Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism and Cyber Activism: Hacktivism

This article discusses the evolution of hacking into hacktivism, a blend of activism and hacking for social justice. It explores the culture, justification, and legal options of hacktivism, and how it is different from malicious hacking. The article also discusses the triggers of hacktivist actions and the need for a grey area to accommodate the role of modern digital activism.

Hacktivism 1
CYBERCRIME, CYBERTERRORISM AND CYBER ACTIVISM: HACKTIVISM
[Author]
[Professor]
[University]
[City, State]
August 29, y

Hacktivism 2
Introduction
Hacking is one of the most contested and misunderstood concepts of the networking
technology. In its original definition, the word outlined any obsessive commitment that re-
designed programming languages to push functions that were not anticipated by the initial
developers. For this reason, many hackers throughout history have been celebrated for pushing
the computing technology beyond its foundational elements. However, the emergence of
computer crime in the form of cyber terrorism and network intrusions have characterized
hacking as a threat to networking security, an outcome that creates several legal and ethical
concerns for hacktivism initiatives. On its behalf, hacktivism stands for any hacking actions that
are politically or socially motivated. As such, it is seen as a blend of both the concepts of
activism and hacking in order to promote the greater good. Therefore, through its functions of
online protests, information disruption, and cyber civil disobedience, hacktivism offers a creative
hybrid for social justice.
Hacking and Hacktivism
Hacktivism is an evolution of the hacking concept that aims to merge the advances in
computing technology with social activism. In fact, according to researchers such as Taylor and
Conway (2003), hacktivists are the new generation of hackers who actions can be traced back to
the 1990s, a time when the popularity of networking technology started to grow. Before this
period, most of the hacking was done by the then ‘real hackers’ who aimed to increase the
capabilities of computing technologies through their academic research. Furthermore, the
concept of hacking was also propagated by crackers, who were a generation of malicious
individuals who aimed to disrupt the functions of information technology (Mikhaylova 2014).

Hacktivism 3
Therefore, Hacktivism was shaped by two opposing cultures which inherently shaped its
structure.
Hacktivism was also developed by an existing intellectual climate that was instigated by
the effects of globalization. While this global trend increased access to information it also
oppressed some people because of their limited resources and contributions. Thus, as a technical
component, globalization facilitated the modern outlook of the hacktivism concept (Advisen
2012). Now, unlike previous generations of hackers that either celebrated or intruded on
technology, hacktivists primarily are concerned with human agency (Sorell 2015). Thus, the goal
is not to promote or limit technological progress but to imaginatively merge technology with
traditional cultural resources. A technique that generally promotes certain social or political
agendas.
The Hacktivism Culture
In comparison to hacking, hacktivism is seen to have the following components;
conspiracy theorizing, privacy and secrecy obsession, anti-capitalist sentiments and creativity. It
is through these attributes that the differences/similarities between hacking (unethical access)
and hacktivism are identified. In the first instance, conspiracy theorizing offers internet users a
point of solace or refuge as they feel the political climate is up to no good, more so through
communication where certain items seem to be hidden from the public (Denning 2010). As such,
this component represents a significant online culture that by default is transferred to the roles of
hacktivists (Mikhaylova 2014). Therefore, conspiracy theorizing enables internet users to
visualize alternative solutions for political problems in case they are given incomplete truths. On
the other hand, hacking is often facilitated by selfish desires that do not merge with a common
representative culture.

