Identifying the Ideology of “Hacktivism”

Mark Ranario
Discourse and Technology
Dr. Susan Lang
April 20, 2008
 Ranario 2

Introduction

As global politics continue to endure a turbulent and complex time in history, an

awareness of the hacktivism will continue expanding and evolving. However, previous
attempts to pin down its precise definition have proven difficult, misleading and inconclusive.
Even among prominent thinkers of hacktivism, such as Oxblood Ruffin and Stephen Wray, as
they have publicly disagreed on what types of direct action are best suited to reflect the
hacktivist ideology. Ruffin has characterized hacktivism as a form of “disruptive compliance,”
while Wray argues that it should present itself as a form of passive civil disobedience (Ruffin,
2002, 2001; Wray, 1998). At the opposite end of the spectrum, some observers seem largely
content with categorizing all hacktivist activities as malicious and destructive threats (Denning,
2001). As a result, rather being read as a unique conceptualization, hacktivism often becomes
pigeonholed into the existing subcultures of hacking, activism or cyber-terrorism.

By focusing on the ideological sources hacktivism in regards to more contemporary

examples, this paper will attempt to shed more light on its general nature. It is argued that
hacktivism is tethered to non-violent and constructive ideals. With a clearer understanding of
hacktivism, it will allow us to better judge future acts as being acceptable or unacceptable
forms of digital protest. Moreover, we can begin to lessen the kind of hostile rhetoric often
used to describe hacktivism and its causes. Brian Still notes that, “Using rhetoric to paint the
hacker as a threat, however, is a very effective tool that governments and corporations can rely
on, as they have in the past, to paint the hacker in a negative light, thereby thwarting many of
the efforts hacktivists make to legitimize their actions in support of valid causes that many
people might or do support” (2005). By emphasizing non-violent and constructive qualities of
hacktivism, I hope to clarify the approach to its study in the future.

Hacktivism

The relationship between activism and technology may not be unique, but the potential
of today’s technology to advance social causes has expanded considerably. In the United States,
activism is being revived, expanded, and infused within a new type of digital framework.
Technology oriented activist groups not only leverage innovative ways to apply common
technology to social causes, but have extended its function beyond the typical realms of
cyberspace and software. The emerging trend of purposing technology for activist agendas has
been referred to in a number of different ways, including technivism, e-activism, electronic
advocacy, and cyber-activism.
 Ranario 3

Unlike the more generic references to technology and activism, the term “hacktivism”
was borne out of a specific goal of resisting, “the commodification of the internet at the hands
of corporate profiteers and violations of human rights at the hands of oppressive governments”
(Manion, 2000, p. 14). Such ideals are clearly evident in the manifestos and group ideologies
promoted by prominent self-labeled hacktivist groups such as the Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc),
the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT) and the Electro-Hippie Collective. As a portmanteau of
“hacking” and “activism,” hacktivism synthesizes elements from both terms, creating a unique
practice tailored to advance a politicized cause in the digital era. Although the original
movement in the 1990s had focused primarily on using software, hacktivism has evolved to
embrace all forms of technology-related human acts agendas. Within the nomenclature of the
movement, “hacktions” refers to acts of hacktivism, and “hacktivists” are individuals who align
themselves with the hacktivist mission. Alternatively, “hacktions” are sometimes called
“hacktivity.” The use of “hack” as a prefix symbolizes the distinct technological focus of direct
acts of protest. Understandably, the recurring presence of the term “hack” is misleading
because it continually echoes a relationship to the hacker culture.

Though hacktivism originated out of a specific agenda, public and scholarly assessments
have given mixed description, partly due to its immaturity and its relationship with the hacker
culture. Academic publications and media outlets have often failed to provide an adequate
explanation of its distinct nature, relying instead on extant hacker stereotypes to position
hacktivism as being primarily “computer hacking” for political purposes. In the past decade,
hacktivism has been described as being a novel, but questionable, form of protest to a fear-
inspiring form of cyber-terrorism (Denning, 1999, 2001).

To clarify, hacktivism combines hacking techniques with socio-political agendas, but the
tools of today’s hacktivists are not limited to software. Moreover, hacktivism differentiates
itself through ideology, supplanting the technological ends of hackers with more humanistic
goals, “Hacking, as it evolved over time, increasingly became the pursuit of technological means
as an end in itself. Hacktivism, by contrast, is presented as a refocusing upon the political
nature of the end to which technological means should be put: a normative element has been
put back into objectified computer code” (Taylor, 2005). It is crucial to note that the activist
ideology embedded in hacktivism is a defining characteristic, for without it, we would simply be
left with hacker motivations. The way we can separate hacktivists from hackers who leverage
their skills for political reasons will be explored in this paper, and the first step is to identify
some of the mistakes made in early portrayals of hacktivism.
 Ranario 4

