**Please Note: This has nothing to do with food, but is for a class assignment**
Internet Vigilantism: A Forfeit of Privacy
This past summer, the family of a thirteen-year-old autistic
boy received a completely disgusting and reprehensible letter from an anonymous“pissed off mother” who suggests that they euthanize the boy because of the
noises that he makes and the way that he acts. Reading the story and the
reaction that followed marked the first time that I actively wished for the
identity of the person behind the deed to be revealed. Internet shaming can be
very dangerous and can easily get out of control, but at a certain point, a
line is crossed where the ends justify the means, and the actions of an
individual can forfeit their right for complete privacy.
There is probably not a person out there who has at some
point found themselves in a situation where they wished they could tell someone
else off for their behavior. The level
of blatant disregard for others can still shock and awe, such as the case of
the woman in South Korea who let her dog do its business on a subway train and
then flatly refuse to clean it up. Stories
such as these are jaw dropping in a very different way, with levels of humor in
the sheer boldness of the person in question. It would be hard to find someone who wouldn’t
take pleasure in being able to tell this woman, or the people who act similarly,
to kindly think of others when they go about their day. The Internet offers the
ability to say these things without instant repercussion, and gives the option
of staying anonymous to keep it that way.
Where it becomes dangerous is when highly personal details
begin to be published online. Where the woman and her dog crossed the line on
the subway train, so does posting her address onto the world wide web so that
any member of the public may be able to do whatever they wish with the piece of
information. The woman may have done
something publicly disgusting and she did not commit a crime subject to arrest,
but even if she had, her personal safety does not deserve to be compromised
before authorities can intervene.
My personal sentiments are not quite as clear in situations
such as Rehtaeh Parsons or the Steubenville Rape
case. It’s hard not to be caught up in the fervor and become actually angry
when concerning bringing those responsible to justice. These feelings intensify
when it appears like authorities are not taking the appropriate action, and
this can result in feeling like groups such as Anonymous are not only required,
but greatly appreciated. Anonymous is a
group of avid Internet users and hackers who
carry out cyber attacks on any institution, company, or individual who
seem to be getting away with wrongdoings, and are not held accountable by what
they believe is a corrupt system.
In the case of theSteubenville rape, the authorities appeared to be aware of the situation, and
making marginal progress. However, the big issue was that because of the
football culture surrounding the town, many of the individuals involved were getting
a free pass. Anonymous eventually stepped in and applied the kind of pressure
that was necessary to hold all of those people accountable. Some of their
tactics were harsh to say the least- hacking the various accounts of one of the
students’ grandfathers for example. But without this kind of forceful approach,
perhaps justice would not have been done. After all, Anonymous was not
incorrect when they point fingers at a corrupt system being unable to do what
is necessary. For instance, one of the lawyers involved had family connections
with the accused boys, and made a deal to keep several of the perpetrators out
of trouble- that is until the boot finally came down.
Wherever there is
seemingly just cause in Internet vigilantism, there are also cases of prejudice
without cause or evidence. One of the
main issue being, just who online has the right to decide the identity of those
deserving of Internet shame or backlash? In one case, a woman from New York was accused of scamming people for donations for shaving her head for Cancer
research. A single user of Reddit decided that what she was doing was a scam, and
proceed to make his views very clear online without doing any due diligence.
Within only a few hours, the Internet world was convinced that she was a fraud
and the story, along with her personal information, made its way to the
mainstream media. The woman, and her fundraising attempts were no scam, and the
original Reddit instigator did apologize, but the woman did make it clear that
she was upset and concerned. It is probably a good thing that Anonymous was not
involved, and that they seem to do their background homework before launching a
crusade.
There is also the
website called “The Dirty”, where anonymous users will post photos an tales of
acquaintances who they feel deserve to be publicly scorned, often for acts of a
more lewd nature. In itself, this is its own brand of Internet vigilantism,
where people take it upon themselves to act, and place justice on those they
personally feel deserve it. This website can hit far closer to home as well, as
there is a page for most major cities, and all it takes is one spurned ex-lover
to post things about their past partner which may or may not be true. The site
doesn’t go as far as to post addresses or even go after the subjects beyond the
time they spend at the top of the page, but at the end of the day, does it make
it any different than what Anonymous does, in that there are no guidelines, or
evidence to back up a claim?
I believe that the
short answer is, yes. “The Dirty”, while
similar to Anonymous in many ways, has a sole purpose of exploitation of
others. The crusades that Anonymous and the like take on have an end goal that
most would appreciate and agree is warranted. While their tactics may at times
be extreme and even immature, the result is a call to action against
individuals who may not deserve anything else. If someone is going to not only
do something reprehensible, but also document it on social media, I believe that they do not themselves deserve a just level of privacy.
