The Anonymous hacktivism: from aesthetics to ethics and tactics

Leiden University, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences , January 2013 Tatiana Medvedeva

The Anonymous hacktivism: from aesthetics to ethics and tactics The recent period is marked by an impressive number of social protests relying on global activist networks. Issues of globalization and new spaces for political activity afforded by ICTs are being explored in the study of this ‘third wave’ of social movements (Lindgren, Lundström 2011). In his “Why it’s Kicking Off Everywhere” (2012), Mason argues that the recent ‘networked revolutions’ resulted from a better understanding of power and new communication skills that were enough to mobilize individuals without previous experiences of political activity. Discussing the role of digital media in political uprisings and democratization, many academics point that “social and economic factor grievances alone have not created social movements” (Lim 2011:234). Indeed, much has been said about the role of the development and proliferation of the ICTs in the evolution of social protests driven by the crisis of authority and hegemony (Nilsen, Berdnikovs,Humphrys 2010). Characterized today by their scale, diversity of participants’ identities and flexibility of goals and tactics, decentralized and horizontal organization, openness and inclusiveness – they reflect the Internet communicative infrastructure. The new media empowered the new generation facilitating the access to information on one hand, and providing them with an incredibly efficient communication infrastructure on another, which resulted in a ‘cognitive liberation’ in a sense that people could overcome the alienation and realize they share grievances, aims, identities (Howard,Hussain 2011). Yet, regarding Internet as a tool, or as a matrix for coordination – is missing the media’s other features: if we certainly can not talk about the Internet as of a cyber realm apart, it is still a locale of struggle in itself – for the freedom of information and speech. Moreover, it gave birth to ‘natively digital’ as opposed to ‘digitized’ methods (Rogers 2012) of civil disobedience. From this fusion of activism and hacker competences, politics and technology, a new form of social movement has arisen – hacktivism (metac0m 2003). Moreover, the recent tendencies in global social movements imply a sort of fusion of hactivism and more traditional forms of civil disobedience and human rights activism. This paper will present and examine the Anonymous activism, considering that this social phenomenon may arguably serve an ideal‐type of modern international hacktivist movement. ‘We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget’ #anonymous Often called the Wikileaks main successors, an amorphous formation of unidentified individuals who label themselves as Anonymous and whose number as well as national, social and 1


geographical origins are hard to define (Coleman 2011), has been largely known since 2008 ‐ for their project against the Scientology Church, then Operation ‘Payback’ and support of Wikileaks; Amazon, Yahoo, Visa, MasterCard, Sony, FBI and CIA webattacks; hack‐assistance to the Arab Spring. As a social or political entity, Anonymous resists straightforward definition. A cyber community originated on the 4chan image board grew from coordinating Internet pranks to a movement for societal changes (Coleman 2011). Historically started from actions for freedom of information on the Internet and against anti‐digital piracy campaigns, Anonymous is a loosely associated hactivist community with a very vague agenda, conducting many parallel actions of protest organized by different individuals. Users whose offline identities are not known participate in actions coordinated in an anarchic and horizontal way on a myriad of Internet resources ‐ forums and IRCs ‐ to achieve loosely self‐agreed goals, principally opposing governmental/capitalist information flow control on Internet (ibid). Adhering to this vague cyberculture, participants share a collective identity that could be read in specific ‘geeky’ behavioral patterns, they are often associated with surreal humor and black comedy, having the icon of Guy Fawks as the main symbolic representation. Fighting for free information flow and transparency (as necessary for political decentralization and social justice), they use tactics of network mediated synchronized DoS (denial of service) and DDoS (distributed DoS) attacks, website defacement and even Doxing (ibid) as expressive actions aiming to attract attention to “the commodification of the Internet at the hands of corporate profiteers and violations of human rights at the hands of oppressive governments” (Manion, Goodrum 2000). In doing so, the Anonymous have often been misrepresented by media controlled by the neoliberal amalgamation of Nation states and international Capital, labelling them as irresponsible idealists or Internet pranksters and cybercriminals, which they partly are. While observers, as well as insiders, question the ethical legitimacy of their actions, new anti‐cyber terrorisms laws are elaborated, and the Anonymous tactics, already illegal, progressively become subjects of harsher penalties; many activists have been already arrested. At the same time, the number of participants grows even faster, reshaping both the Anonymous political form and function. Now they coordinate ‘operations’ of a wide spectrum – one of the most recent actions being the hacks of Israeli websites and the leaks of their data in protest to Gaza attacks ( anonnews.org ). Thus, the development of this virtual community connected with the history of their ‘operations’ should be investigated when analyzing Anonymous activism. In doing so, it is relevant to place them in relation to hactivism and new social movements. Hactivism can be defined as a “form of civil disobedience which unites the talents of the computer hacker with the social consciousness of the political activist [attacking] the websites of any individual, corporation, or nation that is deemed responsible for oppressing the ethical, social, or political rights of others” 2