Hong Kong Blondes, the Cult of the Dead Cow and the Hoax of Hostile Hacktivism

The manner in which we discuss hacktivist software has substantial implications on

public perception and on how state or national actors define their responses. Under the
provisions of the “US PATRIOT ACT,” computer crimes that are deemed to harm, disrupt,
threaten or act with the intention of injury can be elevated to acts of “terrorism” (PATRIOT ACT,
2001; Cyber Security Enhancement Act, 2002; Sentencing Commission, 2003). This can be
especially dangerous self-declared hacktivists in the US because the government’s definition of
hacktivism is broadly defined as any combination of hacking and political activism (National
Infrastructure Protection Center, 2001). Individuals who justify computer hacking solely as a
means to an end do not qualify as being hacktivists. For example, the 1,000 Website
defacements claimed by the Honker Union of China (HUC) should not be considered as a form
of hacktivism because they were not constructive applications of technology. Moreover, as a
reaction to American hacker attacks, and especially in using aggressive language in their
defacements, “Beat Down the Imperialism of America,” the HUC did more to foster state to
state tensions than it did to draw awareness to universal rights issues (BBC, 2001). It is
precisely with these types of incidents that publications seem to confuse the terms. Thus, it is
important to revisit the line between hacktivism and other forms of destructive and violent
forms of politically motivated computer activity.

In what was perhaps one of the earliest references to hacktivism in a political forum,
Dorothy Denning presented to the World Affairs Council a paper titled, “Activism, Hacktivism,
and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy.” In the paper,
Denning gives a broad definition of politically motivated computer activity as being either
hacktivism or cyberterrorism; the former described as “a convergence of hacking with political
activism with the intention to disrupt but not cause serious damage,” and the latter “a
convergence of cyberspace and terrorism with the intent to cause grave harm” (1999).
Denning’s method of discerning between hacktivism and cyberterrorism is unclear because it
centers on the degree of destruction caused and on the potential threat it carries into the
future. Moreover, she excludes the possibility of non-violent/non-destructive interpretations
of hacktivism by concluding with a focus on the potential for hacktivist methods to evolve in a
way that could cause “grave harm.”
By implicating hacktivism as a destructive ideology, the general public is less likely to be
accepted as an acceptable form of protest. Though Denning’s early portrayal of hacktivism was
a far cry from what hacktivists had claimed it to be, scholars have since begun to approach
concepts of “e-governance” and “electronic civil disobedience” as being peaceful and legal form
of computer related political activity (Balnaves, 2006; Vacca, 2006). I speculate that hacktivism
 Ranario 5

has had difficulty overcoming such a maligned reputation because: 1) having branched out of
the hacker culture, the concept of hacktivism has taken some time to mature into its own, and
2) researchers had relied on examples that did not reflect the hacktivist ideology. As a result,
the first publications on hacktivism were somewhat misleading. For example, Denning (1999),
Balnaves (2006), Vacca (2006) and an official UK government report on Netcrime (Morris,
2004), cite the “Hong Kong Blondes” as an example of the kind of dangers that hacktivists pose
to national security.

Under the premise of resisting Internet censorship practices in China, the “Hong Kong
Blondes” were purported to have successfully removed content filters from Chinese
government computers, warned activists about imminent arrest, defaced websites, hijacked
domains, and planted Trojan horses. Ironically, what these scholars failed to realize, or refused
to acknowledge, was that the story of the Blondes was invented. In 1999, The IT Daily News
investigated the story, concluding that it was a staged hoax by the Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc).
Despite having revealed the Hong Kong Blonds to be fictional, no corrections have been made
to past references of the Blondes nor has there been any further discussion as to why the hoax
was engineered in the first place.

Quite possibly, the cDc may have invented the Blondes as a way to draw attention to
their movement. In an “interview” Oxblood Ruffin of the cDc asks a fictional member of the
Blondes named “Blondie Wong,” “What can people do, hackers, members of the general public,
anyone, what can they do to help the Blondes?” The res ponse is as follows:

Alright, the first thing is this. There are many ways to get involved to support the
struggle for human rights in China. Becoming aware is the beginning. Just talking about
it is important, educating yourself. But if we are talking about the hacker community,
you know, what they can do, this really is a matter of personal choice. I think that if
people want to participate they should use the skills that they have. That is all they can
do. (Ruffin, 1998)

In this “interview,” neither Oxblood nor the interviewee advocates the use of computer hacking
to achieve political goals. Rather, it is suggested that the “first thing” is educating oneself to
world events, which conveniently, is exactly what the interview does. A subsequent press
release regarding the separation from the cDc with the Hong Kong Blondes encouraged
participation in a letter writing campaign sponsored by The Science and Human Rights Program
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's letter regarding the trials of Lin
Hai and Wang Youcai (Vegetable, 1999).
 Ranario 6

