We will be knowing each member by Anon 1, 2, 3 etc. This is the first of the three parts.
How will you define Anonymous?
Anon 1 : Anonymous is not a party, group, association, organization. It is a collective, and the name can be used by anyone. We are an idea and represent only that. Anonymous is often misunderstood as a group, but we are not. We have no leaders, set rules, or set agendas. We are just a collective of ideas put together under a common name.
How long has Anonymous been active in India?
Anon 2 : I'm sure there has been Anonymous in India before #opindia
Anon 1 : To answer that question we will have to start from the origins. In 2001, a site was launched called 4chan.org , where people could share and post images and ideas without any form of restrictions. There anyone who did not use a user name was given a title "Anonymous". It began from there.
We were just an internet prank group in the beginning. Then in 2010-2011 it all changed, a revolution began where we found a new purpose, to use our skills to the advantage of the world. And hence was born the anonymous movement.
And to clearly answer your questions, yes there were many anons in India long before OpIndia, but in the true sense of Anonymous today it would be from 2011 we had a huge Indian team within the anonymous international.
So what became the first trigger for Anonymous movements?
Anon 1 : The actual beginning of this revolution was in 2011 when the church of scientology was exposed to be a very evil cult. That was nothing but a spreader of hate and a monetary sponge. Anonymous hackers took it upon themselves to destroy this cult system and began a war against them. Most of the methods we use today were made up during that fight. Then began the Occupy movement to protest against the unfair economic system and anti-free speech laws by USA. Then the movement spread with that idea of protest far and wide, and then protecting free speech operations like wikileaks became a mission too.
A church spreading false information got Anonymous this far?
Anon 1 : It was not the Christian kind of church, it was a cult organization.
How will you define the ongoing censorship saga in India? The Indian internet scene never used to be same before.
Anon 1 : Nonsense! That is what is the best way to define it.
Anon 3 : The walls are closing in. There is always censorship, but the internet has kicked up the desperation. The speed of the internet makes for little room for evasion. You can't have no censorship, however who should do the censorship and how it should be implemented are important. We censor ourselves all the time, when you don't tell your friend's mom that food was ghastly, for example, censorship of religious content started after partition riots probably saved countless lives. The question is if that suppression of free speech achieves something useful. But when you block a website over potential pirated content... what is the trade off? What does it achieve? For whom? It is not the existence of censorship that is the problem, but arbitrary applications for profit.
Anon 1 : Internet is the last surviving medium common people have to communicate freely and exercise free speech. The attempt to control that too is draconian idea and can't be forgiven. Internet is like diamond. It only has it's value because it is made to believe it is valuable. Any form of censorship was always and will be misused to suppress free speech. The ideology of anonymous is zero censorship. If you find something offensive don't read it. Same way we support censorship like protecting children from bad material. But We think adults are to have the maturity to moderate themselves, than asking for favorite service only.
Information is a buffet, you take what you want, don't force them to change menu for you.
Anon 4 : There has been few instances where people in power were affected. Example Abhishek Singhvi, and President Patil. After this, the desperation has spiked. You know that main stream media did not cover the Abhishek Singhvi case for weeks, even though the court had stopped only the distribution of video, not any news about it.
India has its own movie censorship board. Do you think having something called "censorship board" for movies clears the mentality of India? They want to censor everything they are not comfortable with.
Anon 1 : In a movie censorship it can help by not allowing one group to attack another. But same can't be done with news and information. Who are the ones who will profit from the website blockade? Maximum 10 people The company owners and the producer. And for that lakhs have to be denied a free means of sharing information. For example - Bit torrent technology is used to share Linux operating system in a cheap way as it is free licensed. what explanation or solution does they have for disrupting that.
Anon 3 : You know what is interesting about the film censor board? It is the only medium that gets censored BEFORE publication/release. Do you know what these blocks achieve? Control - not over piracy - plenty of that is there. But control over unpredictability. Vimeo and youtube both share videos. Vimeo gets blocked. Youtube doesn't. why? You can no longer have a youtube account without your phone number attached. The control isn't over piracy, but over the actions of the people. ALL actions of people. I can show you live examples of piracy on youtube right this minute. Accessible to you and me and god and everybody. If Vimeo goes to one of those govt meetings, and agrees to cough up privacy info on users, it will be unblocked in a minute
Anon 4 : Control over press and social media and information would do the worst ... hack people's mind.
