The topic of “Hacktivism” is one of importance. Hacktivism is a term that can be “credited to the Cult of the Dead Cow”, a hacker group that argued that universal access to the internet is a human right. Hacktivist aim to cause social change, just as many others have done in the past, through the use of technology. However, just as people have their opinions on activist and social movements in the past, Hacktivists are no stranger to both praise and criticism. With the rise of groups like Anonymous, the lines of ethical hacking are constantly being tested. Therefore, it is important to address the gray area in which Hacktivist currently live and understand why they live in that area.
Hacker Characterizations
To better understand why Hacktivists live in the gray area, one must understand two arguably famous hacking characterizations: Black Hat Hackers & White Hat Hackers. A Black Hat hacker is someone who violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain. These hackers are the ones we see in the movies causing damage and stealing people’s information. These hackers use their skills to infiltrate systems, and are responsible for many of the identity thefts that occur daily. On the other hand, White Hats hackers are characterized as the exact opposite. White Hat hackers can be defined as an ethical computer hacker, or a computer security expert who specializes in penetration testing (not limited to) to ensure the security of an organization’s information systems. These are the people who companies hire to help fortify their systems. They are able to identify vulnerabilities, shed insights on attack landscapes and offer advice based on their hacking backgrounds. Simply put, they are the good guys of hacking.
Who is Anonymous?
The reason why Hacktivist groups are so controversial is because they jump between black hat hackers and white hat hackers to promote a social cause. The now famous hacking group Anonymous is famous for this. Anonymous can be described as an Internet gathering with a loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives. In other words, Anonymous has open enrollment and allows anyone to join the cause. The group is notorious for attacking websites with DDOS attacks and is not limited to attacking governments, certain religions and even hospitals to prove a point. While its purpose is suppose to be for social change, its method of attacks, and who it attack, land it in a permanent gray zone.
Anonymous Can Be Good
On the good side, many people believed that Anonymous was a hero for its attacks on the financial institutions that withdrew their funding to Wiki-Leaks. Instead of risking sensitive customer information (such as usernames, passwords, credit card numbers, etc.), Anonymous decided to attack its public facing website, that did not have any connection to user accounts. The websites came down for half a day and caused a minor inconvenience to users looking for information to join the institutions. Seeming that its main goal was to raise awareness to the hypocrisy of these financial institutions, it delivered its message in an effective way that caught the attention of millions.
Anonymous Can Be Bad
On the negative side, Anonymous decided to attack Boston Children’s Hospital in 2014 in response to a decision it made on a current patient of theirs. The attacks were aimed to cripple most devices in the hospital and pushed the hospital to use pen and paper for the first time in a while. While the situation was a controversial one and Anonymous felt the the need to act, the type of attack it chose and the people it chose to attack was the wrong decision. Members of Anonymous also took to the airways to remind the group that they are endangering the lives of many children. In other examples, Anonymous has attacked multiple websites and revealed usernames/passwords of those websites to send a message to the owners of those websites. However, this type of hack could have also endangered
Conclusion
In conclusion, the role of Hacktivism in everyday life is one that is very controversial. While the causes and social movements that hacktivist groups are fighting for are justified, their method of attacks often lead to damage being done to many people, some innocent. Thus, due to their erratic behavior, it is hard to support hacktivist groups and characterize them as good or bad. I believe they permanently belong in the “gray” zone, and should be defined as very dangerous people who have the capacity to do good.