Hacktivism 4
Anonymity is an important factor for online functions as the roots of the technology are
based on the privacy and secrecy of the users. This attribute is adequately represented in both
hacking and hacktivism with the only difference being the overall goals of anonymity (Duarte
2013). Political hacking is characterized by a distinct style of operations where low key and
private activities are used to propagate the agendas of the members. This style will often use
elements such as pseudo names to hide the real identity of the hacktivists. Such actions are not
only meant to protect the said individuals from legal prosecution but are also supposed to offer a
common voice for activists’ actions (Mikhaylova 2014). Hacking on the other hand only uses
this attribute to hide from the authorities on account of the illegal activities conducted.
An anti-capitalist ideal is another crucial element of the hacktivists movement. In this
characteristic, hacktivism sees capitalism as an unethical concept that has lost its legitimacy
owing to the actions taken by its pioneers (Baldi, Gelbstein and Kurbalija 2003). Essentially, the
ethical standards of freedom, justice, liberty, and solidarity among many others are constantly
undermined by capitalistic initiatives which warrant its opposition (Gunkel 2005). Moreover,
through the same concept, the idea of innovation is often determined by those at the helm of
activities. Thus, hacktivism like hacking will use crude methods of sarcasm and dark humor to
communicate its message to the public. As such, through the cultural attributes of anti-
capitalism and creativity, the similarities between hacking and hacktivism are found.
Justification of Hacktivism
Anonymous by far is the largest and most popular hacktivists group in the world. As an
online activist group, it claims to have an extensive network of individuals who are not bound by
any hierarchy or management system. Their only bond is the need to achieve social justice which
is shown in the various hacktivism instances they have executed over the years. For instance,

Hacktivism 5
they defended WikiLeaks from some organizations that were biased against it. Moreover, they
were have also been responsible for shutting down some adult website that has been identified to
feature child pornography (Carabott 2011). In all, the factors that drive hacktivists groups to their
activities provide the justification for hacktivism.
Generally, there are three factors that contribute to the emergence of hacktivism:
 One, the growth of information technology.
 Two, political and economic crisis which when coupled with hacker awareness pushes
individuals to exact digital vigilance.
 Three, state and government suppression which limits the traditional methods of protest
(Mikhaylova 2014).
Information technology and its affiliated functions have created a new digital culture that
is not managed by the traditional authorities. This culture, in turn, has created other extensive
sub-cultures who characteristics are associated with a virtual technology that surpasses the
conventional, physical boundaries of the world. This new environment creates a form of utopia
that has no rules as the users are unknown to each other, an outcome that facilitates a ‘Notopia’
realm for anything to thrive. According to scholars, this state of Notopia is the origin of
hacktivism where idealistic groups promote their objectives. Therefore, because IT and the
internet allow groups to promote their political ideologies at a global level, hacktivists actions
will always thrive, an outcome that is well illustrated today (Davila 2017). Now, the justification
in this instance is facilitated by the rights of the users who have the freedom of expression so
long as they do not infringe rights of others. Thus, on account of that, the internet is an open
forum for all, hacktivism is a justified culture.

Hacktivism 6
Government and corporate authorities infringing on people rights is another trigger for
hacktivism. Essentially, a global crisis is created when leaders of the world promote their own
personal ideals without considering those of the society at large. Over time, these actions birth
activist representatives, who also become aware of the political scenes thus, protest against them
in an attempt to counter the acts of the unregulated authority. Now, the modern environment is
characterized by the digital world and therefore it is used to exact political justice, a justification
of the course, as hacktivism, in this case, aims to balance the political environment (Vegh 2002).
A similar outcome is also seen with economic conditions where capitalistic ideals have
facilitated multiple worldwide financial crises. As such, hacktivists emerge to counter the abuse
and corruption of business leaders.
Hacktivism is also a response to the states’ suppression of traditional methods of protest,
particularly street demonstration. China is an excellent example that illustrates this response as
the government’s actions to suppress public outcry has been answered with countless instances
of hacktivism. In this case, hacktivists engage in social movements to protest the loss of certain
rights that are also combined with the inability to express themselves verbally or physically.
Again, the Chinese history reinstates this point as its governments have continuously shut down
all traditional avenues that the citizens could use to voice their political concerns, which in recent
times accounts for the sharp rise in hacktivism in the country (Mikhaylova 2014). Therefore,
when people are not allowed to express themselves physically they seek alternative methods to
do so, a clear justification of the hacktivists actions.
Legal Options
Hacktivism is still yet to be addressed by law, in fact in its current state, international
legal stipulations do not even define it. Thus, before developing legal frameworks to deal with

