Opinions on hacktivism?

[el-half]

I am wondering, what is everybody's opinion on hacktivism?
I find people that are into it "fascinating" for some reason (like the people from www.cultdeadcow.com)
I don't think hacktivism is a good thing as hacktivists still damage other's data regardless of their cause but I would like to hear some opions about it from other people...

[HDD]

I belive that if you want to hack then by all means go for it BUT do it on one of your own computers. I don't belive that anybody has a good enough reason to hack some random persons computer and then fill it up with trojans and viruses because the hacker had nothing better to do.
Personaly I rather buy a second computer to practice hacking on then having the FBI kick the door in at 4 o'clock in the morning and draging me away. Its just not worth it.
Knowledge is free but don't abuse it!

[meeeeeee]

I think it depends on how you define "hacktivism" el-half. Exploiting the vulnarabilities on masses of computers (like the CDC did) ... I have a hard time believing in that. Granted, it did get M$ to take notice and admit the vulnarabilities but I think there must have been a better method with less innocent casualties.

If you define "hacktivism" as hacking websites/databases/etc of people who have done an obvious wrong... then I think I could agree with that. Some examples that come to mind are the authors of CWS and whomever brought down SpywareInfo/Tom Coyote/Merjin this past week or so. I could VEHEMENTLY agree with some "hacktivism" in these cases.

[lessthanzero]

I wouldn't immediately condone all behaviour that gets lumped under the "hacktivism" moniker, but i would posit that it can be an expression of civil disobedience.

Really, in an increasingly intangible/online/virtual world, what other choice is there but to become a hacktivist?

A hypothetical to illustrate my point:

An independent party member is vying for the US presidency. Proponents of this party member decide to use "hacktivism" as a measure of civil disobendience against the incumbents. Using dns poisioning, etc. they cause www.incumbent.org to actually redirect to www.indeppartymember.com, thus attracting more voting populace to the indep..

Some may argue the DDoS attacks could be used as virtual/online sit-ins. I might not disagree, but it would depend on the specifc scenario and circumstances.

Now, i surely wouldn't label destructive behavior as hacktivism- i'd call it criminal. Despite our current legislative and political climate in the US, i wouldn't call the hypothectical i gave criminal.

Would you?

And I ask that sincerely...i'm genuinely curious as to what others think about this.

Cheers,
<0

[el-half]

ow, i surely wouldn't label destructive behavior as hacktivism- i'd call it criminal.

Indeed, especially dstributed attacks (like meeeee mentioned about cDc), they have no point.
You could however argue whether targetted attacks are "acceptable" or not ("evil" websites).
That being still illegal but there's a difference between illegal and immoral.

[silver-bullets]

Illegal is not necessarily immoral, and legal is not necessarily moral. There is nothing wrong as long as you have permission. The only way M$ admits is if mass amounts of people bitch at them for it. It is a stupid policy, but they do it to attempt to preserver their public image. While I do not support what cDc did, it is better them than someone who intends to steal millions. A crippling attack is horrible way to display a point, but some exploits by nature are crippling, and an attack of the kind mentioned above (non-malicious, make a point) will show the true severity of it rather than having M$ downplay it.

-Cheers-

[Evil Moo]

I have a pretty simple take on it. Even if it's morally justifiable, it's still criminal. It's vigilanty, and just because it's done with a computer instead of a gun or in person doesn't mean it's less wrong or destructive to society. Hacktivism is just a way to justify bringing the law into your own hands, which may be moral sometimes, but it's still wrong from a legal and ethical standpoint. The problem with Vigiliantism is that the sense of justice is self-determined. That's where you get into problems with it. After all, even terrorist and religous extremist think they are doing the "right" thing.

[el-half]

After all, even terrorist and religous extremist think they are doing the "right" thing.

Very true, but if we in the "more developed part of the world" were in the same conditions as those terrorists, people among us would do exactly the same as those terrorists.
Its there only weapon, and you have to admit; the US is a F***** up government, (e.g. Iraq, they just attack it and "save the country from a bad dictator", the only thing they do is simply install a government which is controlled by them...and make profit from the oil and stuff) they think they can do anything. Terrorism is their way to fight the USA.

[silver-bullets]

Terrorism is their way of fighting back, just like that is how we fought back against the British for our independence. The British did the same thing we did, call them cowards and such. It is propeganda to premote our way, and to get the country into thinking that we are in the right and they are wrong, and cowards, etc... I do not really support either side of the war because there are no weapons of mass destruction, and killing people who have nothing to do with this war is wrong as well. If Bush did find WMD's then it would go a lot further in proving their point. As it stands, the appearence is that he is just trying to make he and his friends richer. That feeling is reinforced by the accross the board tax cuts instead of graduated ones. Also how they passed the Patriot Act allows for much greater abuses by law enforcement allowing for rivals (both politically and culturally) to be brought down, or impacted severly with not much reason.

-Cheers-

[lessthanzero]

Moo: you have to be careful in comparing and contrasting hacktivism with terrorism i think. Such comments are insinuating that "hackers" are comparable to al-queda (sp), which feeds directly into the hysteria the the US governments wants to build up and support with legislation such as the Patriot Act and Anti-terrorism Act.

Also, i respectfully disagree w/ analogizing hacktivism to vigilantism. Vigilantes respond to acts of perceived personal injustice with violent actions. Would you call a DDoS "violent"? Like i said, I would classify it as criminal, but i wouldn't begin to call it violent...

Lastly, we have to examine the intent here. Hacktivists intend to be "heard" in an increasingly intangible and digital world. For example:

Howard Dean had a very online presence in his presidential bid...we can expect this to grow in the near future. So, hypothetically when future elections (and not just presidential) are conducted in a purely digital, online manner...what method will be available for protest?

Hacktivism is not about "right" or "wrong", rather it is about the ability to protest and be "heard" inside a medium which is so distributed and distilled that it inherently prevents such activities (i.e., the Internet). Sure, some manners of protest are illegal, but again i believe there is a difference between civil disobedience and criminal activity.

Cheers,
<0