FBI detention of Ashton Lundeby: Did they do it for the 'lulz?'

May 11, 8:16 AMCharlotte Gun Rights ExaminerPaul Valone

Previous Next

12 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The picture on this (de)motivational poster is often used on
 websites associated with Anonymous

Never did I suspect that in writing about the possible Patriot Act detention of Ashton Lundeby, I would end up describing “trolls” and “lulz” and a chaotic entity called “Anonymous” – all via readers who left comments; readers who appear to be either participants in the events leading to Lundeby’s arrest, or at least knowledgeable observers. Bear with me while I explain how their activities might actually comprise motivation for the Department of Justice to invoke the misnamed Patriot Act.

PATRIOT ACT, OR NOT?

Lundeby’s mother, Annette, maintains she was denied access to her son for three weeks after he was arrested for allegedly making a bomb threat to Perdue University. She points to his two-month detention without being charged and to abrogation of due process as evidence he is being held under the Patriot Act.

Indeed, the office of US Attorney David Capp responded with a very narrowly crafted press release saying one charge for which he is being held is “unrelated to the Patriot Act,” while not mentioning other charges for which the Patriot Act might be applied. Meanwhile, the government continues to stonewall not only the public, but his mother about nearly all aspects of the case.

Then came reader comments for each of my last two articles which indicate:

• Other online “pranksters” might have set up Lundeby by rigging caller ID and/or IP to make it appear he phoned in bomb threats, possibly because he refused to make such threats himself;
• Lundeby, using the online identity “Tyrone,” was a member of a group which perpetrated sometimes comical, sometimes malicious pranks, referred to as “doing it for the lulz;”
• Someone calling himself “Jason Bennett” and saying he is Australian alerted police to Lundeby’s threats;
• Either Jason Bennett or else another online identity known as “Britfag” may actually have made the bomb threats themselves … and that “Jason Bennett” and “Britfag” might even be one and the same;
• The site they used to make live broadcasts of their pranks, fridaynightcranks.com, offered software to disguise voices and falsify caller ID displays – tools which would enable “Britfag” or “Jason Bennett” to disguise themselves as “Tyrone” in making bomb threats; and lastly, that
• Any or all of them may or may not have been associated with a murky entity known as “Anonymous.”

‘JUST TROLLS TROLLING TROLLS’?

Such is the world of “trolls” – perpetrators of pranks for “lulz.” Says one online source:

“LULZ is laughter at someone else's expense (from the German concept of ‘Schadenfreude’.) This makes it inherently superior to lesser forms of humor. Just as the element of surprise transforms the physical act of love into something beautiful, the anguish of a laughed-at victim transforms lol into lulz, making it longer, girthier, and more pleasurable. Lulz is engaged in by Internet users who have witnessed one major economic/environmental/political disaster too many, and who thus view a state of voluntary, gleeful sociopathy over the world's current apocalyptic state, which is superior to being continually emo.”

Elsewhere:

"’I Did It For The Lulz’ (IDIFTL) is a catchphrase which serves as a catch-all explanation for any trolling you do or any internet drama you cause…

“A troll, most commonly encountered on the internet, is any person who purposely causes controversy in a web community and disrupts s*&# for his own amusement.”

WHY SHOULD THE FEDS CARE?

But the most plausible – and chilling – explanation for why the FBI would care about such activities came from yet another reader:

“It seems [the Department of Homeland Security] is now onto the game played by Anonymous … They are internet pranksters who cause chaos under the guise of technological anonymity. If you want to understand Anonymous, watch this video. youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ The strength of Anonymous comes from its ability to form anywhere with anyone. Think of a bee hive, because it functions similarly. Each bee just does random, disconnected things, however because each functions randomly, all the work gets done. Granted, you have observed this conversation and DHS has the whereabouts of a few of these guys, but there is a hive-mind behind it.”

And here is the video he references. Disclaimer: The following video is given as an example of Anonymous, not as fodder for debate on the merits of Scientology. Comments made on examiner.com concerning Scientology will be removed.

While none of this justifies the outrageous assaults on civil liberties contained within the Patriot Act, it might explain why federal authorities seem to have taken a special interest in the case.

And lest you think none of this is related to Anonymous, consider the following exchange between someone who sounds like Tyrone, a British voice and a third, unidentified “Troll.” It comes from “JT Gets Vanned,” a broadcast done of them setting up one of their own friends for a police search:

Tyrone(?): “I think this is the worst we’ve ever done.”

Brit: “Yeah, we’ve f$#@ed our own.

Unidentified: “This is dirty, though. We f$%#ed our own. This is really dirty.

Brit: “Well, it just goes to show how bee (?) is so unkind. Random. Anonymous. Doesn’t give a f$#%. About anyone, not even Anonymous .”

Brit (later): “…Anom versus anom …”

FOR PARENTS, A NEW WORRY

Released in 1971, Stanley Kubrick’s violent vision of the future, “A Clockwork Orange,” details the random crimes and failed reformation of wilding teenagers. Says one reviewer:

“Throughout A Clockwork Orange, the film forces us to weigh the values and dangers of both individual liberty and state control, and consider how much liberty we're willing to give up for order, and how much order we're willing to give up for liberty.”

Maybe that is the question being posed here: Are the feds holding Lundeby under the Patriot Act? If so, is it because they assume he may be part of an Internet community bent on invoking chaos? Should anybody be detained on such a premise? Did Lundeby end up being a target of their charming little pranks because he refused to make bomb threats in the furtherance of that chaos?

While Anonymous seems to eschew actual physical violence, to parents who worry your teenagers are at the mercy of online predators, you may now add the possibility that your teenager is an online predator.

Or maybe the whole thing is one big exercise in "doing it for the lulz…."

I leave you with this...
 

Copyright © F. Paul Valone All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing or any information storage and referral system, without written permission from the publisher. For reprint permission, contact: fpv@fpaulvalone.com