Stieg Larsson would have loved it: Hacktivism
Chris: I know this is a difficult question, but if I’m allowed to generalise from your example: Couldn’t one argue that most hacktivism is in reality still done by people who we know as ‘trolls’, that their true motive for engaging in this kind of behaviour is to annoy others ‘just because they can’ … or is there any indication that the new breed of hacktivists really have more political motives? If they really are on the rise, hacktivists, then somebody, somewhere, should’ve tried to report and catalogue their activities – and set them apart from ordinary hackers.”
Lars: That kind of criticism could be targeted to almost any kind of political activism. It takes a certain behaviour and diverging cultural norms to be involved in these kinds of actions. One could argue that political activists are a special breed of people with aberrant cultural codes, outsiders to the society as a whole acting with a troll-like attitude. The rise of hacktivism follows the rise of net-culture. It is an indication that these people have new political interest, which in this case the old society and the old media cannot really comprehend. Accordingly, they feel the need to express themselves in new ways that is an integral part of their cultural activities on the internet.
Chris: “Then let’s turn to effects … another kind of criticism that could be leveled – and also generally, I believe – is that these hacktivists really don’t make a difference to the causes the purport to fight for. Sure, they may do something akin to a virtual graphitti or a little politically motivated vandalism to a target’s software, but at the end of the day … isn’t a hacktivist just as limited as those climate activists who threw themselves against the fence around the Bella Centre?”
Lars: “Well, in general it is difficult to trace effects of political activism. Did the climate activists who threw themselves against the fence around the Bella Centre actually make a difference, one might ask. At the end of the day all that counts is getting public awareness and political influence. Hacktivism may be one way to do that. Traditional activism another. Still, the Anonymous action was not just targetted at the Australian government but the self-awareness of the group Anonymous itself as well. The message that was send to the group members can be summarized this way: We are ready to get into action if anybody gets in our way. That message may in fact have been the most important lesson. Because sooner or later hacktivism will have to be taken seriously.”
Chris: “You mentioned before hundreds of hacktivists working together using a special application to execute the socalled Operation Titstorm. Presumably, you and I could use such an app if we were ever ‘invited’? Does this mean that within the next 10 years or so, as the general populace in the world becomes more and more ‘digital’, that we can expect hacktivism to become … well … an everyday occurrance, an expression of identity just as normal as joining a Facebook group is today?”
Lars: “Political activism should never be the first choice. We ought to be able to solve political problems without resorting to these kinds of activities. However, since Anonymous have not yet been met with reprisals, I should think that hacktivism becomes a growing phenomenon, which we will have to deal with politically. If hacktivism turns into a daily occurance then I guess society will react with strict laws on Internet access. Already there are forces trying to put restrictions on Internet usage due to fear of change in the values of society eventually leading to political changes, destabilizing todays power structures.”
[Flip the page for more Q's and A's!]
Categories: Books, Themes
5 Comments » (Including 2 Discussion Threads)
« You’ve read too much about Salander (and Blomkvist) IF … | Home | Millennium Fan Art »
March 24th, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Hacktivism, or the use of downloaded programs (etc) to hack, isn’t felt to be real hacking by the community. The examples mentioned aren’t “real hacking”, as DDos attacks are akin to a massive brute force attack, which requires little intelligence (and a botnet) to use. People who do this sort of stuff are mostly black hats who are in it for the money, or script kiddies.
Wwebsites such as milw0rm.com, where absolutely anyone can download these programs and use them, are resources for what hackers call script kiddies (people who use scripts / programs to hack for them). Script kiddies are generally characterized as juvenile, incompetent, too stupid to write their own code and in it to impress friends / gain credit with the community, without a real understanding of how the systems they’re breaking into works. (More details here: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=script+kiddie)
Black hat hackers are real hackers who are intent on breaking into security systems, using more sophisticated methods (which they normally develop themselves). Metaphorically, this is like using a set of fine tools to gain entry rather than the script kiddie’s sledgehammer. They’re regarded as a lower form of hacker by the white hats, who use their own skills to try to try protect security systems. The names white hat and black hat come from old spaghetti westerns.
March 29th, 2010 at 9:35 AM
@name: Interesting. Can you give examples of Black Hats who’ve used their skills to do something fitting the definition of hacktivism? (Or will they have to kill you if you tell?)
April 1st, 2010 at 12:45 PM
A well known recent example is the report that Chinese hackers attacked the Dalai Llama’s email system, which is reported here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-746.html).
April 1st, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Stieg Larsson definitely would not have loved that! But good example, thanks. I wonder, though, supposing that these hackers were acting in the interests of the Chinese state – either directly controlled or by their own volition – would they qualify as ‘hacktivists’? In a broader sense, yes, it is hacking and it is for political purposes. I’m quite sure, though, that a lot of the more or less organised hacktivists affiliated with the political left and/or liberal democracies in general wouldn’t see it that way
But knitpicking definitions is probably best left to researchers like Lars, so I’ll spare you all for more.
Anyone else have good examples?
April 1st, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Anonymous’s internet harassing of scientologists (the so-called Project CHANology) probably counts too.