Hacktivism a case for the new Activist

Hacktivism: a case for the New Activism. 
By Lord Kristoffer Martin
Introduction
Part 1) History of Activism
Part 2) Vox populi 
Part 3) Hacktivism the new wave of activism
Part 4) Internet as an absolute voice, why hacktivism are now so mainstream. 
Conclusion


Without grandiose statements over cultural despotism, government failings, or the pinning of blame on any one group for the many problems we're facing; I can say that there is a need for free information exchange, free voice, and a need for action to correct problems that aren't being addressed.

The biggest resource for information exchange on the planet right now is the internet. It connects communities, countries, and people instantly that are otherwise worlds apart and isolated. The internet changed the world and how we as a global community communicate. This change allows greater liberty and freedom for some, while greater restrictions for others. With this expansion of communication, the shrinking of the global communication gap, the rules for information exchange also changed.

Within the internet are the many secrets that our governments, radical groups, and others don't want to be found out. It is also the home for many websites, thousands, if not tense of thousands of websites attributed to different topics, cultural ideals, social orders, and conspiracy. Enter, Hacktivism. Hacktivism is the act of hacking sites to obtain specific information or to shut down that site as a communication node for a group of people, done by a group in opposition to those opponent voices.

Hacktivism is the new protest. Denial of Service Attacks are the digital version of a picket line, only more effective. This version of activism, acting against groups out of either negative or positive reasoning is a means of disrupting a message. It also allows for anonymity of those activists who oppose certain messages.

Disconnected group headers like Anonymous exist to protect hacker activists (hacktivists) who attack and shut down sites that are vulnerable but also represent a negative use of power.

Part 1)  History of Activism
This is by no means intended to be a comprehensive history of activism. Rather, it is intended to be a brief conceptualization of the history of activism occurring as of late. Zeitgeist or "the state and atmosphere of a body of people in relation to it's governing body; ie the state of the country" is in a state of flux.

With political strife and the assault on reality and facts by many proponent ideologues who're trying to shape reality into what they see fit, the activists in the US are poignantly fighting a losing battle. The classic style protest and occupation of public space is becoming less effective as the media focuses more on the minute details of the protesters and not the subjects of protest. This is exemplified by the many protesters arrested under false charges and those protesters attacked by police officers stepping beyond the boundaries of the law.

While historically the publicization of such events focused more on issues being protested (as in the case of the First Wave of  the Women's Rights Movement, the Black Rights movement), it isn't until much later when more radical means of protesting became popular that we see the extremist actions the authorities take to curtail protesters.

However, with the internet, the voice of the people is drowned out by the voices of everyone. Modern protests do not hold the same cultural weight the past protests did. The dissemination of information is instant, people can pick and choose their news sources, and they can choose to only hear the message and information they want disregarding facts in favor of their now reinforced view points.

In the past information went through filters, the media, each news source available, while possibly whitewashed with some political, cultural, religious, or monetary bias, remained more or less truthful and presented the facts. Today, any news source or media page can say what they wish without any regard for facts. Fox News embodies this very concept of virtual-news, where it is no longer facts or reality but sensationalism and opinion that is presented to their audience.

Therein, the voices of the protesters are no longer their own. Their intended message, their complaint, is overshadowed by the opaque filter of mainstream media. When it comes to the internet, their message is again lost, though if searched for available, as again mainstream media overshadows the basic facts as they perpetuate their version of events.

Part 2) Vox Populi
Unfortunately historically, where the physical protest could affect and change media sources, affect and change governmental departments, affect and change public policy, this is no longer the case. The physical protest has lost it's meaning, as media coverage of their message is inundated with political, cultural, and religious bias which twists reality to meet the message the media source is wanting to portray.

A great example of this is the dichotomous representation of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The media sources in favor showed the protesters standing strong, discussed their anger, their ideals, their reasons for the protest. While those in opposition ignored these people, called them bums, degenerates, showcased their being attacked by cops and presented a  narrative that they were violent.

Unfortunately rarely did either side of the debate discuss the moral and constitutional implications of the protest and the way the police and authorities were handling the protest.

The vox populi or voice of the people is drowned out by ideologues and media personalities, either unwilling personally or unwilling because of contractual obligation, who present a fictional narrative rather than facts.
The internet then takes up the slack. It presents a medium that can present the truth as well as fallacy in regards to media. The internet is filled with the voice of the people but with the distinct disadvantage of there being no central media source, no central fact checking source, no central regulation of what is said.

We have gone from a fairly well regulated media machine that would present the facts with only small degrees of bias being presented (ignoring off shoots and extremist publications) and we have shifted to two very big extremes. One that is highly biased but well organized and another that is highly unorganized and exhibits both facts and opinion equally.

Part 3) Hacktivism the new wave of activism
Hacktivism is the new wave of activism. From my perspective it is in fact protected under the constitution. The internet is a public forum, virtual in nature, but none the less a public forum. There is no presumed privacy on the internet. The only way to change the way that the vox populi is presented on the web is to fight against poor expression, unfactual beliefs, and fictional narrative that is presented by any site. There is of course two means of doing this, either presenting your own site to counter the arguments of another, or remove the other site altogether.

For me there are two types of hacktivism; one that is done with purpose (regardless of if that purpose is malevolent or benevolent). The other is when there is personal gain involved without any active purpose. A great example of the later is of the 12-year-old in Canada who hacked government sites to earn video games (see http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/27/twelve-year-old-anonymous-hacker-pleads-guilty-to-breaking-into-government-sites/). This young hacker, unaware of the implications and legal issues that surrounded the hacking of sites, let alone government sites, did so due to a material incentive. His hacking falls under hacktivism as his hacking was used by another non-organized group who acts under the header of online protesters; Anonymous.

