HACKTIVISTS :REVOLUTIONARIES OR VANDALISTS (original) (raw)
Related papers
Hacktivism: A New Breed of Protest in a Networked World
2012
After WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. government documents in 2010, the ensuing cyber-attacks waged by all sides in the controversy brought the phenomenon of hacktivism into popular focus. Many forms of hacktivism exploit illegal access to networks for financial gain, and cause expensive damage. Other forms are used primarily to advocate for political or social change. Applicable law in most developed countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, generally prohibits hacktivism. However, these countries also protect the right to protest as an essential element of free speech. This Note argues that forms of hacktivism that are primarily expressive, that do not cause serious damage, and that do not exploit illegal access to networks or computers, sufficiently resemble traditional forms of protest to warrant protection from the application of anti-hacking laws under widely accepted principles of free speech.
Bodó, B. (2014). Hacktivism 1-2-3. Internet Policy Review 3(4)
This short essay explores how the notion of hacktivism changes due to easily accessible, military grade Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs). Privacy Enhancing Technologies, technological tools which provide anonymous communications and protect users from online surveillance enable new forms of online political activism. Through the short summary of the ad-hoc vigilante group Anonymous, this article describes hacktivism 1.0 as electronic civil disobedience conducted by outsiders. Through the analysis of Wikileaks, the anonymous whistleblowing website, it describes how strong PETs enable the development of hacktivism 2.0, where the source of threat is shifted from outsiders to insiders. Insiders have
The boundaries of digital dissent: Assessing the war on hacktivism
The digital debates: The good, the bad, and the ugly of our online world (Volume 2)
A key challenge in internet governance is how to balance free speech and security online. I begin by documenting three facets of the war on hacktivism: (a) discursive, (b) legal and (c) digital. Discursively, Western officials equate hacktivists with all cyber threats. Legally, punishment of hacktivists is severe even as Western governments engage in direct cyber conflict with online activists. In contrast, I analyze the open letter "What is Anonymous?" that responds to arrests of Anonymous activists during Operation Payback protests. "What is Anonymous?" defines Anonymous as part of the larger tradition of civil rights in America, challenging attempts to criminalize online dissent. I conclude the essay with a defense of online anonymity and strict protections for digital speech and assembly. This debate is of paramount importance because the boundaries of digital dissent are forming without the consent of digital citizens.
Hacktivism as a radical media practice
Hacktivism, a portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism”, indicates the politically motivated use of technical expertise like coding. It addresses network infrastructure or exploits the infrastructure’s technical and ontological features for political or social change: activists seek to fix society through software and online action. Recent example of hacktivism include Anonymous, an online community whose self-identified members engage in disruptive activities using electronic civil disobedience techniques in support of digital freedoms. Hacktivism is a highly contested concept, and different groups of people associate different objectives and tactics under its umbrella, not all of which are compatible. With this contention in mind, this chapter explores the main features of hacktivism as a radical media practice. It offers a historical overview of the phenomenon, and a sociological analysis of hacktivist organizational patterns. It explores hacktivists’ tactics and their approach to institutions and social norms, and the challenges that hacktivism faces in the present and near future, touching upon issues of repression, accountability, and impact.
Human Rights and Hacktivism: The Cases of Wikileaks and Anonymous
Journal of Human Rights Practice
Traditional human rights concepts seem to fit Internet activity when it is broadly allied to conventional political mobilization and when it occurs in human rights-violating jurisdictions. Traditional concepts are strained, however, when Internet activity takes the unconventional form of 'hacktivism', and it occurs in human-rights respecting jurisdictions. Hacktivism is still activism but not always open or democratic activism. Unlike more familiar forms of activism, hacktivism can often be anonymous, sometimes gratuitously so, and can operate with a kind of impunity that its technology seems to afford. Hacktivism is sometimes also claimed to serve interests that transcend those of particular states, that is, the interests of the global population generally. But this claim is implausible if hacktivism is not accountable to anyone. Taking the cases of Wikileaks and Anonymous, I argue that some of the activities of these groups are highly questionable, and that forms of cyberactivism more strongly connected with public displays of protest and legally accountable disclosure are morally superior and cohere better with human rights. This line of thought is, admittedly, easier to articulate in the case of Wikileaks than in the case of Anonymous, whose free-form set of causes and swarm activity are not always attributable to a stable collective entity. The activities of these two groups are chosen for four reasons: because they are both prominent in hacktivism; because they together represent quite a lot of the spectrum of hacktivism; because they have operated at times in concert, and because, in the case of Wikileaks at least, the rationale for its activity is sometimes stated in the language of human rights.
Encyclopedia of Social Deviance, 2014
Hacktivism, considered by many to be an emerging form of deviance, can be defined as computer hacking for a political or social purpose. A complex and controversial concept with multiple definitions, hacktivism is rooted in the merger of computer hacking and political activism. Hacktivism amalgamates the creative use and manipulation of computer systems and technologies with the spirit of political activism. There is considerable public confusion about what constitutes hacktivism, the differences between hacktivism and other types of online deviance, and the motivations of hacktivists.
This paper aims to address the emerging forms of online protest that have come to be known as ‘electronic civil disobedience’, or more simply defined - protests of Hacktivism. To do this, a brief analysis of what Hacktivism means will be addressed followed by a series of case studies from both Australia and abroad to help illustrate both the diversity and effectiveness of Hacktivist techniques and campaigns. Following this, a brief analysis of the current law in Australia will be outlined, namely the Cybercrimes Act 2001, (the Act) with a critique of its criminal provisions. In particular, attention shall be given to how the provisions are being used to prosecute Hacktivists. Particular attention will be paid to the effect of the sentencing regime contained within the Act which results in more extensive punishment for protests committed online as opposed to off-line and as such this paper will address the nature of the absolute liability offences contained within the Act and argue that such liability is unreasonable in the special circumstances of Hacktivism Finally, questions as to whether such provisions are reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a ‘legitimate end’ and whether they act to burden Hacktivists Constitutional guarantee of freedom of communication (and whether Hacktivists have such a guarantee with respect to political matters at all), shall also be discussed.
Hacktivism - Controlling The Effects
In light of the recent peak in Hacktivist activity, Hacktivism has become a global issue in which many countries have invested to mitigate. While the traditionalist Hacktivists follow standards akin to typical activism, the new age Hacktivists execute daring and outlandish attacks to demonstrate their views. These various forms of Hacktivism are not only damaging to electronic infrastructure; they are also notoriously difficult to control. This paper examines the possible alleviation of Hacktivism effects through a trinity of control dimensions.