(Manion, Goodrum 2000), which describes Anonymous practices. Furthermore, “since institutions today are no longer localized in physical structures but exist in the decentralized zones of cyberspace, electronic blockades can cause financial stress that physical blockades cannot” (ibid), acting as a group of hactivists, Anonymous can be studied in the broader context of new social movements, defined by Diani (2003) as a “network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals … engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity.” In the following, we will try to specify the Anonymous’ identity, ideology, organizational form, grievances and aims, methods and tactics, drawing on the genesis and evolution of the community and its actions. We will show how the ‘Anonymous’ activism, associated with cyber‐romantism and geek culture related to the hackers’ ethics, goes beyond hactivism in redefining its ethos and extending its agenda. Analyzing the ethics of anonymity and the command structure of the anons’ protests, we might consider that this social and cultural phenomenon – representing a ‘natively digital’ activism, a netcrowd gathering episodically under the Anonymous ‘brand’ – expands the paradigm of NSMs. Inception: aesthetics Journalist Parmy Olson who spent a year researching Anonymous, writes it was “a network of people borne out of a culture of messing with others” (2012). The Anonymous ‘brand’ arose from a specific cultural milieu of computer geeks entertaining themselves with trolling (provocative behaviour and black humour) and the “lulz” (plural of ‘laugh out loud’) on the anonymous image board – 4chan, described by Olson as “a teeming pit of depraved images and nasty jokes, yet at the same time a source of extraordinary, unhindered creativity” (2012). From its origins, it wasn’t a network of exclusively hackers, nor their set of values was limited by the ideology of freedom of expression and open information on the Internet expressed in J.P.Barlow’s “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” (1996), though it is essential for anons. Growing within a self‐entertainment environment, Anonymous developed a whole culture – Lolcats, Pedobear, trolling, – characterized by a grotesque and provocative humour exposing the aesthetics that has been cultivated within the milieu. As the name suggests, the anonymity, affordable online, is the kernel of the community’s identity and ideology, its ground rule. Anonymity means no registration for participation and meritocracy as for posts judgments, leads to a ‘natural selection’ of jokes and images that become memes and would go outside 4chan. Also, anonymity guarantees privacy. Finally, it promotes uncensored communication and anti‐social behaviour which results in a specific ethics and ethos of the Anonymous. At the beginning, participants discouraged from identifying themselves would gather for ‘trolling’ campaigns, essentially to harm someone’s reputation – for ‘lulz’ considered