Anon 1 : Facebook was not required to censor over piracy. Vimeo is used by 100s of free and small film makers in India. They went without job for weeks. No one cared about that. The government here was a partial supporter of the profits for the big corporates ignoring the needs of the millions. Another reflection for the corruption.
Related - Part 2 of this interview is here.
Related - Part 3 of the interview is here.
Don't you think someone who know law well, should file a PIL (against blockage of websites)?
Anon 1 : There are, but their court orders are never execute. And remember, Courts can't do anything once a law is made. If law says for this reason it can be censored, court can only work by that.
But there is no law which can order you to block a website right?
Anon 1 : There are laws. Our IT Act can. Our IT rules - applicable since last year are worse
Anon 3 : As per the IT rules, if I don't like a post you make on FB, all I have to do is send a signed email or registered letter or such to FB, and they ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE IT DOWN IN 36 HOURS. They don't have to tell you. And your post can be about the new T-shirt you bought. no one cares. And in any case, all existing public content regardless of medium can be blocked by courts
Anon 4 : People are already suffering due to this... and they are powerless, moneyless and contact-less.
While I am interviewing them, another anon joins us. The anon announces that their Twitter account @opindia_revenge, which was suspended a week ago, is back. Everyone in the room seems very happy about this.
Anon 5 : opindia_revenge account is back!!!
Anon 3 : WTF!!!
Anon 3 : YAY!!!!!!
Me : Well that's a good news.
Anon 5 : :)
Anon 1 : Wow good news, hats in the sky
Anon 4 : Yup ... another win for us :)
Anon 3 : hahaha... now we have two :D
Anon 1 : So they can do listen. Now lets hear the apology.
After being witness of their joy, I continue with the questions.
Do you think Government should decide what website one should visit, or what movie one should watch? Can't citizen think and decide themself? And i don't mean only piracy sites.
Anon 1 : Yes exactly. "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself .. it is the hallmark of a failed government .."
Anon 3 : I think the govt should block websites that are harmful for citizens in specific ways. Security, child pornography. But it has to be specific. Not blanket. And it has to be minimal
Anon 1 : The best thing is to warn them and let them decide. If there is a site with phishing pages, for example, you protect people by blocking access to it, or child porn doesn't need any encouragement. As I told information is a buffet , you are not to change the menu.
Anon 3 : Though a button, like google has, would be better. This site is harmful, proceed at your own thing.
Anon 1 : We anonymous are against child pornography like water is to fire, we hate it more than censorship or even terrorism.
Do you think Govt is under heavy lobbying?
Anon 3 : Of course. Not under lobbying, it is sold and inside pockets. Though it would be fairer to say that there is a symbiotic relationship
Anon 1 : Yes it is brother. I will ask your question. Who was the only group that had permission to run mobile services in india. It was only BSNL. Reliance started of with mobile service as if law was bull shit to them. Court asked them to pay a huge compensation to BSNL. Suddenly from nowhere a law came allowing private parties to enter mobile business. What the hell is that suppose to mean?
Anon 3 : I don't know if you saw our video. Govt sites were under attack from 11th to 14th - Nothing (happened). Reliance got attacked, our govt made history by getting the first Anon account ever deleted - says it all. Reliance, for that matter operates outside laws very often.
If you look carefully at how the government or corporates operate, think back a bit. Even the censorship thing. Sibal's unthinking demand for prescreening. It got him thoroughly trashed everywhere. He said he didn't mean censorship and no censorship would happen. Then, a journalist comes out of the blue and gets a court order to ban exactly the same content.
Anon 4 : And then judge talks about making India as strict as China ! And now, Gol (Govt?) is planning to stop SSL and HTTPS totally in India.
Anon 1 : As if china is success full in what it is doing.
Anon 3 : Reliance got a court order. Technically, they are supposed to have the injunction so that they can act fast against illegal urls. They used it to block entire sites, and no one opposed it. It just happened. What is more, ALL ISPs did that.
Anon 1 : But that is not necessary. URLS are not time bombs. People should learn tolerance
Anon 3 : Then, our hack of the reliance server (happened). We found urls blocked that had no call to be blocked. No court order, nothing. Reliance had blocked them, because it could. And while we got the list from the reliance server, it isn't too far fetched that each ISP has their own lists. Our issue with the govt is that it is the job of the govt to protect our rights. Which it is not doing. It is simply catering to whatever the powerful people want
Anon 4 : Government controlled media is not covering the fact that Reliance blocked URLs illegally.
