PROJECT ON Hacktivism

Name:Abhishek chatterjee Submitted To : Dr Vikas GandhiReg No:11A006 Faculty of IHL & Human RightsBatch :2011-16

AbstractNonviolence is a weapon of the strong.Mahatma GandhiSatyagraha was most powerful weapon which was used by the Mahatma Gandhi and many of other revolutionary used this weapon against the British rulers. In modern world internet is became most powerful forum for people to protest against the actions of Government or corruption and against injustice.In November 2012, Central Government amended the section 66(a) of Information Technology Act 2001 for internet censorship. After reacting on action Telecom Minister KapilSibals personal website has been hacked and defaced allegedly by Anonymous India group for the minister's stand on Information Technology Act. Hacker hacked the website of KapilSibal and sent a message that "KapilSibal is the world's biggest retard. Born with a below 60 IQ he thought he could mess with the Internet and let the elite of his party suppress freedom of speech."This research paper analyze the legal various question like whether online protest is similar like other civil disobedience or fall in category of cyber-crime.

Introduction The foundations of political protest online (what is traditionally understood by the term hacktivism) were laid down by the founding parents of the internet based upon their philosophical and ethical commitment to freedom of speech and their mastery of their technological sphere.[footnoteRef:2] But the question arise here what is hacktivism? [2: An overview of the early hacker movement Raymond, E.S. (2002), 'A Brief History of Hackerdom' http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/hacker-history/ar01s07.htmlThe later hackermovement up to the present growth of the Free Libre and Open Source movement can be found atRaymond, E.S. (2000), 'The Revenge of the Hackers' http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-revenge.html Theethical hacker ethos is also fully explored at Raymond, E.S., 'How to be a Hacker'(2001)http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html]

Hacktivism is the fusion of hacking and activism; politics and technology. More specifically, hacktivism is described as hacking for a political cause. In this context, the term hacker is used in reference to its original meaning. As defined in the New Hacker's Dictionary, a hacker is "a person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities" and one who is capable of "creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations".[footnoteRef:3] Activism is defined as "a policy of taking direct and militant action to achieve a political or social goal".[footnoteRef:4] Therefore, a clinical definition of hacktivism is: a policy of hacking, phreaking or creating technology to achieve a political or social goal.[footnoteRef:5] [3: http://www.hack.gr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html] [4: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=activism] [5: This definition appeared on the CULT OF THE DEAD COWs now defunct website http://www.hacktivism.org which is archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203083935/]

The Evolution of HacktivismHacktivism is a recombinant initiative comprised of two divergent communities (hackers and activists). According to Oxford Dictionary hacker is a person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data or informal an enthusiastic and skilful computer programmer or user.[footnoteRef:6]The hacker ethic formulated by Steven Levy in his book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" outlines the hacker dogmas:[footnoteRef:7] [6: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hacker] [7: http://mosaic.echonyc.com/~steven/hackers.html]

i. Access to computers should be unlimited and total.ii. All information should be free.iii. Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.iv. Hackers should be judged by their hacking not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.v. You create art and beauty on a computer.vi. Computers can change your life for the better.

Generally censorship is seen as a human rights violation, especially when it is combined with a repressive, governing regime. In 1975, the Indira Gandhi government imposed censorship of Press. China government also impose censorship on print media, electronic media and internet. Hacktivists, campaigning against censorship and human rights abuses, primarily used tactics designed only to embarrass or exploit an organization or government agency.[footnoteRef:8]Hackers mistrust restrictive legislation that encroaches on free access to information and cherished electronic privacy. Last year the Indian government amended the Information and Technology Act 2000 to impose censorship of internet. According to Dr. Crush that computer technology misused not by hackers but by governments and its corporation: The wonderful device meant to enrich life has become a weapon which dehumanizes people. To the government and large businesses, people are no more than disk space, and the government doesn't use computers to arrange aid for the poor, but to control nuclear death weapons.[footnoteRef:9] [8: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57406793-245/old-time-hacktivists-anonymous-youve-crossed-the-line/] [9: http://www.phrack.org/phrack/6/P06-03]

A Hacker is not always about information and computer technology but sometimes his actions would be based on the political aspect. In the "Hacker's Manifesto" the mentor explains: We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.[footnoteRef:10] [10: http://www.phrack.org/phrack/14/P14-03]

Hacktivism is the technology worlds approach to political activism. Unlike conventional hacking, cyber-attacks against businesses or government agencies are not for financial gain, but rather are intended to cause embarrassment and reputational damage.[footnoteRef:11] Utilizing the skills of computer experts to protest for or against a specific cause, hacktivism in its milder forms can blur the line between illegal hacking and the right to protest, which is an essential element of freedom of speech.[footnoteRef:12]For example, in 1998 a U.S. hacker group called Legions of the Underground declared cyberwar on Iraq and China. The organization was prepared to execute cyber-attacks in an attempt to disrupt Internet access in protest of human rights abuses. Shortly after the declaration, a world coalition of hackers condemned the move and issued the following statement.[footnoteRef:13] [11: http://corner.advisen.com/pdf_files/Zurich_2012SocialHacktivism_Whitepaper.pdf] [12: Ibid ] [13: Elinor Mills, CNET News, Old-time hacktivists: Anonyomous, youve crossed the line, (March 2012), http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57406793-245/old-time-hacktivists-anonymous-youvecrossed-the-line/]

