November 11, 2003SFS Seminar Presentation Hacktivism: Right or Wrong Sergio Caltagirone Graduate...

November 11, 2003 SFS Seminar Presentation

Hacktivism: Right or Wrong

Sergio CaltagironeGraduate Student

University of Idaho

James Baillie, Ph.D.Chair, Dept. of Philosophy

University of Portland


Format

• Short Introduction to Ethics• Introduction to Hacktivism• A Potential Framework• Discussion of Hacktivism


EthicsIntroduction

• The 5 minute tour– Glosses over 2500 years of philosophical work

• Ethics: A system of principles and rules concerning duty; “what we ought to do”

• Duty: A task or action one is bound to perform (obligation)

• 2 Principles of Ethics– Any ethic or ethical position must satisfy these


EthicsUniversality Principle

• Universality: if an ethic declares an action right or wrong given a situation, it must also declare the action right or wrong given another situation with similar circumstances


EthicsJustification Principle

• Justification: Any ethical determination must be justified by appeal to a general moral position (even though one may not be able to articulate that position)– Unacceptable justifications include:

• Appeal to Prejudice• Appeal to Emotional Reaction• Appeal to False Facts• Appeal to Others (Parroting)


EthicsTheories for Hacktivism

• Although almost any theory can work for Hacktivism, we will focus on three that are most promising– Consequentialism– Deontology– Civil Disobedience (Rights/Justice Theories)


ConsequentialismIntroduction

• A group of theories which determines the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of their consequences– Act-Consequentialism

• Assess potential outcomes of each case and act to produce the most good

– Rule-Consequentialism• Derive the rules which typify actions based on their

production of good


DeontologyIntroduction

• There are several distinct duties– Personal duties (children, parents, friends)

– Social duties (debtors, associations, jobs)

• Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically right and others are intrinsically wrong based on duties– Not in any way determined by its consequences

• Almost formalizes ‘The Golden Rule’– Do unto others as you would have them do unto you


DeontologyKant

• Kant’s Categorical Imperative– An action is right or wrong based on

universalizing the maxim (rule of conduct) of the action

• i.e. would bad things happen if everybody did it

• Wrong if a logical contradiction occurs– Lying is wrong because if everybody did it, then over time

the term lying is meaningless because then there is no distinction between truth and fiction


Applied DeontologySpafford’s Hacking

• Spafford argues that hacking is intrinsically wrong (except in extreme or rare cases)

• It is deontological because it would not be sensible or permissible if everybody did it

• Acknowledges that some instances of hacking would be preferable, but not ethical (i.e. not something we ought to do).– Hacking into medical records to get vital data to save

somebody’s life when no authorized user is available


Hacktivists’ Claims

• Most hacktivists claim that their actions can be considered civil disobedience

• Therefore, they attempt to evoke the ethical justifications of civil disobedience

• But can they?


Civil DisobedienceDefinition

• According to John Rawls in his historic 1977 work, A Theory of Justice, he defines civil disobedience as “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to the law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.”


Civil DisobedienceJustification to Break the Law

• This will only apply to democratic societies (or near democratic societies)

• An implicit contract (duty) when participating in the society to follow its laws– P. Singer

• We have a natural duty to follow just institutions– Rawls

• Therefore, any need to dismiss that duty (if any), must be extremely rare and well measured


Civil DisobedienceJustification to Break the Law (2)• Rawls gives these requirements for C.D.

– The law or policy being objected to must be a clear and substantial injustice

• Violating the natural rights of citizens

– Must first try to eliminate injustice by lawful means– Cannot threaten the rule of law with the disobedience– The action must be controlled, not to provoke into

unjust violence– The action should advance the ends addressed (not just

to show off your morality)


HacktivismDefinition

• An amalgamation of the words hacking and activism.

• The use of technology to publicly communicate or further a political cause through the unauthorized use and/or the disruption of a computer service.


ExamplesZapatista Rebellion - Description• First documented event of modern hacktivism• In 1998 a DoS attack against the President of

Mexico’s website• As Wired News reported, approximately 8,000

hacktivists attempted to prevent any legitimate traffic to the site, or even crash the server. The purpose of this action was to protest and gain publicity for the alleged mistreatment of Zapatista rebels in Chiapas.


ExamplesZapatista Rebellion - Methods

• To do this, any person could go to a website, which downloaded an applet (FloodNet) and allowed the hacktivist to reload the webpage numerous times very quickly.

• Hacktivists from the U.S., Mexico, and many other nations participated


ExamplesZapatista Rebellion - Pentagon

• The Pentagon (another target in the attack) attacked back when it sensed the flood of web page requests.

• The Pentagon website redirected the hacktivists to another site, which included another FloodNet type program called HostileApplet.

• At that point, the HostileApplet program was downloaded onto the hacktivist’s machine and caused it to be unresponsive until the machine was restarted.


ExamplesIndia and Nuclear Weapons

In June of 1998, just months after the Zapatista act, hacktivists broke into top-secret Indian nuclear laboratory computer systems to protest live nuclear tests being performed by India.

According to Wired News, the hacktivists broke into the Indian computer network at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Bombay, copied some files and emails and then erased all of the data on the systems.

SFS Seminar PresentationNovember 11, 2003

ExamplesNike and Human Rights

• On July 19, 2000 Nike’s primary corporate website (http://www.nike.com) was hijacked.

• Hijacking is a term used to describe when an unauthorized change is made which causes all of the traffic going to one site, actually go to another site.

• In this case, all of the traffic going to nike.com was being redirected to an Australian hacktivism organization’s site (S-11). The S-11 site contained a political statement that urged protests of the World Economic Forum to focus attention on the alleged human rights violations of corporations.

http://www.nike.com/




FrameworkIntroduction

• The framework is designed to help determine whether an act of hacktivism is ethical or not

• Satisfying all of the criteria should be necessary, but not sufficient to render a case ethically justifiable

• Criteria is made up of numerous ethical theories


FrameworkCase of Ethical Hacktivism?

• Say that a small group of technologically savvy persons are living in a totalitarian state, which restricts all information in and out of the state. Say that this group has obtained unequivocal proof that their government is practicing genocide. This group then defaces the government’s website and places on it the proof they have of the atrocities for the purpose of alerting other nations to the genocide. The group could not have gotten this information out any other way.


FrameworkCriterion (1-4)

1. The individual or organization engaging in hacktivism must have first exhausted all other legal means of redress.

2. The act of hacktivism must not harm innocents who are not involved in the accusation of unethical practices (this includes upstream providers)

3. The participants of an act of hacktivism cannot remain anonymous (no proxies)

4. The act of hacktivism must clearly advance the end addressed


FrameworkCriterion (5-9)

5. The hacktivist must be ethically motivated. (must be able to morally justify their position)

6. The act of hacktivism must not cause unnecessary harm to the system being attacked

7. No personal profit. 8. Willingness to accept responsibility for the

consequences of the action.9. Unless in a non-democratic environment, action

cannot threaten the rule-of-law


Discussion

• So, can we ethically justify hacktivism?

• Is hacktivism civil disobedience as claimed?

• Can we apply consequentialism or deontology to hacktivism?

• Were any of the examples of hacktivism ethical?

November 11, 2003SFS Seminar Presentation Hacktivism: Right or Wrong Sergio Caltagirone Graduate...

Documents

Transcript of November 11, 2003SFS Seminar Presentation Hacktivism: Right or Wrong Sergio Caltagirone Graduate...