I concede that the possibility of being able to successfully hack into government
computers may encourage or inspire real-life imitations, reading the Blondes as a hoax makes it
no different from movies like “Hackers” or “War Games.” Perhaps recognizing that an audience
of non-hackers would be closely following the story, the cDc portrays the Hong Kong Blondes in
contrast to negative hacker stereotypes:

Common Hacker Hong Kong Blondes

Stereotypes
Male dominated culture
Introverted and socially
awkward personalities
A woman, “Lemon Li,” is the leader of the group
Blondie Wong is depicted as being well -traveled, articulate, highly educated and
socially conscious. Refer ences to Seinfeld and the Harlem Globetrotters also
suggest “normal” social skills.

Hackers are typically Half of the group work for the government and are all well educated
teenagers or social outcasts
Driven by ego, competition, Driven by human rights causes and inspired by figures such as Ghandi and Martin
crime or thrill Luther King Jr.
Operates as either a “lone The group is comprised of 22+ members and continues to grow
wolf” or in small tightly knit
“crews”

Towards the end of the interview, Blondie Wong seems to hint at the uniqueness and
future of the hacktivist movement, “Younger people have a great deal of talent although they
can be very awkward. . . I think they are different from the generation of hackers before them.
They want the recognition and attention, but they also want to do something to contribute to
change things in a positive way. In general, I think what they are doing will grow and turn into
something that makes a difference” (Ruffin, 1998). Though the fictional Blondes had relied on
hacking skills, the future (i.e. not hackers) will have to press for change in a more positive and
constructive manner. This change in direction is reinforced by the sheer improbability of
Blondie’s operations, i.e. government agents as members, access to international networks,
and the ability to move endangered members into international safe-houses. The closer one
looks at the Blondes, the more unrealistic their story becomes. It is more likely that the hoax
was intended to bring attention to what hacktivists have been trying to say all along. Ruffin
provides direct clarification:

…many online activists claim to be hacktivists, but their tactics are often at odds with what we
consider hacktivism to be. From the cDc’s perspective, creati on is good; destruction is bad. . .cDc
does not consider Web defacements or Denial of Service (DoS) attacks to be legitimate hacktivist
actions. The former is nothing more than hi –tech vandalism, and the latter, an assault on free
speech. (Ruffin, 2002)
 Ranario 7

Though the hoax of the Hong Kong Blondes does not upend arguments of hacktivism
being a potentially malicious and violent movement, it does highlight some of the inadequacies
and the liberties taken in defining hacktivism. Going forward, we should bear thi s in mind as
there are many terms that overlap with digital activist communities, i.e. hackers, crackers,
hacktivists, e-activists, 1337 hacking, etc. It is crucial that we carefully and adequately
scrutinize before we generalize what is either an acceptable or non-acceptable form of digital
protest. Securing the government network and system integrity is crucial to the operations of
modern nation-states, and we must certainly take aggressive steps to counter those who
attempt to breach them. As global citizens, hacktivists recognize the importance of preserving
a stable network and unlike “cyber-terrorists,” they do not look for ways to disrupt them.
However, by erroneously placing hacktivists in the same category as “cyber-terrorists,” we are
ignoring an important intersection between people, technology and political ideology. To put
things into perspective, it is like recognizing the differences between radical activists and Civil
Rights protestors, “The hacktivist who defaces web pages for his cause is the electronic
equivalent of the activist who smashes windows or graffitis the sides of building…however,
destructive activity is not the norm. What is the norm is the desire to educate the public about
the issues at hand, to help out those in need” (Levesque, 2006, p.1213).

As the hoax of the Blondes demonstrates, the motivations behind hacktivism are not to
sabotage, destroy or permanently cripple government operations, but to bring attention to
violations of human rights and to protect the responsible flow of information on the Internet.
The attacks on the Chinese government were fictional, but the increased awareness to
computer vulnerabilities and Chinese censorship practices were real. Those at the forefront of
the hacktivist movement, such as Stephen Wray, and Richard Dominguez, and groups like the
Cult of the Dead Cow, the Electronic Disturbance Theater and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation have largely shaped the hacktivist movement after Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”
and principles of nonviolence. As an act of intentional misinformation, the cDc had effectively
subverted the mainstream media, and because the hoax did not inflict any physical harm or
destroy any property (digital or physical) we can read the Blondes as multi-layered hacktion of
civil disobdedience. Rather than rely on external observations to assume that hacktivism can be
destructive, we would be better prepared to read into past and future hacktions through the
lenses of publicly declared hacktivist ideologies.

