Anonymous

Easily recognizable by their Guy Fawkes masks, one of the most active online hacking groups is known as Anonymous. They officially labeled themselves in 2008 for their first political move as a hactivist group. They posted a video threatening the church of Scientology and eventually mobilized a group 10,000 strong to gather in the streets to protest of the church's attempt to censor the Internet. The message and unification of the group was swift and successful (Paganini). The group's main method of hacking, as used in this initial protest, is know as distributed denial of service (paganinip). This isn't a very complex attack method - it is simply bombarding or "pinging" a particular web page frequently in order to overwhelm the page with traffic. The effect is blocking the online information of the target from all other Internet users.

But who is the "they" behind this powerful hactivism group? Here again we face the issue associated with online anonymity - an aspect of the Internet allowing the members and leaders of different operations to alter constantly. While the group is protected from prosecution, they subject others to the justice of the multitude. So far the group has been able to reveal personal information such as social security numbers, addresses, emails, cell phone numbers, etc. in order to threaten their targets. The ethical dilemma continues as the group watches...

Hacking + activism = Hactivism

We've heard the phrase thrown around in the media, but what is this word splice really about?

                                                     

Coined in 1996, the term hactivism can be defined as "the practice of gaining unauthorized access to a computer system and carrying out various disruptive actions as a means of achieving political or social goals" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hacktivism). Author and security and hacking expert Pierluigi Paganini further describes the phenomena as "the transposition of protest and civil disobedience into cyberspace"(http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/hacktivism-means-and-motivations-what-else/). In place of good old picket lines and on site rallies, online groups use digital sabotage tactics such as information theft, website defacement, typosquatting, data breach, and denial of service attacks to put the action in their activism (http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/6086/cyber-crime/the-hacktivism-phenomenon.html).

There are clear benefits to this system of communicating political and/or social dissent. The anonymous forums allow users to participate in an online democracy - every user's feedback has equal value and every opinion can be voiced without censorship. The Internet also connects and unifies people in all parts of the world to rally for a single cause. This method of communication is more effective and far-reaching than the previous sharing by word of mouth or informative brochures. The forums are a place to inspire change and instigate swift action. One of the intriguing aspects of hactivism for the users is the sense of justice. Hactivists are able to intervene without consequences when they think the nation's legal system fails. In a sense, hacktisim has produced an opportunity for an online Robin Hood. To illustrate this point, Steven Levy, an author and researcher of hacking phenomena, outlines a concept called Hacker Ethic; a code of conduct listing the possible moral motivations for hacktivism:

1. Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-on Imperative!
2. All information should be free.
3. Mistrust authority—promote decentralization.
4. Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race or position.
5. You can create art and beauty on a computer.
6. Computers can change your life for the better.
http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/revisiting-curious-world-art-hacktivism

However, for all the freedoms and potential morally motivation action introduced in this new forum of anonymous communication, there are ever present and overarching dangers of misuse and abuse of the technology. A fundamental concern is the hactivists are unable to be policed. The activist groups can remain unchecked because "it is hard to attribute to each user" (http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/6086/cyber-crime/the-hacktivism-phenomenon.html). There are no clear leaders or consistent members responsible for the actions of the group which makes pinning down the person or group responsible for an attack impossible. Another issue is the selection of targets or prioritizing attacks. Because all voices are contributed, the forums become overwhelmed with opinions. It is the most extreme ideas that gain attention within the group. The creation of the most radical opinions coming from a seemingly unstoppable collective seems like justified cause for concern.