Hacktivism
1. Introduction
In keeping with the wide range of definitions for hacktivism, it should be recognized that there is also a broad range of opinion on its legitimacy. This is something which shall be discussed throughout the course of this essay. From being labeled as cyber-terrorism on one end of the scale, to a valuable method for voicing otherwise oppressed opinions at the other. Since the culmination of hacktivism as a conceptual form of political activism in the late 1990s, it has constantly been in the eye of the media, and has thrust to the fore countless number of issues and causes. This alone validates its position as a genuine form of political activism, regardless of the often skewed image that it receives.
Hacktivism is a recently coined term, which is proving difficult to define, largely due to the fact that combining “hacking” with any other activity creates a strong reaction in people. Just as with “ethical hacking”, the interpretations of what the activity involves often vary, usually depending on whether the individual has sympathy with the aims of the hacker. O’Brien (2003) discusses hacktivism in terms of it being “the nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools in pursuit of political ends”. Jordan and Taylor (2004) prefer the employment of “using ICT to further its goals with free speech and human rights – is a good thing. In fact, it’s a wonderful thing”. Coming somewhere in the middle, Arquilla and Ronfeldt (2001) devised the term “virtual sit-in” – an act, which amalgamates the most common form of hacktivism into a simple definition, but in fact hacktivism ranges from this to the much more malicious.
2. History of Hacktivism
Hacktivism emerged from the hacker culture of the 1980s and early 1990s, which focused on governmental and corporate accountability and freedom of information. It is an offshoot of the psychedelic counterculture, which has always emphasized free access to information. The most significant hacktivist event from this period is the WANK worm. This worm was spread on NASA computer systems on October 16, 1989. Once activated, the worm displayed the message: “Your system has been officially wanked. You talk of times of future past, the present now will look to see a brighter future for it has been formally wanked. Method: We the hacktivists Nasa=Anonymous=WHOAREWE”. The worm was a protest against NASA scientific and ecological policies. It represented the emergence of a new form of protest based on the use of computers, rather than more traditional forms of activism.
3. Methods and Techniques
The biggest issue when discussing methods and techniques is defining what exactly comes under the term hacking. Many would argue that hacking is unlawful access to a computer system where the hacker then attempts to steal or alter data. This is the argument made by many in the US when hacktivists have attempted to deface government websites. This was the belief behind the FBI arresting 7 individuals on the basis that they hacked US government websites, which was believed to be in retaliation for the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy. However, the hacktivists were acquitted of the charges. Schiller contradicts that American idea, noting that not all hacks are necessarily acts of “computer break-ins”. He would further argue that the idea of globalization has created a new state of society whereby data and information now moves around a global public sphere. With this in mind, many hacks are public expressions aimed at certain targets using a tactic which should not be confused with typical malicious hacking. Schiller would argue that it is the nature of the hack which is the key factor. Consider the attack on Yahoo, whereby it was explained by the hacker that he was able to deface the site after Yahoo ignored their plea to fix security holes on the site and possibly recruit the hacker to do the job. Yahoo actually admitted that the security breaches were accurately identified. Schiller would argue that this was a legitimate tactic in forcing a global corporation to address issues at a faster pace. Given the definition today, the lines between legitimate acts and typical hacking are now blurry.
Halavais sums up the general method for which any given hacktivist is trying to achieve by noting that the political philosophy of the hacktivist is based upon the “engagement with and manipulation of power structures in one’s society”. This has been evident in some of the more sophisticated attempts at hacktivism in recent years, such as the Plan Columbia Attacks or the attacks on Israeli Infrastructure.
As mentioned in section 2.5, the term “hacker” has changed over the years and has taken on new meanings. As such, the methods and techniques used by hackers have also changed. McCormick notes that many hackers believe their political act is a form of electronic civil disobedience and that they should emulate offline forms. Essentially, this means that they should not aim to physically sabotage websites or online infrastructure systems. This supports Rodota’s statement in the LA Times that the tactic used is usually based around giving “people too much information”, with the idea that this will normally force an open dialogue based on said information.
4. Impact and Controversies
Likewise, the hacking of Sony Pictures by North Korea showed the power of hackers to influence the world stage by releasing sensitive information. Although the sensitive nature of this information was detrimental to the public interest, hacks such as these serve to show the potential impact of hacking on the global stage and the massive power it can give to those who wield it. I know it is bad to use private information against anyone at any time, but it does show that leaking sensitive information is an extremely effective way of achieving an aim and can cause the powers that be to change their actions. In this case, it is unclear whether this was a net positive for the world, but bringing about change of action from powerful bodies is something that is generally hard to achieve and is essentially what hackers are doing when they leak information to the public.
For example, the WikiLeaks hack of the Democratic National Convention during the 2016 US Presidential Election was clearly in the public interest. They exposed emails that showed clear favoritism by the party towards Hillary Clinton instead of running a fair primary election with Bernie Sanders. Steps that should have been taken as a US political party is supposed to act as a neutral facilitator in the electoral process for both its candidates and the American public.
The hacks of groups like WikiLeaks and Anonymous have undoubtedly impacted the world that we live in. They have served to shift power structures, had long-term effects on international political situations, and created a general feeling of unease around using the internet freely. While some might feel that it is dangerous to shift power structures by simply releasing information and allow hackers to have so much influence, the hacks have undeniably achieved an aim that is in the public interest. Bringing transparency to the actions of these institutions is something that is necessary in a democratic society and a healthy check on the power of these bodies.
5. Future of Hacktivism
Focusing on the means of hacktivism, with new legislation being put in place to protect against cyber-attacks, the future of hacking for a political cause is bleak. A breach of cybersecurity, even DDoS, can now be viewed as a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act despite having no malicious intent. An amendment was made in 2013 to subsection (2)(C)(i) of 1030(A): “damage results in a threat to public health or safety” that proposed the death penalty for hackers. Although this was not accepted, it signifies a step towards a more Draconian system. With most western countries adopting similar laws and treaties, war will now be fought in the digital world, and incursion of another’s network will be seen as an act of war. Though this is an advancement for cybersecurity, it is a defeat for hacktivism. This could lead to a regression and a return to fighting against censorship or for freedom of information. Though not necessarily a bad thing, it is a long path with no guarantee of success. An encryption war is also possible, and forcing a backdoor into a suspect technology will lead to just another cause to fight for.
The future of hacktivism will be reflected in how it has grown in the past and in the present. Hacktivism has gone from being a tight-knit community of politically active programmers to a new light in the media. At first, it was looked at as a no-hope exercise that would only end in defeat, but it has matured into an influential element in political and ethical debates. However, it has now evolved and some now view it as a threat to freedom and free speech. Unfortunately, it has also become a nest for criminal activity, and this has also affected how acts of hacktivism are received across the world. An example being the chaotic social and political movement of Anonymous. Most have seen the mass effect it had on its operations and the defacing of websites and leaking of sensitive information has been viewed as a breach of freedom.
