A hacking group calling itself Team Ghostshell recently unveiled “ProjectWestWind,” a leak of 120,000 files taken from the servers of post-secondary schools globally. The list of 100 institutions whose servers were compromised included the University of British Columbia and McMaster University. The group posted the leaked files alongside a statement encouraging a discussion of the direction in which higher education is headed.

This sort of ‘hacktivist’ action has grown popular in recent years, following the example of high-profile groups such as Anonymous and WikiLeaks. These groups work outside the scope of the law, which is generally vague in this realm due to lack of legal precedent. They justify their actions on a moral basis, but there is always an element of risk when working on the fringes of legality.

As a result, many of these organizations—Team Ghostshell included—work under a veil of anonymity. Most notably, Anonymous has succeeded in garnering considerable attention in the mainstream media. Working in anonymity allows such a group to execute and advertise its projects on a large scale without having to fear for their own personal security. These projects are not lucrative, and those who take them on have lives outside hacking—day jobs, families, and friends. Obscuring their identities allows them to avoid compromising these other components of their lives.

Other organizations have chosen to put forward a public figure to represent the group—the most notable example being WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Throughout the height of his organization’s release of leaked diplomatic cables, classified videos and correspondences, Assange was immensely visible in the media. He made appearances on talk shows and presented a human face for the world to associate with WikiLeaks. The risks of this approach are evident, as Assange is currently trapped in Ecuador’s embassy in London, which has granted him diplomatic asylum while he sorts out his legal struggles.

Despite the risks, there are some undeniable advantages to Assange’s method. Many of these groups claim to seek increases in government accountability and transparency—a bit of a contradictory stance for organizations that are shrouded in secrecy. Julian Assange gave WikiLeaks a sense of legitimacy that demystified it, and his voice advocated the organization’s cause to the public. By contrast, Anonymous’ press releases and announcements are delivered in a robotic, ominous voice, one that would not be out of place in a dystopian science fiction movie. This inaccessible delivery of their message precludes them from much of the media attention they might receive otherwise.

A further issue with operating in secret is the communicational disconnect in an organization without specific hierarchical structure. In many of these organizations, members may be anonymous even to one another. In such an environment, all those involved certainly share a common ideological standpoint, but risk failing to advance the discourse beyond ideology. Team Ghostshell’s recent large-scale hack was a chance for it to spark discussion and have its ideas heard, but rather than a pointed critique, it offered a generic, disjointed message which only spoke of change in the broadest terms.

When a hacking group circumvents the law on ideological grounds, it needs to cover said grounds as incisively and effectively as possible. Failure to do so brings into question the validity of the organization, and takes out of the question any notion of its place as some sort of purveyor of vigilante justice. As with any other company or organization, if it is unable to carry out its purpose, a restructuring or changing of priorities is in order.

In many cases, the condition of anonymity is an impediment both to a group’s ability to construct a coherent message, and to the public’s reception of this message. While not every group will have a member willing to throw himself or herself into the spotlight in the way that Assange did, there are certainly steps to be taken to soften the image of the shadowy, anonymous organization.  It begins with specifying how change needs to happen.

In a world where online presence and social media have made self-marketing easier than ever before, it is not unrealistic to expect these groups to follow through on their projects with a clear, coherent statement regarding what they are seeking to prove. If nobody understands their message, then what’s the point?