3


as a collective “epic win”. These were nothing but jokes and pranks, “lulz represent an ethos as much as an objective” (Coleman 2011). But one of such trollings happened to be the starting point for a whole political movement. In the 2008, an ‘operation’ against the Church of Scientology grew into an enormous action. In itself, the Project Chanology was already a social protest movement fighting against the practices of the Church, in response to its attempts to censure the hilarious discussion developed on 4chan following the publication of a Tom Cruise’s pathetic promotion pseudoscientific discourse hated by geeks and hackers. Started with a video on Youtube, anons launched a series of DDoS attack on the Church’s official sites, followed by a myriad of pranks such as faxing pornography and ordering pizzas to Scientology churches (wikipedia). These methods were largely criticized as illegal and ethically illegitimate by both pro and anti Scientology commentators, but the ‘Straisand effect’ attracted other dissents. Finally, the action went offline – to protest on the streets – but there it was still the same aesthetics of jokery that gave birth to the Anonymous “meme” and visual culture. At that point, to keep the anonymity offline, anons have adopted the Guy Fawks masks – as an iconic figure of a fighter against authorities and as a symbol of shared anonymous prankster emotion and identity. This spectacle, described by a participant as an “ultra‐coordinated motherfuckary” (Coleman 2011) fighting against the censorship on Internet, attracted a larger number of users and gave them inspiration for further actions. It is then that the Anonymous hactivist protest aiming to “alter the normal functioning of the web pages of electronic networks of government agencies or companies considered as representatives of oppression and exploitation” (Castells 2011) really started. This crowdsourcing acquired a sort of Marxian political consciousness: the amorphous anonymous mass actually had an identity and a political role to play. The keys of their success were the tactics and aesthetics developed by Anonymous on the 4chan. Starting with the Operation ‘Chanology’ that is still active, the Anonymous ‘brand’ was mobilized to launch many parallel mobs: from ‘YouTube Porn Day’ (timed with the removal of music videos from Youtube) to the operation ‘Payback’ (related to the Pirate Bay Process in particular, torrent sharing and copyleft movement in global) and the operation Avenge Assange (as a response to the Wikileaks process but for the transparency in general), the ‘OpTunisia’ (as an action that moved beyond the Internet politics or censorship into human rights activism) being the most famous among an uncountable array of hactivist protests (Coleman 2011). Eventually, this very ethos of trolling for self‐entertainment was the reason of a split occurred after the OpChanology. The following famous actions the Anonymous took might have originated on the 4chan but migrated onto Anonet and Anonops IRCs for they were tactically, technically and sociologically distinct (ibid). 4


Evolution: ethics and tactics The nature of the Project Chanology – a combination of prankstery and seriousness, trolling and fight for rights and freedoms – drew media attention and inspired the geek (and not only) public to adhere to Anonymous. This influx of new participants, who didn’t necessarily know much about anons and their ethics but were attracted by the moral considerations underlying the Operation, reshaped the sociology and therefore created instability within the old members (Underwood 2009). While ones continued to see the Anonymous as a playground for trickstery provocations and trollings without any particular political engagement, other viewed Anonymous as an efficient platform to fight for the freedom of information; third, massively joined by new comers, developed even a wider understanding of the opportunities for social and political activism. Thus, separate but still connected communities branched from Anonymous – first LulzSec, and later AntiSec, – distinct in their philosophy, cause and methods (ibid, Olson 2012). Investigated by Parmy Olson, LulzSec represent this first category of loyal to the original nihilistic ethics, that rather than attacking oppressors of free expression, launched actions for personal amusement and recognition, seeking for publicity and exaggerating their achievements to the press (2012). Not only does their philosophy focuses on the ‘beauty’ of the action rather than on the intendend goal, but their outrageous tactics rooted in the 4chan trolling aesthetics is seriously criticized. The joker LulzSec group, composed of the old hacker elite of the Anonymous is responsible for the sensational compromise of user accounts from Sony Playstation in 2011. Such tactics isn’t that innocent no matter the political goal. Moreover, if the company was targeted for its support of very unpopular in the milieu anti‐piracy politics, that was merely a pretext for a ‘beautiful’ high‐quality hack (Olson 2012). Later, the LulzSec in collaboration with some of the high‐skilled members of the larger Anonymous community launched the Op Anti‐Security. It consisted of a series of hack attacks the servers of the Serious Organized Crime Agency and Arizona Department of Public Safety (among many other targets) as a protest to the enforcement of laws against cybercrime and cyberterrorism. Another sub‐division of Anonymous has been formed – AntiSec group, whose political agenda concerns the computer security industry, anti full‐disclosure and pro open source (wikipedia). Composed of true hackers, the AntiSec have commitments to information freedom but not so much about human right activism in general. In this sense, they represent the classic hactivist group “making the difficult job of policing online speech [that] should be freer than speech in the real world. They are heavily influenced by a kind of hacker romantism that sees the Internet as the last frontier fur truly free speech, and as a kind of generalized libertarian heaven” (Samuel 2004:224). The ideology of hactivism is arguably centred on the hacker ethics, formulated by Steven Levy in 1984:

5


1) Access to computers – and anything that might teach you something about the way the world works – should be unlimited and total; 2) All information should be free; 3) Mistrust authority – promote decentralization; 4) Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position; 5) You create art and beauty on a computer; 6) Computers can change your life for the better (metac0m 2003). The first point is out of date; the second constitutes the political goal for the LulzSec and AntiSec; points three and four translate all‐Anonymous core values – horizontality, diversity, equality, meritocracy; point five found its form in the technological difficulty and/or the lulz an action produces; finally, point six is taken seriously by the LulzSec and AntiSec, but with a lower degree of political engagement than the rest of Anonymous – a movement that is constantly changing in a timely manner with the changing world. Currently, these two wings – LulzSec and AntiSec – tend to be marginalized. The growing popularity of Anonymous has reformed their mainstream politics. Concentrated before on the issues touching free speech and free information on the Internet, the Anonymous’ metamorphosis redefines hactivism as “using technology to advance human rights through electronic media” (metac0m 2003). One of the Operations Anonymous tempted to launch, ‘Operation Mesh’, aimed nothing less than “to set the world free” by establishing anonymous mesh networks for secure, law free and espionage free untrackable communication. Due to technical difficulty, it didn’t take off (Coleman 2011), but the popularity of the idea on the Anonymous IRCs and related sites was incredible. Actually, it followed their assistance to the Arab Spring ‐ they hacked governmental and tourist websites, created scripts putting down fishing (computer espionage), provided the local activists with information and infrastructure for organization of protests. It was a crucial shift in the Anonymous activism, as Coleman explains, for it was humorless, accompanied by messages like ‘This is *your* revolution’ and ‘You *must* hit the streets’ (Coleman 2012). And still, Anonymous’ political agenda shift doesn’t mean they redefined their clandestine tactics nor forgot to lulz. Their tactics of web site defacement, DoS and DDoS attacks, information theft and publication on Twitter, site parodies, virtual sit‐ins and sabotage, and software development, break constantly up‐dated laws, and sometimes the ethical legitimacy is doubted as for aim/means balance. Some of these methods are destructive (defacement and DoS ‘cracktivism’) and somewhat violent (information thefts of personal data and its publication, or (D)DoS attacks 6


of public‐important web structures), which excludes Anonymous ethics from principles of hactivism and Electronic Civil Disobedience respectively (metac0m 2003; Manion, Goodrum 2000). On the other hand, the technical part goes in one media pack with lulzy videos and creative manifestos, an attacking media is a definite anons’ taboo. Anonymous always time their actions with special events: although they hack sites sometimes well in advance, they would turn it into a political action when there is a right pretext: their campaigns are expressive and symbolic (Coleman,2012). Such combination is “magnetic on two levels, producing spectacular, shocking, and humorous events and images that attract media attention while simultaneously binding together the collective and rejuvenating spirit” (ibid). There are many hactivist groups whose political agenda is not reduced to the issues of free flow information on the Internet ‐ such as the Electronic Disturbance Theatre or the X‐Ploit that attacked Mexican sites supporting Zapatistas, or the Hong Kong Blondes assisting to Chinese human right activists (Manion, Goodrum,2000). On the other side, there are the Dadistas, Yippies and the Yes Men who share the same lulz spirit and coordinate political actions of wide range. But it is precisely the Anonymous “brand” or “meme” that was gathering individuals in their diverse offline locations and on diverse online platforms, with their diverse identities and ideologies, that happened to episodically coincide in their grievances and aims, providing them with digital instrumentarium for their activism and proposing an effective expressive tactics of joker civil disobedience. As Coleman (2011) writes, “since the winter of 2008 it has become a political gateway for geeks (and others) to take action”: unique and unusual characteristics about Anonymous is that anyone can call themselves Anonymous, so there are separate and parallel operations at once. The trickstery ethos and ethics of a culturally exclusive community has been adopted everywhere and by everyone who deemed it was appropriate. ‘You can’t arrest an idea.’ #anonymous As an Anonymous’ message for the average citizens’ states, Anonymous is not a group, but rather an Internet gathering with a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directors. Anonymous are not hackers, they are ‘average Internet citizens’ themselves and their motivation is “a collective sense of being fed up with minor and major injustices we witness everyday”. What they now became, Anonymous perfectly fit to what Bennett (2003) calls “network armies” or “netwars”– “shifting formations of vast, linked networks of individuals and organizations operating loosely but persistently to expand the public accountability of corporations, trade and development regimes, and governments”, a “loosely organized (segmented and independent, yet connected), geographically dispersed, and locally engaged collections of activists”, gathering for episodic collective outbursts, characterized by fluid boundaries, integration principle and “polycentric, horizontal structure of distributed activism”. Following the paradigmatic shift of 7


