Human Rights and Hacktivism: The Cases of Wikileaks and Anonymous (original) (raw)
Related papers
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
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.
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.
Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 2023
Hacktivism is a social phenomena which evokes different social assessments. The definitions of a term differ in many respects. This theoretical model of hacktivism has not yet been implemented into an empirical strategy for sociological research. The paper describes the the main initiatives taken by Anonymous collective during the 2014 conflict in Ukraine, which is considered by many researchers to be the first stage of preparation for the war triggered by Russia in 2022. Author analyses the collective’s activity in 2022, after the war started, in order to identify similarities and differences in the creation of information messages about the situation. The comparative analysis covers information published in Anonymous’ tweets and selected online news services. She asks the question about the possible consequences of Anonymous actions in the open cyber field for the social moods around the world. To what extent these media messages and their construction have reflected the social pe...
E-Bandits in Global Activism: WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and the Politics of No One
In recent years, WikiLeaks and Anonymous have made headlines distributing confidential information, defacing websites, and generating protest around political issues. Although many have dismissed these actors as terrorists, criminals, and troublemakers, we argue that such actors are emblematic of a new kind of political actor: extraordinary bandits (e-bandits) that engage in the politics of no one via anonymizing Internet technologies. Building on Hobsbawm's idea of the social bandit, we show how these actors fundamentally change the terms of global activism. First, as political actors, e-bandits are akin to Robin Hood, resisting the powers that be who threaten the desire to keep the Internet free, not through lobbying legislators, but by "taking" what has been deemed off limits. Second, e-banditry forces us to think about how technology changes "ordinary" transnational activism. Iconic images of street protests and massive marches often underlie the way we as scholars think about social movements and citizen action; they are ordinary ways we expect non-state actors to behave when they demand political change. E-bandits force us to understand political protest as virtual missives and actions, activity that leaves no physical traces but that has real-world consequences, as when home phone numbers and addresses of public officials are released. Finally, e-banditry is relatively open in terms of who participates, which contributes to the growing sense that activism has outgrown organizations as the way by which individuals connect. We illustrate our theory with the actions of two e-bandits, Anonymous and WikiLeaks.
HACKTIVISTS :REVOLUTIONARIES OR VANDALISTS
There has been a paradigm shift brought by the internet enabling people to accomplish a social change without having a physical attendance. Hacktivism is that phenomenon which has been established using the internet as a platform to address censuring issues of today.
Hacktivism, cyber-terrorism and cyberwar: the activities of the uncivil society in cyberspace
Diplofoundation, 2003
There is no shortage of books on all matters relating to information management and information technology. This booklet adds to this large collection and attempts to do a number of things: • offer non-technical readers an insight into the few principles that are important and reasonably stable; • present the material in a context relevant to the work of those involved in international relations; • awaken the curiosity of readers enough that they will progress beyond this booklet and investigate and experiment and thus develop knowledge and take actions that will meet their particular needs.
Organic bodies versus digital bodies: the differences between hacktivism and cyberterrorism
2018
The following research aims at identifying the differences between cyberterrorism and hacktivism. In traditional media, both terms have been used as synonymous. Furthermore, in academia there is still no consensus upon the definition of both of these terms. As a result, there is still an unclear understanding of both phenomenona. Through concept analysis, the study discusses different definitions and approaches to both ideas. Authors of the conceptualisation range from civil society, academics and formal institutions. After identifying the key components of hacktivism and cyberterrorism, through a qualitative case study, three different net disruption cases are studied. The cases selected are: the digital Zapatistas and FloodNet, Ferizi’s hacking trial and Operation Payback and Avenge Assange. All of the cases were selected due to their notoriety, impact and importance in the field. Thus, this study seeks to contribute to the current literature and discussion about net disruption, through a critical point of view. (Trinity College Dublin Thesis for M.Sc. Computer Science - Interactive Digital Media Thesis. Grade: 1.1, British grading system)
Hacktivists against Terrorism: A Cultural Criminological Analysis of Anonymous' Anti-IS Campaigns
International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2018
This article uses a cultural criminology approach to examine cyber campaigns waged by the hacker collective, Anonymous, against the jihadist organization, Islamic State (IS). Employing Jeff Ferrell and Mike Presdee's theory as a conceptual framework, it examines how Anonymous' anti-IS campaigns have been constructed and shaped by characteristics of the late-modern mediascape, including its affordances for carnivalesque transgression, reflexive media, and crowd-sourced politicization. Through reference to key statements and actions made by Anonymous immediately following IS-related attacks in Paris during 2015, our analysis examines high profile social and video media produced by the hacktivist collective, and relevant commentary from news media, experts, and industry representatives. With its focus on resistance and the 'politics of meaning', we argue that cultural criminology has much to offer in unpacking the emotional appeal, craft, public identity, and social representations of Anonymous as a hacktivist collective.