A Bottom-Up Approach: Starting with the Hacktivists Themselves

Among the terms used to describe hacktivism, many of them had a very militant tone:
“battle ground,” “guerrilla theater,” “serious threat,” “sabotage,” “espionage,” “attacks,”
“organized attacks,” “e-mail bombings,” “e-mail carpet bomb,” “virus launchings,” “system
 Ranario 8

control and destruction,” “manipulation,” “assault,” “takeover,” and “cybotage.” While

previous hacking incidents have stoked legitimate fears regarding computer security, I believe
that such vernacular, when applied to hacktivism, is exaggerated. The rhetoric found in
hacktivist declaration, missions or “manifestos” communicates a much different stance, as a
hostile rhetoric is largely absent. The Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT) and Electrohippies
have sections on their websites dedicated to explaining, justifying, and organizing calls for
digital direct action (hacktions) prior to their start. These groups make their intentions public
and even offer open forums for community discussions . As seen earlier, the cDc even makes an
effort to have official press releases. Taylor recognizes that while hacktivists encourage direct
action, they do not endorse or promote approaches that are overtly threatening, harassing or
destructive, preferring to “center on producing, providing and spreading information outside of
government control or regulation” (2001, p. 6). Underlying this pattern of behavior are the
ethical and ideological guidelines set down by the hacktivists themselves.

In his analysis of hacktivism, Manion advises that, “. . . resistance to political oppression

and corporate manipulation must be embedded in a well-articulated theory, one that is morally
informed and widely shared. . . They need to be durable and sustain a commitment, lasting
through adversaries of repression” (2000, p. 18). Yet since the beginning, hacktivists have made
their views and ideologies publicly available. One can easily find documented hacktivist
ideologies on the Internet using conventional means (note: should you choose to look for them,
these documents are not protected by passwords, rigged to launch any viruses or obscured in
anyway). Unfortunately, more time has been spent interpreting and analyzing purported
incidents of hacktivism rather than learning from the “well-articulated theories” already shared
within the hacktivist community. Direct references to the hacktivist produced manifestos,
missions and philosophies are notably absent from the bibliographies of authors who attempt
to explain it (Karatzogianni, 2004; Levesque, 2006; Vacca, 2006; Denning, 1999, 2000, 2001;
Nissenbaum, 2002; Anderson, 2006).

Without adequately considering what the hacktivist community has had to say about
itself, it is easier to misinterpret hacktivism in regards to its historical association with hacker
stereotypes, and excluding the hacktivist viewpoint discounts the efforts hacktivists have made
to provide a sustainable ideology for their community. However, recent works have begun to
address this research gap by acknowledging hacktivist-published theories (Samuels, 2001, 2004;
Still, 2003; Conway, 2007), and hopefully, such works will help sharpen the focus of what
hacktivism truly means as a form of online/cyber protest, “Hacktivists, although they use the
Internet as a site for political action, are not cyberterrorists either. They view themselves as
heirs to those who employ the tactics of trespass and blockade in the realm of real -world
 Ranario 9

protest. They are, for the most part, engaged in disruption not destruction (Conway, 2007, p.
13).

In view of the trend, I include select public declarations made by The Cult of the Dead
Cow (cDc), Electrohippies and the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT). As demonstrations of
non-violent, constructive and even democratic ideals, the statements require little
interpretation and largely speak for themselves. In particular, the works by the cDc,
Electrohippies, and the EDT are significant because they represent the most frequently cited
hacktivist groups among scholars and are currently the most prominent actors in the hacktivist
community. These excerpts will hopefully shed more light on the motivations behind hacktions
and clarify hacktivist mindset (all emphases are mine):

Cult of the Dead Cow: From “The Hacktivismo Declaration”

We recognize the right of governments to forbid the publication of properly categorized state
secrets, child pornography, and matters related to personal privacy and privilege, among other
accepted restrictions. But we oppose the use of state power to control access to the works of
critics, intellectuals, artists, or religious figures...we will study ways and means of circumventing
state sponsored censorship of the Internet and will implement technologie s to challenge
information rights violations. (Ruffin, 2001)

Electrohippies: From “Client-side Distributed Denial-of-Service”

The structure of the client-side distributed actions developed by the electrohippies means that
there must be widespread support across a country, or continent in order to make the system
work. Our method has built within it the guarantee of democr atic account ability. If people
don't vote with their modems, the collective action would be an abject failure. Fundamentally,
it's the mode of the protest on the Internet that is important when evaluating the legitim acy of
the action. (DJNZ, 2001)

Electronic Disturbance Theater: From “On Electronic Civil Disobedience”