social movements since 1960s, this transnational hactivismo seems to have finally overcome the identity politics and reunited varied kinds of struggles over different meanings and material conditions (Escobar 1992). Next to the Guy Fawks mask, Anonymous created a logo of a suited man with the question mark instead of the head. In this fluid formation, solidarity is obtained not despite but thanks to anonymity. Anonymity promoted diversity, connectivity and democracy, horizontality, leaderlesness and equality, and the real “depolitization of personal” (Maeckhelbergh 2009) not because the identity of any person who is different was acknowledged and respected but because it is simply ignored, or should we say, sacred and untouchable like a holy cow. Privacy and ‘possessive individualism’ (Macpherson 1962), becoming hidden instead of transparent, paradoxically enables participants to feel comfortable being one of many dissent acting as a whole. Like the alterglobalization movement and Occupy, Anonymous is a ‘movement of movements’: there is no single vision or goal, no single adversary, no single identity (Maeckhelbergh 2009). And what the participants have to learn is not how to negotiate their different beliefs and identities, neither who the ruler is, nor how to rule (ibid). To conduct a collective action, they only have to learn some technical skills and install some software; people come online and join different rooms to participate in organization and coordination of operations; once an Op gets enough support, it will come into being. That is why Anonymous scales and is participatory, only a small cadre are hackers, programmers and sysadmins; the majority are simply computer geeks or may even not qualify nor identify as such (Coleman 2011). They have a common identity of non‐identity and adhere to the cultural base of verbal, visual and behavioural ‘memes’ developed on 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica and other forums and wikis. Though, this preceding the movement culture, as any culture, is a system of norms and prohibitions which limits openness, horizontality and democracy. Although there are no barriers for observation and subscription, any meaningful interaction is made difficult for an outsider: propositions have to match the Anonymous aesthetics of grotesque humour and creativity. There is still a requirement for a certain tacit and explicit knowledge, skills and sympathies (Coleman 2011), and finally, the hyperactivity and ‘supernodality’ of some participants makes the idea of structureness remain as such ( Nuñes 2006). Nevertheless, Anonymous choose targets through pooling, and collectively write their agenda and strategy. Everybody is free to subscribe and determine the form and the degree of involvement in an Op, ranging from online interactions to the creation of video agitations, or taking part in a DDoS attack. Yet, even if “it is easier to contribute to Anonymous as it offers numerous micro‐protest opportunities”, “when it comes to certain actions, such as targeted hacking, only a small group of talented hackers can successfully pull this off” (Coleman 2011). Finally, those who create and moderate technical infrastructures, the hyperactive and

8


hypercreative ‐ carry more authority. But the central social norm of anti‐ego, anti‐leader and anti‐celebrity successfully modulate the dynamics of power concentration (ibid). In result, Anonymous – a constantly changing cyber crowd, who has no consistent philosophy nor political program per se – manages to effectively organize and coordinate political operations, spectacularly visible while the Anonymous themselves are not. The Anonymous aesthetics is grotesque, their actions are carnivals, their tactics are transgressive and paradoxical ‐ like hacking and publicising private personal data of customers and citizens to show that there is no privacy, that they actually demand... Anonymous’ symbolic actions and transgressive tactics tap “into a deep disenchantment with the political status quo, without proposing a utopian vision – or any overarching agenda – in response” (ibid). Their goals, just as identities and structure are not defined ‐ it is an idea, a brand – a “combination of tricksterism and expert online organizing for radical political enterprises” (ibid) that would expose the disorder of the system (Balandier 1999). Not surprisingly, they would define Anonymous as terrorists. Since the arrests in 2011, Coleman reports, “Anonymous has dispersed and even more decentralized, with participants relocating to obscure nodes and communicating through private IRC channels”, at the same time, they “began acting as a crucial, though informal, public‐relations wing for Occupy Wall Street, generating videos and images and circulating information supporting the movement’s aims”, and “providing technology support” (2012). It seems that today Anonymous joins the ranks of global activism and fuses within, representing the ‘Occypy Internet’ movement.

