Anonymity, vulnerability and cybersecurity: Perspectives from ‘Mr. Robot’
The condition of anonymity and how it’s become a weapon in today’s hyper connected world is quite interesting to look at. In International Relations, where we are much accustomed to identifying actions with actors (knowing who the ‘enemy’ is), the prospect of complete anonymity with regard to actions of global consequence is frightening. Who to or how do we respond when we can’t attribute a cyber attack to a recognised actor? In an increasingly interconnected world, who takes up the responsibility to protect whom? Anarchy is a cause of war yet it offers some semblance of order, as participants are clearly identified. Add anonymity to anarchy and you have a recipe for complete chaos.
This past semester, the discussions in my Introduction to International Relations class about actors and anonymity in cyberspace led me to revisit Mr. Robot, a cyber-thriller TV show which follows Elliot Alderson, a cybersecurity professional/vigilante hacker who joins a hacker group called ‘fsociety’ and attempts to bring down the world’s largest (fictional) technology conglomerate E-Corp. The show provides some deep insights on how the emergence of cyberspace has given rise to different actors and shaped our notions of anonymity.
From the very beginning, Elliot is shown to be driven by very personal motives. He believes that a set of ultra-elite individuals run the world and “play God without permission”, and despises E-Corp for its unethical business practices. Emotion, particularly that of disgust with the state of modern society, is a huge motivating factor for Elliot in his quest to take down E-Corp. That Elliot’s actions were linked to personal, emotional motivations got me thinking about something we discussed in class; that it’s possible for states to radicalise individuals and leave them to act independently, and that this allows them to derelict some responsibility for the outcomes of the radicalised person’s actions. But the thought of an actor acting anonymously and purely out of personal motivation (and not under any state/non-state organisation’s influence) is particularly disturbing. Perhaps that fear is a reason why such actors, when ‘caught’ are given harsher punishments? Consider how Gary McKinnon, accused of hacking and copying data from the US military (McKinnon himself claimed that he was only searching for evidence of UFOs), faced 70 years of prison if extradited to the US (he wasn’t, but the intended punishment is still noteworthy) and by contrast how a Chinese businessman was sentenced to only four years behind bars for collaborating to share critical military information with Chinese state-backed hackers.
Perhaps the condition of anonymity when associated with individual motives is so much more disturbing because of its gradual erosion from public forums in modern society (think of all the intimate details we share on social media for the world, including malicious hackers, to see). This erosion of anonymity, whether we like it or not, inherently makes us more vulnerable to cyber attacks and this is a condition Mr. Robot portrays to perfection. According to Elliot, people are easily decipherable because their vulnerabilities are “screwed into their heads” like a neon sign. Nobody is safe because nobody is anonymous. This has implications for our notion of ‘harm’. Because we are so connected in today’s digital world, harm (physical or otherwise) can literally come from anywhere, with no return address. The show demonstrates this continually, with Elliot’s hacking inflicting psychological and material damage to individuals and businesses.
Where is ‘anywhere’? There lies the dilemma of privacy and anonymity in the digital age. Information is weaponised, data is oil (though not exactly; you can’t leverage data the same way as oil and that makes it more dangerous as a weapon). The prominence of E Corp and independent actors in the series indicates that there are implications for our existing understanding of borders and sovereignty. Lines are murky. There are pertinent questions of who dictates terms and whose voice will matter more. The show offers a rendition of what would happen if an independent non-state actor attacks a significantly important entity under the protection of a state.
It’s both exciting and scary at the same time how there are still so many questions to be answered with regards to the governance and regulation of cyberspace. The emergence of new actors and the weaponisation of anonymity in cyberspace mean that we are now redefining our geographical reality. Perhaps one from where we may never return to peace. Maybe, as Elliot says, “wars aren’t meant to be won, maybe they’re meant to be continuous” with each actor constantly seeking limited victories, which makes deterrence and dissuasion complicated. Countries seem to look at cyber sovereignty as a means of simplifying the cyber realm. More control over what goes on in their cyber space means less threats from others. Cyber sovereignty may be an answer. But how far can you take it before it too becomes a tool of oppression?