. . . As hackers become politicized and as a ctivists become computerized, we are going to see an
increase in the number of cyber-activists who engage in what will become more widely known as
Electronic Civil Disobedience. The same principals of traditional civil disobedience, like trespass
and blockage , will still be applied, but more and more these acts w ill take place in ele ctronic or
digital form. (Wray, 1998)

Rhetorically, these quotes reflect a much different image of the hacktivist. In self-
description, they are more like activists than terrorists. The promotion of non-violent and non-
 Ranario 10

destructive means of electronic civil disobedience, virtual sit-ins, and manipulations of

technology also excludes the use of more insidious tactics like viruses, worms or unauthorized
system infiltrations. In regards to published criticisms of coordinated Denial of Service (DoS)
hacktions and temporary Website defacements, one should note that the hacktivist community
has also questioned the nature of their virtues, “There is an ongoing debate concerning denial
of service attacks and web defacements. On the one side there are those who find that such
actions run contrary to other people’s right to freedom of speech and those who view these
actions as the only way to get the public’s attention” (Karatzogianni, 2004, p. 74). Such
examples of ongoing self-criticism and community introspection are not isolated, indicating the
presence of a collective consciousness that will actively hold specific behaviors accountable to
established hacktivist ideology.

Nevertheless, actions often speak louder than words, and it is necessary to evaluate
whether or not hacktivists follow through on their principles. In the next section, I demonstrate
the reckless nature of the media in responding to the actions of one particular hacktivist group,
and how a closer analysis actually reinforces a constructive and human-rights centered
approach.

Following Through: Cult of the Dead Cow and “Goolag”

There is already considerable documentation on cDc’s “Back Orifice,” the Electrohippies

campaign against the World Trade Organization and EDT’s support of the Zapatista virtual sit-
ins, so there is little need to repeat those ideas here. So for this paper, I believe it is more
relevant to look at a more recent hacktion. The example use is promoted directly by hacktivists
the Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc), and I will analyze the hacktion in terms of embedded principles,
courses of action and public consequences.

Without knowing the context of the cDc, news reports on “Goolag” appear quite
concerning. Related headlines include, “Goolag Tool Lets Google Aid Hackers,” and “Use of
Google for Data Triggers Fears.” In a number of articles, Ruffin is quoted, “If I were a
government, a large corporation, or anyone with a large web site, I'd be downloading this beast
and aiming it at my site yesterday. The vulnerabilities are that serious.” Yahoo! News added to
fears by reporting financial and business concerns, and on the effect “Goolag” would have on
breeding better equipped hackers. At first glance, the release of “Goolag” does not appear to
be an attempt by the cDc to mislead mainstream media outlets or a way to trump up publicity
for a human rights cause. The open-source “Goolag” was widely reported as a boon for
inexperienced hackers and an “automatic weapon” that would allow hackers to increase the
 Ranario 11

number of security attacks on business and government Websites. However, tech savvy
journalists have been more skeptical.

In the “TechHerald,” Steve Ragan notes that, “The FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) on
this story actually comes from the AFP (Agence France-Presse) . . . Use Goolag, if you want, but
do not fall for the fear and doubt that the mass media gave it. It is a tool, nothing more” (2008).
Although “Goolag” does make it easier to identify security vulnerabilities using the Google
search engine and “dorkbot” scripts, only a handful of skilled “hackers” would know how to
exploit them. Judging from mostly tepid responses from network security professionals , those
same hackers would probably not need “Goolag” in the first place. One security consultant
even recommended an alternative to “Goolag,” by resourcing Amazon’s Web Services to build
an even more effective vulnerability scanning tool (Claburn, 2008). The media’s portrayal of
“Goolag” fits right into the definitions provided by Denning, et al. While there are legitimate
concerns about a simplified and automated way to “Google” hack, let us also consider the
release of “Goolag” in the context of past actions by the cDc.

On the cDc Website, the group tracks the mainstream media stories that have reported
on their activities. What is interesting about the list is that it is prefaced by the statement, “We
intend to dominate and subvert the media wherever possible. Information is a virus. And we
intend to infect all of you (cDc, 1984-Current). The cDc press release of “Goolag” is very similar
to that of the Hong Kong Blondes in that the cDc provided news outlets with ominous
statements that are nearly impossible to verify. In “InformationWeek,” Thomas Claburn
mentions that Ruffin also provided him with a list of 11 Government websites that reportedly
have major security vulnerabilities. However, it is unclear if author was able to verify the
claims. Despite such implications, curious would-be hackers are warned by “Goolag” that
running multiple scans will result in the block of your IP address. With over 1,300 possible
search strings, the likelihood of an inexperienced hacker being able to take advantage of
“Goolag” to find the alleged government vulnerabilities is slim. In other words, the tool mostly
benefits people who already know what to look for, i.e. experienced hackers and security
professionals. In the Washington Post, Amichai Shulman, chief technology officer with security
vendor Imperva, notes that such scanning techniques are already well-known in the
community. Unintentionally, he also revealed what was probably the actual intention of
“Goolag,” "Maybe the headlines that this release is getting will serve as a wake-up call for
application owners."