9


Bibliography: ‐ Barlow, J.P. (1996) “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”. Online: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration‐Final.html ‐ Bennett, W. L. (2003) “New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism”. Online: https://depts.washington.edu/gcp/pdf/bennettnmpower.pdf ‐ Coleman, G. (2011) “Anonymous: From the lulz to collective action”. Online: http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/tne/pieces/anonymous‐lulz‐collective‐action ‐ Coleman, G. (2012) “Our Weirdness is Free. The Logic of Anonymous ‐ online army, agent of chaos and seeker of justice”. Online: http://canopycanopycanopy.com/15/our_weirdness_is_free ‐ Correia, A. (2011) Hactivism – Case Study on the Anonymou group. Online: http://www.slideshare.net/AndrCorreia2/hacktivism‐case‐study‐on‐anonymous‐group ‐ Escobar, A. (1992) “Culture, Practice and Politics: Anthropology and the Study of Social Movements” Critique of Anthropology 12(4): 395‐432. ‐ Howard, P. and M. Hussain (2011) “ The Upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia: The Role of Digital Media” Journal of Democracy 22(3): 35‐48. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/summary/v022/22.3.howard .html ‐ Lim, M. (2011) “Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses: Social Media and Oppositional Movements in Egypt, 2004‐2011” Journal of Communication 62: 231‐248. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460‐2466.2012.01628.x/pdf ‐ Lindgren, S ; Lundström, R (2011) “Pirate culture and hacktivist mobilization: The cultural and social protocols of #WikiLeaks on Twitter” New Media & Society , 2011, Vol.13(6), pp.999‐1018 ‐ Maeckelbergh, M. (2009) The Will of the Many: How the Alterglobalization Movement is Changing the Face of Democracy (London: Pluto Press) ‐ Manion, M. and Goodrum, A. (2000) “Terrorism or Civil Disobedience: Toward a Hactivist Ethic”. Computers and Society, June 2000 ‐ Maslin, J (2012) “The Secret Lives of Dangerous Hackers” book review ‐ ‘We Are Anonymous’ by Parmy Olson. The New York Times, Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/books/we‐are‐anonymous‐by‐parmy‐olson.html ‐ Mason, P. (2012) Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere (London: Verso) ‐ metac0m (2003) “What is hactivism? 2.0”. Online: http://www.thehacktivist.com/whatishacktivism.pdf ‐ Nilsen, Berdnikovs, Humphrys (2010) “Crises, social movements and revolutionary transformations” Interface: a journal for and about social movements , 2 (1): 1 – 21 . ‐ Norton, Q. (2012) “In Flawed, Epic Anonymous Book, the Abyss Gazes Back”. Online: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/anonymous‐parmy‐olson‐review/2/ ‐ Nuñes , R. (2006) “ Nothing is what democracy looks like. Openness, horizontality and the movement of the movements” in Harvie, D., Milburn, K., Trott, B., Watts, D. Shut them down. The G8, Gleneagles, and the movement of movements (Leeds/ New York: Dissent! & 10


‐ ‐ ‐

Autonomedia), pp. 299‐319. Online: http://www.shutthemdown.org/Resources/Ch%2030.pdf Olson, P. (2012) We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency Samuel, A. W. (2004) “Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation”. Online: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel‐Hacktivism‐entire.pdf Underwood, P. C. (2009 “New Directions in Networked Activism and Online Social Movement Mobilization: The Case of Anonymous and Project Chanology”. Online: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Underwood%20Patrick.pdf?ohiou1244228183

11