Hacktivism 7
the concept, a thorough understanding of the movement is needed. This process could start by
analyzing the triggers of hacktivists actions as outlined above in order to classify the acts
executed as either civil disobedience or cybercrime. In some instances, malicious groups may
purport to be online activists only to intrude on other users resources (Rossi 2016). Thus, a clear
distinction is needed between hacktivism and malicious hacking.
By default, hacktivists are said to break the law as they access resources without
authorization. In 2011, Shawn Henry, the then Assistant Executive Director of the FBI stated that
any hacktivism was an illegal action as it interfered with the policies of networking technology
while accessing valuable data owned by individuals. These sentiments are continuously echoed
today where any person apprehended for the act is prosecuted under the Criminal Laws of
Computer Misuse. However, a different outlook needs to be adopted as activists too have their
own set of laws that allow them to protest and express their views in public. Hacktivism should
also be allowed to occur within certain limits (Levinson 2011). This exception should not also
allow malicious intruders to perform their activities but basically should consider the case of
those caught in hacktivists activities. Thus, a grey area must exist to accommodate the role of the
modern and digital activist.
Conclusion
Hacktivism is a modern evolution of hacking where an integration of political activism
and computing technology is seen to exist. Unlike hacking which is concerned with the
celebration or intrusion of technology, hacktivism deal with a human agency where certain
cultural ideals are promoted. Now, as an activism avenue, this concept is justified as it provides
the general user (public) an open platform to voice their concerns. Moreover, it also acts as an
extension of the freedoms and liberties of expression while using the internet as a

Hacktivism 8
communication medium. Thus, the legal statutes should aim to protect those who engage in it so
long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Hacktivism 9
References
Advisen. 2012. HACKTIVISM: The Growth and Implications of this 21st Century Method of
Protest. White Paper. Available at: https://www.advisenltd.com/wp-content/uploads/social-
hacktivism-whitepaper-2012-12-11.pdf [Accessed 26 May 2018]
Baldi, S, Gelbstein, E & Kurbalija, J. 2003. HACKTIVISM, CYBER-TERRORISM AND
CYBERWAR: The Activities of the Uncivil Society in Cyberspace. Graduate Institute of
International Studies. Available at: https://baldi.diplomacy.edu/italy/isl/Hacktivism.pdf
[Accessed 26 May 2018]
Carabott, E. 2011. Hacking Motivations – Hacktivism. Tech Talk. Available at:
https://techtalk.gfi.com/hacking-motivations-hacktivism [Accessed 25 May 2018]
Davila, D. 2017. Is Hacktivism ever justified? Business and Marketing. Available at:
http://idaconcpts.com/2017/06/01/is-hacktivism-ever-justified/ [Accessed 25 May 2018]
Denning, D. 2010. ACTIVISM, HACKTIVISM, AND CYBERTERRORISM: The Internet as a
Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy. Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and
Militancy. Available at:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch8.pdf
[Accessed 26 May 2018]
Duarte, B. 2013. The Body Hacktivism Movement: A Talk about the Body. PsychNology
Journal, 11(1), pp. 1-12. Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8844/e9912a9540a247bf7be66e50bf22ec6c5648.pdf. [Accessed
25 May 2018]

Hacktivism 10
Levinson, M. 2011. FBI Warns Hacktivists: You're breaking the Law. CIO From IDG. Available
at https://www.cio.com/article/2448968/security0/fbi-warns-hacktivists--you-re-breaking-the-
law.html [Accessed 25 May 2018]
Gunkel, D. 2005. Editorial: introduction to hacking and hacktivism. SAGE Publications.
Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b49b/dbb39c5e60058299120de5e192e2a4e8e8b0.pdf [Accessed
25 May 2018]
Mikhaylova, G. 2014. The “Anonymous” movement: Hacktivism as an emerging form of
political participation. Texas State University. Available at:
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/5378/MIKHAYLOVA-THESIS-
2014.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 25 May 2018]
Rossi, B. 2016. The rise of hacktivism: where does the law stand and can we protect ourselves?
Information Age. Available at: http://www.information-age.com/rise-hacktivism-where-does-
law-stand-and-can-we-protect-ourselves-123461215/ [Accessed 25 May 2018]
Sorell, T. 2015. Human Rights and Hacktivism: The Cases of Wikileaks and Anonymous.
Journal of Human Rights Practice, 7(3), pp. 391-410. Available at:
https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/article/7/3/391/2412155 [Accessed 25 May 2018]
Vegh, S. 2002. Hacktivists or Cyber terrorists? The changing Media Discourse on Hacking,
7(10). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/998/919 [Accessed 25 May 2018]

Hacktivism 11