Among the published goals of the cDc include working towards a more free and secure
Internet. By creating widespread concern for Website vulnerabilities, the cDc had effectively
manipulated the media to advance yet another one of their causes. Being true to an act of
 Ranario 12

hacktivism, the release of “Goolag” on February 25 th, 2008 also served another function. On
February 14th, 2008, the cDc participated in a “Valentine’s Day” protest against Google’s
compromises with the RoPC’s Internet censorship practices. Non-coincidentally, protestors
bore signs and wore T-shirts that read: “Goolag” (Broach, 2008). On March 3rd, 2008, another
cDc press release read, “Chinese Government Web Servers Loaded With Kiddie Porn Graphics,
Sex Toys, And Good Old-Fashioned Pron. Western Government Web Servers, No Pron But
Plenty Of Holes” (cDc Homepage, 2008). In contrast to alleged refusals to report vulnerabilities
of US government sites, links to specific examples were posted. Those who continued to follow
the story would have realized that “Goolag” is much more effective at finding illegal and illicit
content on unsecure servers, and therefore, a legitimate means for average citizens to
contribute to the fight against child-pornography.

The impact of “Goolag” goes beyond a public release of an apparent “hacker” program.
The method in which “Goolag” was released achieved four things; 1) an increased awareness of
Website vulnerabilities, 2) an increased awareness of Google’s compliance with censorship
practices in China, 3) refreshed the public of the presence of the cDc, and 4) promoted a tool
that can be used for more constructive purposes. In yet another twist, “Goolag” was not even
created by the cDc. The official press release and license for “Goolag’s” credits the
development of the scanning technique to “Johnny.I.Hack.Stuff,” who describes himself as a
security professional and self-declared hacker. Those who are familiar with programming
would probably realize that “hacking” skills were not required to write the program or the GUI.
In line with the ideology published by the cDc, the unsaid implication of those who expressed a
fear of “Goolag” is that not all information on the Internet should be free. Yet at the same
time, there are contexts in which companies like Google should help defend the freedoms of
responsible information access.

Themost powerful, influential and versatile technological resource at the hacktivist’s

disposal is the Internet. The wide-reaching social networks and organizational tools once
reserved for larger Non-Government Organizations (NGO) such as Greenpeace, are now readily
available to smaller groups though the Internet and advances in technology, “activists realized
that the internet was ideal for transporting messages to a wider audience. It cost relatively
nothing in order to publish messages to a public forum or website, compared to the
considerable costs involved in operating a radio or television station or printing a newspaper”
(Levesque, 2006, p. 1204). Originally intended as a platform for national security or scientific
research, activists are constantly finding ways to leverage its global network. To contribute to
the disruption or destruction of a stable Internet environment does not serve the interests of
hacktivists. The Internet is a great tool for generating popular support for activist causes in a
non-violent way, “The Internet changes the nature of collective action, but contrary to popular
 Ranario 13

belief, the Internet would appear to be especially suited to persuasive collective action rather
than confrontational action” (Brunsting, 2002, p. 550).

In cyberspace, activist efforts are no longer isolated or kept out of view from the public
eye, and the publicity that “Goolag” received is an example of how the Internet can be used to
promote human rights causes in a non-violent way. Unlike the hoax of the Hong Kong Blondes,
for which the cDc fabricated an entire story, it was primarily the media that fictionalized a
negative spin. That in itself is possibly a statement by the cDc regarding the way media reports
will travel in cyberspace. In the case of “Goolag,” the way that technology is used represents
the creativity that defines the hacktivist movement. The use of software as a direct form of
hacktivism has received most of the attention, but in the future, hacktivists are turning to
broader applications of technology to achieve their goals.

Hacktivism 2.0 and Beyond

The Website “Witness” is a good example of the broadening nature of hacktivism. The
mission of “Witness” is to encourage civilians to use commonly available technologies, such as
cell phones with video capabilities, to record and report incidents of state injustice (“Witness,”
2008). What qualifies “Witness” as a hacktivist group is that it purposes an unintended use of
technology with a non-violent and human-rights centered goal. Similarly, Robert Dominguez, a
well known hacktivist who spearheaded the Zapatista cyber-protests, has come out with a
novel use of public GPS satellite systems. With specialized programs, illegal immigrants who
are forced to cross harsh desert environments can be directed to life-saving sources of food and
water. In contrast to “Witness,” only a few individuals are needed to operate the custom GPS
system. The effectiveness of these two examples demonstrates the kind of impact that
technology can have when placed in the hands of any number of civic minded individuals. Other
notable examples include neighborhood webcam systems that become triggered by the sound
of gunshots (Bureau of Inverse Technology), the use of high powered LASER technology to
project highly visible messages of protest (Watson, 2007) , and a redesigned “Predator”
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to make food and water drops for those in need (Barber, 2004).

