
Afraid to a government content cause
No sense against them
We’re here to represent
And stare right in the face of the establishment.

[...]
Cause we won’t give you control
And we don’t need anything from you
Cause we’ll be just fine
And we won’t be bought and sold
Just like you

[...]
May I have your attention please…
I pledge allegiance to the underclass as your hero at large.

[...]
We’re the saints of degeneration
We don’t owe anyone an explanation
F**k the the leaders
We don’t need this
We’re the leaders of disarray

[...]
Cause we won’t give you control
And we don’t need anything from you
Cause we’ll be just fine
And we won’t be bought and sold
Just like you

Let’s not even talk about the bitter, bitter irony of a manufactured punk pop band that kick and scream against being bought and sold.
Instead, let us concern ourselves with the fucker’s video.

The video for the song is a standard jump around affair set at a US high school football rally(yawn) around a bonfire featuring a motley collection of US teenage stereotypes (cheerleaders, goth/punks, the fat guy) all bopping along with the Sum41 krew. So far there’s nothing shocking. But what’s this? In patches during the vid. (particularly at the start) it includes a guy dressed up in a stuffed toy version of the classic anarchist symbol, complete with little eyeballs. And so we have little anarchist man bopping around the fire, at one point joined by fat guy #1 while Sum41 shout about buying and selling.

Freedom Lite

Outrage! How dare they use the anarchist standard in this fleapit of commercialised pop nonsense? This is misappropriation and just plain wrong! Or is it?
Back in 1990/1 Nirvana also used cheerleaders in their video for Smells Like Teen Spirit[3] and the cheerleaders had the same anarchist symbol emblazoned on their black outfits. But those cheerleaders were badass and had underarm hair. These visions of All-American youthful rebellion come nowhere near that smoky scene. So Sum41 are not the first packaged rock band to use the symbol[4], but surely this is a horror of fakiness?

In short, yes it is. The Sum41 video is a horror of commercialised rebellion, packaged identities and all around fakiness – but it still doesn’t mean that they should be denounced for using the anarchist symbol. Here’s why; the anarchist symbol and flag doesn’t and shouldn’t belong to anyone. Any liteweight typist with a blog should be allowed to have it in the top right hand corner of their site. And if such a blogger were to want to go even further and combine it with other symbols (such as an ancient eastern philosophical and religious one) into a shopping basket of post-modern lifestyle politics, they should be allowed to do that as well.
It is a basic requirement of anarchism that it should not in any way prevent anyone from claiming the name, its symbols and its ideas, no matter to what extent they dilute or twist them. If someone comes up to you and says Hey man! You can’t wear that anarchisto patch on your jacket ’cause you’re not a reall anarchist, yeah, you should say: Fuck you! your concept of what anarchism should be has no bearing on my freedom to have my own concept of what it is or might be and how I represent it.
If that person doesn’t immediately say something to the effect of Yes, freedom of the individual is more important than the protection of any symbol or name – more power to you, then they have missed the point of anarchism.

And so, to Sum41 I say; dudes, I hate your video – it’s really cheesy and crap – but more power to you and your anarchist stuffed toy. It’s yours take make of what you want.

[1] and now click this text to go back to where you came from
[2] due to a lack of new episodes of Girls of the Playboy Mansion
[3] I really should stop writing about Nirvana (see the Korn post) – I certainly don’t have nostalgia for them. Their impact on music was significant, but no more so than other noisy bands over the years.
[4] Ashlee Simpson did the same in some of her live shows.

Dsclaimer: the facts of this story are totally ripped from another source

This is fantastic!
It’s massively parallel, free[1], egalitarian and faster than a speeding bullet. When will people learn that the fastest way to spread a piece of information across the internet it to try to have it banned?

Digg.com recently had a story posted about an HD-DVD encryption key: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0.
The AACS LA sent a takedown notice to Digg who stuck the following on their blog:

We’ve been notified by the owners of this intellectual property that they believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights. In order to respect these rights and to comply with the law, we have removed postings of the key that have been brought to our attention.
…
Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information – and we want Digg to continue to be a great resource for finding the best content. However, in order for that to happen, we all need to work together to protect Digg from exposure to lawsuits that could very quickly shut us down.

Here’s the fantastic part, the response from the Digg users was to start posting thousands of stories containing the key, nearly bringing Digg grinding to a halt in a rockin’ display of the Streisand Effect.
The following soon appeared on the Digg blog:

Today was an insane day… After seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

By now the internet is saturated with the infamous number and the AACS LA have had their asses handed to them by the little guy.

May you live in interesting times.

Of course this is not the first time that trying to prevent the publication of a DVD-related hack on the internet has caused its rampant multiplication.
Way back in 1999[2] DVD Jon and two others posted DeCSS, a DVD descrambler. The DVD CCA, the AACS LA for the DVD-era, were granted an injunction prohibiting the publication of the source code. The result was emphatic. Before you could say multi-zone-DVD-player the source code had blasted its way across the internet in numerous forms including images of the code, t-shirts, english descriptions of the code, a haiku poem and dramatic readings.

What makes the Digg action different is not the speed at which a ‘banned’ item spread across the internet in protest, it’s the way in which the protest started. What happened at Digg was that the users of Digg essentially hijacked the site by flooding it with the HD-DVD key.
The big thing about web 2.0[3] is that its lifeblood is user contributions, community involvement. This means that the users of a site such as Digg can, in protest, take control of that site in a totally unregulated way. There is no organising comittee that decides to bomb Digg – if there is enough groundswell support for an idea it becomes unstoppable[4].
And the Digg administrators must have realised this, control of the site doesn’t belong to them anymore.

I can’t wait to see how the internet will surprise and confound me next!

Update: Boing-Boing reports that the number of pages carrying the AACS LA key is now at 368,000 – up from 36,000 a day ago.

[1] in both senses of the word
[2] remember the Millenium Bug? !!!
[3] which, as we all know, is dead and over and has been surpassed by web 3.0
[4] this is anarchism at its best, an idea that spreads from person to person and becomes unstoppable by the sheer number of individuals that are in agreement about it.