Hacktivism – Righteous Voice or Persistent Irritant
Hacktivists employ their knowledge of technology to disrupt political systems, correct perceived wrongs, and promote their version of social good. They use computer technology and resources to push their political agenda, normally stepping on the toes of others. Some heraldthemselves as a digital Robin Hood, while others want the mystique of being part of the faceless unnamed masses.
Anonymous hackers declare "war" on Islamic State
I recently contributed to an article which covers the motivations, impact, and likely evolution of online digital disruption and aggressive message dissemination. As society continues to embrace digital technologies, it becomes a more powerful platform to inform, manipulate, and share ideas. Traditional news and television is slipping as the primary means of news, being supplanted by online services. Some aggressive people and groups will take advantage of this opportunity and push the boundaries of accepted behaviors and legal practices to get their message out.
Welcome to the world of hacktivism.
I invite my Steemit colleagues to read the article:
Is Hacktivism the Antidote to Apathy?
Feel free to share your thoughts, concerns, ideas, or frustration.
Interested in more? Follow me on Twitter (@Matt_Rosenquist) and LinkedIn to hear insights and what is going on in cybersecurity.
Photo Credit: http://iq.intel.com/hacktivism-antidote-apathy/
"Freedom fighters" or "Terrorists"? Depends on which side of the fence you're sitting...
I'm glad there are people out there that care enough to do something, but I'm on this side of the fence...
Often it's neither. To create freedom you have to create new opportunities and options for people. Often hacktivists from a consequentialist perspective are not improving anything or creating new options. If more hacktivists were to focus on the consequential perspective, then they'd notice a lot of the criminal forms of activism don't lead to any improvements in society, any reforms, any cultural revolution, etc.
So it's better to build than to destroy. I'm not saying all hacktivists do it wrong, but many of them do it wrong and it leads to undesired or unanticipated consequences. Elon Musk is an activist engineer, but he's doing it in a way which makes himself and people around him rich, his reputation is preserved, but he still revolutionized multiple industries.
Hacking (black hat) is illegal so even if its done for a righteous reason, the fact that it is illegal can be used to discredit the activism part. That is the problem.
Neither. Naive idealists who think they know what is righteous or what is moral. It's a very nuanced world and most hacktivists tend to be young, confused, and self righteous.
Activism can be accomplished in smarter ways. Creating Steem is a kind of hacktivism but using the true sense of the word hacking, as in the Steem platform provides value to the world and the ideals are part of the design.
Being arrested doesn't help a cause because whatever the cause is, will look bad or amateur, if all the people associated with it are in jail, arrested, or look like they are failing socially.
We see actions thorough our own personal lens. I have seen Hacktivism which I think is terrible (attacking the banking systems resulting in people not being able to access their accounts when they need them) and other situations which I would say benefits global human rights. For example there were some protests in what we would consider oppressive countries where the government shut down Twitter, Facebook, etc. so the would would not know how they were dealing with peaceful protesters. Hacktivists setups alternate paths so Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram could work and the world was able to see. This resulted in the government forces taking a less physical approach.
Exactly. For me, I determine the correctness or incorrectness of a decision by it's outcome. It's admittedly not possible for me to know in advance what an outcome will be but there are probabilities.
When there are cases of hacktivism which produce a measurably positive outcome, then I'm in favor of it. But I think as you highlight, in many of these cases innocent people's lives get disrupted, or in some cases the focus of the hacktivism goes personal and is focused on destroying people personally, and it is there that it becomes dangerous.
If you have cases of hacktivism which protects lives, saves lives, defends human rights, and we can measure the outcomes to show it really did achieve that, then that is great.
Hindsight is 20/20. I completely agree with you if it is possible to quantify the benefit exceeds the harm. It is a tough call in the moment though. I do think some revolutionary acts are good for the greater community (ex. American Revolutionary War) but most of what I see in the hacktivism space is really about a power grab, personal gain, or pushing an agenda in excess of what it is worth (or in a way which is unnecessary).