Within the general activist community, non-violent and constructive uses of technology
are growing, showing that hacktions are not solely the creation or use of software. The
specialized knowledge needed to manipulate more sophisticated technology like GPS systems is
akin to the programming savvy that the earlier hacktivists possessed. Even though only a
handful of people are capable of the creation process of hacktivist technology, the power of
these hacktions grows exponentially when shared with like-minded users. Small groups can
easily effect big change, but larger groups can potential effect tremendous change. Thus, when
 Ranario 14

technology is repurposed to provide humanistic services in a constructive and visible manner,

every person that gets involved, from the creators to the users, becomes a hacktivist.

Conclusion

Identifying with the ideological motivation of non-violence was a key factor for US Civil
Rights protesters in the 1950s,"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster
such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to
confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored" (King,
1963). The rejection of violence and destruction in the Civil Rights Movement not only changed
the way we interpreted acts of protest but influenced the we talked about it as well. In not
fearing the Civil Rights Movement, we were encouraged to learn more about it. Similarly, while
some hacktivities may be disruptive or questionable, hacktivism has promoted itself as a non-
violent and accessible way for citizens to protest violations of our freedoms of information, as
well as a wide variety of human rights injustices.

In the years to come, hacktivism has to overcome being perceived as a confrontational,

hostile and malicious form of computer hacking. The gravitation of activist movements to
technological, online and software resources suggests is quickly becoming the norm, and it is
important that we properly recognize what the hacktivist movement represents and
acknowledge how it has helped define acceptable and unacceptable protest practices in
cyberspace. In order to differentiate between acts of hacktivism or cyber-terrorism, we need to
do more than just look at politicized motivations, but to assess whether or not the tactical
means reflect an intentional breach of non-violent principles. Otherwise, we will be denying the
possibility of having legal and democratic ways of expressing dissent in cyberspace. According
to Cameron, citizens have a, “Right to protest in cyberspace without fear, limited only by
proven intent to commit a criminal or terrorist act as defined by a legitimate law of the country
of citizenship or international law” (2006, p. 166).
 Ranario 15

Works Cited

Anderson, Kent. (2006). “Hacktivism and Politically Motivated Computer Crime.” Network Risk
Management, LLC. Retrieved on April 16, 2008, from
http://www.aracnet.com/~kea/Papers/Politically%20Motivated%20Computer%20Crime.pdf

Balnaves, M., L. Walsh, et al. (2006). E-Democracy: Media-Liminal Space in the Era of Age Compression.
The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments: 1039-1053.

BBC News. (2001). "Truce in US-China Hacking War." Retrieved April 16, 2008, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1322839.stm.

Boache, A. (2008). "Activists have no love for Goolag." Retrieved April 16, 2008, from
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6040265-7.html.

Brunsting, S. and T. Postmes (2002). "Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age: Predicting Offline
and Online Collective Action." Small Group Research 33(5): 525-554.

Denning, D. (2001). "Cyberwarriors.(hacktivism, electrohippies)." Harvard International Review.

Cameron, J. and D. Vaile (2006). The Impact of Security Concerns on Cyber Liberties. The Information
Society: Emerging Landscapes: 153-167.

Claburn, T. (2008). "Google-Powered Hacking Makes Search a Threat." Retrieved April 16, 2008,
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGF1M
IQDXS3AMQSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=206801429&_requestid=13005

Conway, Maura. (2007). “Hackers as Terrorists? Why it doesn’t Compute.” Computer Fraud and Society.
Volume 2003, Issue 12, December 2003, Pages 10-13

Cult of the Dead Cow. (1984-Present). "M E D I A G L O B A L D O M I N A T I O N U P D A T E."

Retrieved April 16 2008, from http://www.cultdeadcow.com/news/medialist.htm.

Cult of the Dead Cow. (2008). "Cult of the Dead Cow Homepage." Retrieved April 16, 2008, from
http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cms/main.php3.

“Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, H.R. 5710: Provisions of Section 225 of the Homeland
Security Act.” (2002). Retrieved on April 16, 2008.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/homeland_CSEA.htm

Denning, D. (2000). "Hacktivism: An Emerging Threat to Diplomacy." Foreign Service Journal.

