In recent years, hacktivists have received greater attention from the media, the public and from government bodies. The distribution of classified information by hacktivists has garnered much media attention. In particular, the 2010 release of over 200,000 United States embassy cables by the whistleblower organization Wikileaks (the largest set of confidential documents ever released into the public domain) was widely publicized and severely condemned by the United States government (Al Jazeera, 2010). As their actions become both bolder and more widely acknowledged, hacktivists are being increasingly seen as a threat to national security in security-focused states such as the United States. This raises the question of how actors in the government of the United States are currently taking action to securitize hacktivism.
3. Key Question
How are government actors in the United States taking
action to securitize hacktivism?
Hacktivism: the act of hacking, or breaking into a
computer system, for a politically or socially motivated
purpose. The individual who performs an act of
hacktivism is said to be a hacktivist (TechTarget, 2001).
4. Hypothesis
Hacktivism, and particularly the online activism group
Anonymous, is being securitized by government actors in
the United States through dialogue and legal mechanisms
that frame hacktivists as terrorists.
5. Background
How has hacktivism evolved, and in which ways do
hacktivists interact with government actors?
Method: a literature review of academic, government
and news documents on the subject of online activism,
with a focus on the United States.
6. Anonymous
a loosely-affiliated group of computer programmers
organizes itself to coordinate online protests
methods include DDOS attacking websites, hacking
into organizations' servers and leaking documents.
Anonymous hasn't once used its capabilities to physically
harm another human being or the general public.
7. Civil Disobedience
Electronic civil disobedience is borrowing the non-violent direct
action tactics from earlier social movements (Wray, 1998).
Diverting traffic away from a website is akin to setting up a
roadblock of picking a building
Organizing a denial of service attack is akin to a sit-in
(Auty, 2004)
Acts of cyber disobedience are de facto illegal, but hacktivist acts
are only those that serve as social or political forms of protest
(Huschle, 2002).
8. Speech Act
What language have government actors in the United
States used to frame hacktivism as a threat to national
security?
Method: Document analysis of government documents,
academic and news articles
Theory: Framing theory
9. Speech Act
Terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority. But in the not too
distant future, we anticipate that the cyber threat will pose the
number one threat to our country. We need to take lessons
learned from fighting terrorism and apply them to cyber crime.
We must continue to push forward, because our adversaries are
relentless. They want our money, our property, and our secrets,
and some seek to harm us well beyond that. Together, we can
turn the tide against them and bolster the security of our
nation’s information, networks, and infrastructure.
10. Speech Act
Today, our adversaries sit on fiber optic cables and wi-fi
networks, unknown and undetected…They seek our technology,
our intelligence and our intellectual property, even our military
weapons and strategies. In short, they have everything to gain,
and we have a great deal to lose.
The end result will be the same: we will lose our data. We may
lose access to our own information. And we may well lose our
security.
11. The Audience
How are citizens and the private sector responding to the
message that hacktivists pose an imminent threat?
Method: Document analysis News articles, public
sector reports and online blogs
Theory: Constructivist theory
12. Emergency Measures
What emergency measures are government actors
promoting in order to strengthen their nation’s security
against hacktivism?
Method: Document analysis of government, academic,
and news documents and blogs.
Theory: Constructivist theory
13. Conclusion
Government actors in the United States are in the process
of securitizing hacktivism, and in particular the online
activism group Anonymous. They are already framing
hacktivism as a form of terrorism, and highlighting the
future potential threats to national security.
Notas del editor
What documents?What will I be looking for?What words or phrases?Who are the key players?
For example, diverting trafficaway from a Web site is akin to setting up aroadblock or picketing a building, and organising adenial of service attack is equivalent to a sit-in.Huschle believes that all acts of cyber disobedienceare de facto illegal, but that hacktivist acts are onlythose that serve as social or political forms ofprotest – discounting malicious acts.
What documents?What will I be looking for?What words or phrases?Who are the key players?This will be explored through document analysis of FBI speeches, Department of Homeland Security briefings, legal mechanisms and relevant academic and news documents. These sources will allow for analysis, through a framing theory lens, of the words and phrases used by government actors, and the interpretations of their choice of language by academics and journalists.
Terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority. But in the not too distant future, we anticipate that the cyber threat will pose the number one threat to our country. We need to take lessons learned from fighting terrorism and apply them to cyber crime.We must continue to push forward, because our adversaries are relentless. They want our money, our property, and our secrets, and some seek to harm us well beyond that. Together, we can turn the tide against them and bolster the security of our nation’s information, networks, and infrastructure. Amongst all of the crimes our country faces, the FBI considers high-tech crimes to be the most significant. As a result, the FBI’s top three priorities are the previously mentioned counterterrorism and counterintelligence, followed immediately by cyber. Espionage once pitted spy versus spy, country against country. Today, our adversaries sit on fiber optic cables and wi-fi networks, unknown and undetected. They may be nation-state actors or mercenaries for hire, rogue hackers or transnational criminal syndicates. These hackers actively target our government networks. They seek our technology, our intelligence and our intellectual property, even our military weapons and strategies. In short, they have everything to gain, and we have a great deal to lose.The end result will be the same: we will lose our data. We may lose access to our own information. And we may well lose our security.
Terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority. But in the not too distant future, we anticipate that the cyber threat will pose the number one threat to our country. We need to take lessons learned from fighting terrorism and apply them to cyber crime.We must continue to push forward, because our adversaries are relentless. They want our money, our property, and our secrets, and some seek to harm us well beyond that. Together, we can turn the tide against them and bolster the security of our nation’s information, networks, and infrastructure. Amongst all of the crimes our country faces, the FBI considers high-tech crimes to be the most significant. As a result, the FBI’s top three priorities are the previously mentioned counterterrorism and counterintelligence, followed immediately by cyber. Espionage once pitted spy versus spy, country against country. Today, our adversaries sit on fiber optic cables and wi-fi networks, unknown and undetected. They may be nation-state actors or mercenaries for hire, rogue hackers or transnational criminal syndicates. These hackers actively target our government networks. They seek our technology, our intelligence and our intellectual property, even our military weapons and strategies. In short, they have everything to gain, and we have a great deal to lose.The end result will be the same: we will lose our data. We may lose access to our own information. And we may well lose our security.
This will be explored, through a constructivist lends, by document analysis of the previously listed sources, as well as reports issued by private sector players and opinions of citizens published on blogs. These sources will allow for analysis of the messages being directed at private sector players and citizens, and the reaction of the audience to the concept of hacktivists posing an imminent threat.
This will be explored through document analysis of all previously listed sources. There sources will allow for analysis of the actions government actors have already taken, and are promoting should be taken, in order to diminish the threat of hacktivism to national security.
While there are certainly voices of opposition to the comparison of hacktivists to terrorists, the discourse is dominated by those who perceive a security threat. The successful securitization of hacktivism is likely to lead to stricter penalties for hacktivists, increased government security online, and an increase in the level of monitoring and censorship of online communications and activities by the United States government