Anonymous is now a household name. Their famous attacks on the CIA, FBI, Microsoft and dozens of other pages, that the various unconnected hackers operating under the header, targeted, seem to represent the biggest evil and the foundational upset that initiated Occupy Wall Street. Hacktivism seems to be the next step in the act of protestation of businesses and government alike. Instead of risking physical harm, these activists take to the web to attack and shut out the voices of the pages that they wish to protest. Their actions disrupt the protested as any other protest would. Unlike physical protests however, the virtual presence of both the protester and the protested are all that are in harms way. It is an attack on the voice and opinion of the hacked website by the hacktivist.

Part 4) Internet as an absolute voice, why hacktivism are now so mainstream. 
As I've stated already the internet is the most open resource available in the US. It is a medium in which anyone can voice their opinion, and anyone can voice opinion in opposition of others. This makes the internet the ultimate vox populi. It is an expression of both a national and international audience who are watching events unfold. It allows for the instantaneous sharing of information giving us glimpses into the actions of people that would otherwise seem inconsequential. The internet gave us glimpses into the practices of dozens of public servants and figures, allowing for a critical examination of how authorities act towards protesters and other minority groups. This is one of the internet's biggest strengths and flaws. As the vast amount of information becomes available the myopic aspects of various topics are focused on while the bigger picture is ignored. This factor of how the internet as a media form works now influences other media which also fail to examine the big picture in their efforts to assert a bias representation of reality.

In return more and more people are turning to hacktivism, knowing full well that mainstream media is turning more and more into the cacophonous disorganized form that the internet is. Truth and facts are lost and this is exemplified by Fox News once again. Fox News' "News Deck" bypasses the editorial team, the filters that traditional media use to insure factuality, and now give us news via Twitter feeds, facebook posts, and trending topics. (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/07/shepard-smith-tours-revolutionary-fox-news-deck)
News now is about opinion, not facts. And to combat illicit bullshit the hacktivists now protest at a far. Proving that the government, the media sources, and other groups, are not safe from being criticized. They use their hacking skills to target and protest in front of the eyes of the audiences of websites the problems that exist with the hacked source.

Unfortunately hacktivism isn't protected like physical activism. One's right to safely and civilly protest by marching, by picketing, and so on cannot be infringed in the US. But the virtual public space of the internet does not exist in the physical world. It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the US constitution, but is by it's nature a global community. That said, I'd argue that as a global community, a global space, it falls under the purview and jurisdiction of the UN and not any one country.

Conclusion: Hacktivists and hacking is now the new means of protesting because traditional forms of protestation are failing and are being criminalized. While the act of protestation is protected under the constitution, more and more traditional protesters are being attacked, harmed, and their messages twisted, leaving little chance of influence. Without reliable unbiased objective media sources representing the facts and reasoning behind traditional activism, the only way to effectively disseminate a message and protest of a group or government group is to hack and take down their sites. The message sent to users of their sites is that these groups being attacked are doing something wrong. In a period where internet traffic outshines physical traffic, where one's virtual presence at times is more legitimate than one's physical presence, where views of a webpage can consist of millions of hits, it is far more effective to present a message of protest by disrupting a website than it is to occupy a physical space.

Right now Anon is hacking dozens of sites in protest, some it is for good reasons, for others it is for personal gains or personal bias. This is no different than any other protest that exists. The hacked page is the new virtual picket-line, it is the new voice of the activist and like the old voice of the activist, it to is being legally targeted by people who oppose the expression of opinion and the protesting of groups. Especially authoritative groups (such as governments, large corporations, and media outlets) that are likely to suffer from such attacks.

I'll conclude by saying that hacktivism is like any other activism. It is plagued with people wanting to affect change for the better and by people who want to hack as a sign of dominion and power. There are those hacktivists who wish to steal secrets and those who only wish to protest the opinions of people who are presenting fallacy.

We must be careful as we move forward into a new era of activism. We must not cross the border of criminal intent as we protest through hacking. We must use hacking responsibly so that the right of free speech is not infringed upon nor restricted because of poor choices.

I encourage Anonymous's message and believe that one day the mask of Anon will not be needed.

Meta-Conclusion: I wrote this post as a response to something that isn't actually clear here. Hacktivism isn't just disrupting pages or taking down sites, but actively circumventing censorship online. With countries like China preventing connections to sites outside of their internet resources, like Google.com, Facebook, Youtube, etc and countries like the UK attempting to force content filters on everyone, both free speech and fair free exchange of information on the internet is threatened.

Further still, the dissemination of fallacious information, misinformation, and disinformation on many sites attempting to push a specific message must also be confronted as they're doing a great disservice to their audience and via their audience a great disservice to everyone else. Fallacy isn't protected speech, nor is hate speech, and such sites as: American Family Association's website, Abiding Truth Ministries' website, or Linda Harvey's site (http://www.missionamerica.com/) which presents fallacious papers and arguments against homosexuality and promotes homosexualitymisia and homophobia and hate against the LGBTQ community.

The presentation of these opinions and factless arguments as fact is detrimental to the site's audience.
I believe that hacktivism should be used to combat such fallacious information and it's dissemination so as to curtail the consequences of teaching people these beliefs.

Thanks again for reading,
Lord Kristoffer Jay Martin