Hacker withdraws from Anonymous: it was overwhelming

One of the primary reasons I had to withdraw from Anonymous was the overwhelming number of Child Sexual Abuse (CSAM) links and screenshots shared by independent 'pedo-hunting' groups in their chats, where their investigations are organized.

Many groups and individuals involved in online pedo-hunting fail to understand one critical element: calling yourself a 'pedo-hunter' does not make you immune from legal repercussions. If you're caught illegally possessing the same material as the predators you claim to be pursuing, that title won’t shield you when you cross paths with the law.

Think about it. If you try to follow that logic, any online predator could mask their intent by posing as a 'pedo-hunter.' However, the intent is not a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Breaking the law still makes you accountable.

I’m not speaking hypothetically.

Nowadays, pedo-hunting within the hacktivist group Anonymous has become an online social club consisting of hunters of all ages, including minors, former sexual abuse victims—many of whom have not come to terms with their abuse—and others who give little consideration to the victims involved in their hunting campaigns.

Furthermore, they will invite virtually anyone into their groups without proper vetting. This allows enemies to infiltrate hunting groups, scoop up data, and tip off the group’s targets about ongoing investigations. These groups are hyperfocused on achieving quick results, with few rules to discourage illegal acts.

This is why I am leading a campaign to provide guidelines and structure available to any of these subgroups of pedo-hunters within the Anonymous movement. Truth be told, they are never going to just go away. Most will never seek training or ask if what they are doing is helping or hurting the victim.

With that in mind, the best we can do is offer independent hunters a foundation. This way, we can reduce the harmful impact on victims, avoid obstructing undercover investigations by law enforcement, and stop the proliferation of CSAM due to negligence. After all, if you search ‘Amateur predator hunters gone wrong’ on Google or YouTube, you will see worst-case scenarios have become commonplace.

When grassroots operations backfire badly

I want you all to put on your thinking caps for a moment, just like we did as kids in grade school. Cyber vigilantes often fail to consider the legality of their own actions, which frequently mirror those of the very people they aim to catch. This is because of the mob mentality that often drives the Anonymous subculture.

The "hive-mind" mentality, or collective consciousness of people working together toward a common goal, can often manifest with a singular focus on exposing the enemy. While it may seem appealing on the surface, it can reduce critical thinking. In reality, critical-thinking individuals with diverse thoughts are always more favorable than a hive of drones responding collectively to a signal.

Last year, on June 17th, a self-professing online pedo hunter named Brandon San-Miguel was arrested on 10 counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing CSAM, in addition to one count of possessing drug paraphernalia. Although he was not associated with Anonymous, he claimed he was an online pedo hunter and part of an online community of hunters.

He claimed that he engaged in operations where he would set up sock accounts to perform undercover online sting operations, getting predators to send him CSAM, according to the affidavit. In turn, he asserted that he had provided this evidence to the police and had previously provided files to the San Diego Police Department.

“Many groups and individuals involved in online pedo-hunting fail to understand one critical element: calling yourself a 'pedo-hunter' does not make you immune from legal repercussions.”

After he was arrested on a previous conviction in 2023, a search of his devices uncovered 47 child porn videos and 14 images, with the common age of victims being between nine to eleven years old.

Based on the evidence discovered on his devices, it's not difficult to ascertain which side of the law he knew he was on. Regardless of my personal views, homegrown pedo-hunters commit the same crimes when they intentionally open links known to host CSAM.

Simply put, it does not matter to law enforcement what your excuses are—visiting these websites, downloading media from them, and/or taking screenshots for investigative purposes. It still makes pedo-hunters complicit in the same crimes they claim to be fighting against.

A case like this is a good example that highlights the legal and ethical pitfalls of pedo-hunting operations when pursued without a modicum of legal knowledge, oversight, and training.

When ‘hunters’ are caught in possession of CSAM

The recent arrest of Anthaney O’Connor, back in December serves as a stark warning to hunters who intentionally come into contact with CSAM during their investigations—searching for it, downloading it, taking screenshots, and sharing it with others. While it was never reported that he was part of a hunting group or was himself a hunter, he submitted a report about CSAM, but the outcome backfired.

This case also reminds us that just because you are issuing the report does not rule out that you’re not a suspect. Law enforcement has to rule that out. If you haven’t been engaging in the same behaviors as the person you are reporting, obviously, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

O’Connor made a report about another individual whom he alleged wanted to commit sexual assault against children. He said this individual wanted to send him links containing CSAM. Despite being the person reporting a crime, law enforcement searched O’Connor’s phone and discovered he had two images containing CSAM.

Additionally, his phone contained around six AI-generated images containing CSAM, among other related media.

“Cyber vigilantes often fail to consider the legality of their own actions, which frequently mirror those of the very people they aim to catch. This is because of the mob mentality that often drives the Anonymous subculture.”

Vigilantism, assaults, and consequences

Let’s touch on a case involving a vigilante who confronted individuals in person. Instances like these are not uncommon, especially when users post videos of their encounters on social media.

This is the case of Jason Vukovich, also known as the "Alaskan Avenger." In June 2016, Vukovich targeted three registered sex offenders located in the city of Anchorage, Alaska. He assaulted them in their homes, using a hammer in at least one of the attacks. Furthermore, he also stole items from them, including a laptop and a guitar.

He found his targets online, selecting them from Alaska’s sex offender registry website. However, he was quickly identified after committing the assaults due to his criminal history and public admissions on social media, where he boasted about the attacks.

Ultimately, he pleaded guilty to first-degree attempted assault, second-degree theft, and burglary. In March 2017, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, with a 5-year suspended sentence. This means he would serve 20 years if he completed his sentence without any issues.

Knowing the law

For those under the jurisdiction of the United States, under 18 U.S.C § 2252 and 18 U.S. Code § 2252A, it is illegal to do any of the following:

• To knowingly receive, distribute, or possess CSAM or images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
• Search, download, or share such material, including by taking screenshots or sending it to others.

I have discussed at length on social about screenshots, as this is one of the most common evidence-gathering tactics Anonymous uses when hunting CSAM operators and websites. However, 18 U.S.C. is very clear that even taking screenshots and uploading them to a chatroom utilized for evidence collecting is illegal.

It may be mind-blowing that screenshots are not considered admissible evidence since screenshots are merely images that do not capture metadata. They are second-hand pieces of data that are not the original.

In the United Kingdom, under the Protection of Children Act 1978, these same conditions and consequences apply. If a hunter uses AI to create CSAM, they intend to use it for online sting operations – this is also illegal, in violation of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which extends to computer-generated images, cartoons, drawings, etc.

To stay within the legal framework, it will take someone with the ingenuity of a hacker's mindset to discern the areas in which they can operate without violating the law, tainting evidence, or sabotaging investigations carried out by trained law enforcement.

Stop searching for CSAM and saving the links.

Stop sharing screenshots and links.

Begin finding solutions in spite of the legal red tape without repeating the same mistakes.

Be a cybervigilante, but stay within the confines of the law for the benefit of CSAM victims.

Observe. Report. Save the victim.

#OpChildSafety