"HACKTIVISTS": THE MISTAKEN HEROES

                                 

 “Hacktivism” is a term that emanates from the combination of the terms “hack” and “activism”. It refers to the use of computers or computer networks to promote a certain political or social agenda. The processes integrate critical thinking and programming skills to forge a unique and effective platform for activists. The practice is rooted in the hacking culture and aims at enhancing free speech, the freedom of expression as well as human rights. 

Hacktivism spans a wide spectrum of issues and political ideals. There exist numerous interpretations of hacktivism based on the ideals that inform the practice. These include the claims that it is merely an act of cyber terrorism. Others perceive it as a way of using technological hacking to achieve social change in the society. Hacktivism is essential in promoting democratic principles that aim at enhancing free speech and human rights especially in the modern society where these principles are highly threatened.

                          

In his article titled What is a “Hacktivist”, Peter Ludlow, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, provides useful insight into the understanding of the term. According to him, it is the motivation of the person engaged in the activity that informs the lexical warfare that surrounds the term. As such, some people ostensibly fail to associate the practice with the democratic requirements of enhancing free speech and effecting social change. On the contrary, they accord the practice a negative connotation aimed at tainting the image of the practice and creating a certain phobic tendency around the practice. As a result, the public is incited to hate on hacktivists. Consequently, the practice is perceived with a certain level of mistrust and abhorrence. 

To Ludlow, hacktivism is similar to other activities aimed at effecting social change and hacktivists should not be perceived as criminals inspired by criminal ideologies. He goes ahead to create a distinction between acts that can be classified as hacktivism and those that do not deserve the description. He cites that a majority of hacking activities that a majority of people perceive as hacktivism may not necessarily be hacktivism but malicious acts of cyber crime. For one to completely discern and appreciate the positivity of hacktivism, he or she must be in a position to make a distinction between these acts.

                               

Kent Anderson, the Managing Director of Encurve LLC takes a significantly different stand from that of professor Ludlow in his article titled “Hacktivism and Politically Motivated Cyber Crime.” Anderson takes on hacktivism from a totally different angle in that it is clear from the start of his article that he considers the practice immoral irrespective of the ideals that it supports. 
                           http://www.peakanddale.com/portal/aff.php?aff=060

According to him, hacktivists embrace any opportunity of technological loopholes to disrupt the normal operations of societies, governments, and even institutions. As a result, Anderson considers the constantly increasing hacktivism in the world as a threat to social order. He, however, acknowledges the fact that the internet provides a unique platform for activists to make their pleas known to the world. 

The practice of illegally hacking into protected databases to gain access to information and share it without seeking consent is utterly immoral according to Anderson. While Ludlow considers hacktivism as a justifiable practice that should be protected in any democratic society, Anderson considers it a detrimental mistake made by some of the western nations that consider the practice as amounting to free expression.

Pierluigi Paganini’s article titled, They are Not What You Think They are … They are Hacktivists strives to substantiate the real activities conducted by hacktivists. Inspired by the activities of the Anonymous group that expresses its dissatisfaction of social and political policies through mounting cyber attacks, Paganini takes an affirmative stance similar to that of Ludlow in explicating the real agenda of most hacktivists. 

However, Paganini cites that it is the impact of the activities of many hacktivist groups that makes them a detested and feared lot. This is because the impact of the activities of hacktivists is not any different from that of common cyber criminals. As a result, cyber protests, as perpetrated through hacktivism, should be considered by organization and nations in devising an effective defense against cyber crime.