Such a deconstruction would not have been possible without having to have an overview of the origin and development of the phenomenon.
According to Coleman, this culture began back in 2007 when a group of enthusiastic computer programmers and hackers began organized internet attacks on organizations or individuals who acted contrary to societal expectations. I particularly noted with interest how anonymous graduated from the internet to street-based protests. The culture developed from social to political activism and even went further to activism against individuals1.
Pervasive anonymity is perhaps the most notable element of this cultural phenomenon. I concur with Coleman that, it is difficult to predict the future trends of anonymous since the culture propagates spontaneously by taking advantage of emerging technology. I, however, found it difficult to synthesize the ethical issues regarding this anonymous cultural phenomenon. This is because we need global whistleblowers that are always alert on objects of societal oppression. On the other hand, their actions may not be justified since there are diplomatic channels in which societal issues can be addressed.
It is difficult to discern the ideological consistency of their actions. How such a culture functions ethically and logically is perplexing. However, it is at least obvious from Coleman that anonymous would heavily retaliate to anyone threatening their identity.
I think such a cultural phenomenon represents the modern age way of dealing with issues affecting society. It is arguably a technologically based uprising culture.