Retrieved on April 16, 2008 from, http://www.afsa.org/fsj/sept00/Denning.cfm

Denning, D. (2001). "Activists and Terrorists Turn to Cyberspace." Harvard International Review 23(2):
70-75.
 Ranario 16

DJNZ and The Action Tool Development Group of the Electrohippies Collective. (2001). “Client-Side
Distributed Denial-of-Service: Valid Campaign Tactic or Terrorist Act?” Leonardo, Vol. 34, No. 3
pp. 269-274.

“Goolag Tool Lets Google Aid Hackers.” (2008). Washington Post Online. Retrieved on April 16, 2008.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022400016_pf.h
tml

“Hacktivismo Declaration.” (2001). Retrieved on April 16, 2008 from,

http://www.hacktivismo.com/public/declarations/en.php

“Homeland Security Act of 2002, H.R. 5710." (2002). Retrieved April 16 2008, from
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/homeland_CSEA.htm.

Johnny.IHackStuff. (2008). Homepage. Retrieved on April 16, 2008.

http://johnny.ihackstuff.com/

Karatzogianni, A. (2004). "The Politics of'Cyberconflict'." Politics 24(1): 46-55.

King Jr. Martin. (1963). “Letter from Birmingham.” Retrieved on 16 April 2008.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

Levesque, M. (2006). Hacktivism: The How and Why of Activism for the Digital Age. The International
Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments: 1203-1214.

Manion, M. and A. Goodrum (2000). "Terrorism or civil disobedience: Toward a Hacktivist Ethic." ACM
SIGCAS Computers and Society 30(2): 14-19.

Morris, S. (2004). "The Future of Netcrime Now: Part 1 - Threats and Challenges." Retrieved April 16
2008, from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr6204.pdf.

National Infrastructure Protection Center. (2001). "Cyber Protests: The Threat to the U.S. Information
Infrastructure." Retrieved April 16 2008 from
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nipc/cyberprotests.htm

Ragan, S. (2008). "CDC releases "Goolag" - Mass Media Panics." Retrieved April 16 2008, from
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200809/225/CDC-releases-Goolag-–-mass-media-
panics.

Robertson, J. (2008). "Use of Google for Data Triggers Fears." Yahoo! News Online. Retrieved April 16
2008, from http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080227/techbit_google_hacking.html?.v=4.

Ruffin, O. (1998). "Interview with Blondie Wong." Retrieved April 16 2008, from
http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-0356.html.

Ruffin, O. "Waging Peace on the Internet.” Retrieved on April 16, 2008, from
http://hacktivismo.com/news/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=10
 Ranario 17

Samuel, A. (2001). "Decoding Hacktivism: Purpose, Method, and Identity in a New Social Movement."
Harvard University. Unpublished Manuscript. http://www. itas. fzk. de/e -
society/preprints/egovernance/samuel. pdf Page viewed 7(31): 2003.

Samuel, A. W. (2004). Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation, Harvard University Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Retrieved on April 16, 2008, from
http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf

Sentencing Commision, U. S. (2003). "Increase Penalties for Cyber Security Offenses." Retrieved April
16 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/cybercrime503.pdf.

Still, Brian. (2005). “Hacking for a Cause.” First Monday. Volume 10, Number 9.
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_9/still/index.html

Taylor, N. (1999). “The Hacker Hoax.” The IT Daily News. Retrieved on April 16, 2008, from
http://www.itdaily.com/daily.lasso?-database=dailybasepublic&-layout=today&-

Taylor, P. A. (2001). "Hacktivism: in search of lost ethics." Crime and the Internet.

Taylor, P. A. (2005). "From hackers to hacktivists: speed bumps on the global superhighway?" New
Media Society 7(5): 625-646.

US PATRIOT ACT. (2001). Retrived on April 16, 2008, from http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Vacca, J. (2006). The Information Warfare Wireless Network Security Arsenal and Tactics of Terrorists
and Rogues. Guide to Wireless Network Security: 459-517.

Vegetable, D. (1999). " IT'S SPLITSVILLE FOR THE CULT OF THE DEAD COW AND THE HONG KONG
BLONDES." Retrieved on April, 16 2008, from
http://www.cultdeadcow.com/news/hkbsplits.txt.

Watson, Theodore. (2007). “GRL Laser Tag Rotterdam - How to and Source Code.” Retrieved on April 16,
2008, from http://muonics.net/blog/index.php?postid=15

Witness. "Homepage." Retrieved April 16 2008, from www.witness.org.

Wray, S. (1998). "On Electronic Civil Disobedience." Retrieved April 16 2008, from
http://cristine.org/borders/Wray_Essay.html.