Hacking, Hackers, and Hacktivism
April 9
Spend five minutes with anyone who studies “hackers” and you will quickly learn that the term is used to define a wide array of discrete subcultures, from homebrew computer programmers all the way through to military-industrial network vulnerability experts. If there is one unifying characteristic amongst all of these cultures (and there may not be), it is most likely the acknowledgement between these groups that the limitations imposed by code as a mode of regulating behavior can, and should, be subverted. Today we look to hackers, who they are, what they do, and what rules and norms govern those who do not recognize code as a governing influence.
Our guest speaker this week will be Molly Sauter, a student at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program and researcher at MIT's Center for Civic Media, who has written and spoken extensively about cultural perception of hackers.
Readings
- Molly Sauter, Activist DDOS Campaigns: When Similes and Metaphors Fail (video, watch from to 1:56 to 21:44)
- Sauter uses the term "DDoS" throughout. This is an abbreviation for "distributed denial of service," a specific form of attack to a web server described in more detail here.
- United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes (read pages 1-11: Introduction to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Key Definitions)
Optional Readings
- Intelligence Squared Debate: "The Cyberwar Threat Has Been Grossly Exaggerated" (an Oxford-style debate with Marc Rotenberg, Bruce Schneier, Mike McConnell, and Jonathan Zittrain; watch the video of the debate)
- Benjamen Walker, Doing it for the LULZ (from Too Much Information) (11:00 to 22:45 only, language at times is NSFW)
Videos Watched in Class
Links
Class Discussion
I was particularly interested in this week's reading: United States Department of Justice, Prosecuting Computer Crimes it was interesting to see the amount of amendments as the years went by that the federal government attempted to control the internet behaviors of the public. This reading relates closely with my topic for my final paper of the governments control on a macro level in contrast to my paper which exams a small micro community that the federal government is attempting to control. In the readings it appears as if the government reacts in the way of a bell shape curve. Initially they are reactive in nature to something that they are late in response to, then they build up the momentum with legislation, then they continue to amend this legislation to be more and more restrictive until overregulation takes place. The federal government should look into addressing this method of over regulation for it does not protect the public from hackers or those that intend to do wrong, as much as it hurts the freedoms of the public citizens. Interestingcomments 10:49, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
Computer Hacking! Whether done for national intelligence reasons, protesting for civil rights, or simply causing disarray, hacking is now a common reality. The articles and video this week shed light on various hacking attributes. For this post, I’d like to address two: the relationship between hacking and activism (hacktivism), and identify theft.
As noted in Molly Sauter’s presentation, a primary goal of hacking is to attract media coverage that reveals the identity of those participating in a given action. This concept is an interesting one to consider from a retrospective viewpoint: before the Internet, how did information about public officials or public entities leak in the same manner? Did the same amount of information spill? Or, was there a much greater sense of privacy throughout industries, the government, and civil life? Mass media is a powerful mechanism that can "change the word" overnight, but how can we examine the interplay between the Internet and media? From one perspective, they are the same: messages spread quickly to large audiences across both avenues. From another perspective, the Internet acts as a stimulus that shapes media coverage. In other words, it's the first stepping-stone that turns privacy into publicity, which can begin through hacking.
As defined on the Wikipedia page [1], "Hacktivism is the use of computers and computer networks to promote political ends, chiefly free speech, human rights, and information ethics." One important characteristic to consider with hacktivism, however, is "perspective." It’s all about one’s perspective surrounding a given "hacktivist's act:" those who believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech may inevitably be committing felonies that destroy other people's identity or an organizations' operations. Hacking Iran's nuclear system is much different than hacking someone's bank account, but at the same time they're both deceitful, correct? When we think about activism, we think "good:" activists fight toward a common cause to create positive change in society (most commonly). When we think about hacktivism, however, good is not always the first thing that comes to mind. What do you think about the interplay with these two words? Can they mean the same thing or are they always different?
The second point I’d like to address is "privacy." When examining confidentiality today, I often ask myself what is truly private online? The article about China infiltrating the New York Times, or the reference about hacking Sarah Pallin's personal information illustrates that none of us are truly safe from being hacked. Emails are not private; Facebook is not private; and to certain extent, passwords are not private. With this in mind, how can we protect ourselves from identity theft? How can we create passwords that are impossible to hack? How can we protect our online identity (i.e., our real-world identity)? As we all file our 2012 taxes, for example, consider IRS refund fraud....Citizens with no IT background are able to earn tens of thousands of dollars through online hacking; and the majority are never caught. Are these types of hackers also hacktivists, because their united behind a common cause? What defines a hacker vs. a hacktivist? Why is it OK to invade one person’s or organization’s privacy, but not another’s? Is it OK when the vast majority disagree with a person's viewpoint, or a country's ideals, or a company's mission? Or, is hacking always wrong?
I've asked a lot of questions in this post, because hacking in another complex topic to dissect. Many of us "live online," and for that reason I question what will happen in the near- and long-term as our day-to-day lives become even more virtual. No matter how vigilant we are, no matter how many times we change our password, and no matter how many password characters we use, we may all, eventually, be hacked! Zak Paster 11:28, 9 April 2013 (EDT)