We the undersigned strongly oppose any attempt to use the power of hacking to threaten to destroy the information infrastructure of a country for any reason. One cannot legitimately hope to improve a nations free access to information by working to disable its data networks.[footnoteRef:14] [14: http://www.cultdeadcow.com/news/statement19990107.html]

Types of HacktivismUnderstanding the threat of hacktivism and the types of hacktivist activities can aid in combating the attacks, but it can also be important to understand the types of hacktivism that can occur to understand the origin of the attacks and the motivating behaviour behind them. There are three distinct types of hacktivism: political cracking, performativehacktivism, and political coding. The difference between the different types lies within four characteristics: tolerance for legal risk, name practices, scale of collective action and propensity for multinational cooperation.[footnoteRef:15] [15: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 25]

1. Political CrackingThis type of hacktivism involves activities that are illegal and are performed by hacker programmers. A Samuel state that this type involves the largest number of hacktivist incidents to date, but this does not involve the largest number of participants. The types of tactics used by political cracking include site defacements, redirects, denial of service attacks, information theft, and sabotage.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Ibid. p.58]

Political crackers also tend to work alone or in very small groups when carrying out their attacks.[footnoteRef:17] Despite working with limited support, the impact of the attacks is not jeopardized in any manner. A political cracker can still experience a high degree of political efficacy from their attacks such as defacing a website and attracting significant media attention.[footnoteRef:18] [17: Ibid. p.63] [18: Ibid. p 59]

The first political cracking focused on hacker-specific issues like the regulation of the Internet and the prosecution of individual crackers.[footnoteRef:19] Today, the focus of political cracking activities involves international cyber wars between Israelis and Palestinians, Indians and Pakistanis, and Chinese and American. [19: Ibid. p-69]

One of the more public known political crackers is a group called the Worlds Fantabulous Defacers (WFD). This group emerged in November 2000 and was responsible for a significant number of anti-Indian and anti-Israeli defacements over the next two years (Samuel, 2004). Internet security experts estimated in September 2002 that the number of attacks during November 2001-September 2002 exceeded 400. Many of these attacks were used to attract media attention and promote awareness of human rights abuses of Muslim populations in either Palestine or Kashmir.[footnoteRef:20] [20: Science and Technology to Counter Terrorism, Proceedings of an Indo-U.S. Workshop, National Academy of Sciences, International Strategic and Security Studies Programme of the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India, p-38]

2. PerformativehacktivismPerformativehacktivism differs from political cracking since its actions consist of legally ambitious activities from hacktivists with artist-activist backgrounds.[footnoteRef:21] Their hacking activities for political purposes are in the context of a political theatre. This is meant to describe their hacktivism activities as a performance and using political protest as a speech act. This is evident in the background of the hacktivists in this group. Unlike political cracking hacktivists, performativehacktivists come from theatre or art backgrounds and sees performativehacktivism as a new form of political art. [21: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 71]

Performativehacktivists generally focus on issues such as globalization, liberation struggles, and corporate power.[footnoteRef:22] Many of their actions are performed in groups unlike many of the individual attacks carried out by political hacktivists. A common example is that performative activities are often coordinated so that they are carried out at the same as street protests. Many of their actions involve a transnational coalition of activists even though their websites are assembled by hacktivists in one country who then solicit sit-in participation from a broader cross-national population.[footnoteRef:23] [22: Ibid. p.73] [23: Ibid. p.79]

The attacks mostly take the form of virtual sit-ins or site parodies that are similar to the traditional forms of street protests and political theatres. These attacks differ from political crackers since they are considerably less destructive. This area of hacktivism has also seen progress in software developments to facilitate their use of sit-ins and site parodies. The latest developments by a group called the Yes Men automate the creation of website parodies.[footnoteRef:24] [24: www.cinemapolitica.org/film/yes-men-fix-world]

Performativehacktivists are careful with their actions to avoid any legal action. However, this does not mean that there is no legal risk involved.[footnoteRef:25] Their primary attacks consist of virtual sit-ins, which are essentially less illegal of the political crackers use of denial of service attacks. This is simply because the actual process is carried out by actual people loading the webpage to overload a server and not a program. [25: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 75]

Performance hacktivists carry out their activities in efforts to challenge corporate and media domination of public discourse.[footnoteRef:26]Their primary approach is to be as widely viewed in the public as possible. By reaching out to the public, performance hacktivists attempt to raise awareness and create public pressure and not to directly affect outcomes. [26: Ibid. p.76]

The Electronic Disturbance Theater[footnoteRef:27] [27: http://www.thing.net/~rdom/ecd/ecd.html]

The Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT) was the first performance hacktivist group and remains an influential group in todays time. This group acted in full force in 1997 when the Mexican government returned to Chiapas leaving forty-five unarmed peasants dead in the village of Acteal.[footnoteRef:28] The EDT was contacted by the Anonymous Digital Coalition, a group of activists based in Italy, to encourage people to simultaneously visit a specific Mexican government website. Their strategy was to constantly reload the website until the server eventually slowed or crashed. [28: Ibid. p. 82]

The effect of such technique is different from that of a political cracker where one individual can create a devastating attack. Performance hacktivism relies on a substantial number of users to create a similar effect through their protests. The measure of success for EDT was the amount of press coverage they received from their attacks rather than the impact of their attacks.3. Political codingPolitical coders are very much the political crackers described earlier. As Samuel describes, these individuals turn their technical skills into transgressive politics.[footnoteRef:29] These hackers are, metaphorically at least, the older brothers of political crackers. Such individuals began their hacking careers in non-political hackers, programmers or crackers. Political coding focuses on Internet censorship affecting democracy activists in authoritarian regimes. The Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc) is a main sponsor behind hacktivism involving Internet censorship.[footnoteRef:30] These hacktivists intend to influence policy circumvention and not at influence as performativehacktivists seek to do. Political hacktivists are always actively seeking ways to increase media coverage of their activities and the censorship issues. [29: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 96] [30: Ibid.]

Their approach to circumventing policy relies on the time commitment of political coders in developing the software. This software is always open source, which allows other coders to freely distribute, modify, or improve the code. Their approach to using open source code has its advantage since it can significantly reduce the time commitment of a single coder. This is clearly different from political crackers since it is less time-intensive to deface a website.The legal risks for political coders vary depending on the type of attacks, but are generally less serious than those of political crackers and nearly the same as performativehacktivists. A Norwegian teenager who created the DeCSS software was indicted in Norway and cannot travel to the United States due to fears of being prosecuted there. Hacktivismo is an Internet censorship project sponsored by the cDc that has received tremendous media attention. To mitigate legal risk, Hacktivismos Board of Directors includes Cindy Cohn, the lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[footnoteRef:31] The founder of Hacktivismo, Oxblood Ruffin, also has his own problems to deal with. He states that traveling to China is not an option due to his past activities. [31: https://www.eff.org/]

PeekabootyRuffins plan was to develop software that countered the Internet restrictions found in some countries. Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Tunisia, and China all have state-sponsored firewalls that limit access to the Internet.[footnoteRef:32]Peekabooty is software that was developed to enable users within countries where the web is censored to bypass those censorship measures.[footnoteRef:33] The idea behind this software is that users in countries where websites may be banned will be able to view all websites by accessing the sites through a different intermediary. Users across the Internet connect to the ad hoc network of computers running Peekabooty that retrieves the websites and relays them back to the user. This allows users to bypass firewalls, both national and corporate, and access any website from their own computers. [32: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 101] [33: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/18/censorware_outfit_targets_cdcs_anonymity/]

Types of attacks used by hacktivistsThe different types of hacktivists all have unique tools and type of attacks that they use to convey their messages or to cause harm. Samuel notes that there are at least nine distinct forms that include: site defacements, site redirects, denial of service attacks, information theft, information theft and distribution, site parodies, virtual sabotage and software development.[footnoteRef:34] The different types reflect the different political cultures between each form of hacktivism. Denning also notes the use of email bombs by some hacktivists.[footnoteRef:35] [34: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 17] [35: Denning, D. E. (2002). Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a toolinfluencing foreign policy. Retrieved July 18, 2008, fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch8.pdf]

Site defacements are those acts of hacking websites and replacing the original content with new content that bears a new message. These attacks carried out by hacktivists often contain a political message such as criticism of the organization that is being hacked or some other cause or organization in which the websites organization is associated with. Site defacements remain the most common form of hacktivism. One well-known example is in August 1999 where Chinese hackers defaced several Taiwanese and government websites with pro-Chinese messages. Denning notes that one message read, Only one China exists and only one China is needed. [footnoteRef:36] [36: Denning, D. E. (2008).Hacktivism: An Emerging Threat to Diplomacy. Retrieved July 18, 2008, fromhttp://www.afsa.org/fsj/sept00/Denning.cfm]

Site redirects are similar to site defacements in the sense that users are shown a website displaying a political message. However, the difference is that the web server is hacked, changing its addressing so visitors are redirected to an alternative website that usually contains the political message.Denial of service attacks (DoS) are powerful in causing harm but are rarely used by hacktivists. These attacks are designed to prevent users from gaining access to the systems. This is done through three basic types of attacks: consumption of computational resources such as bandwidth, disruption of configuration information such as routing information and disruption of physical network components. A prime example is in 2001 when Chinese hackers attacked US websites due to a collision between Chinese and US military planes. Chinese hackers launched DoS attacks on hundreds of US websites but the impact the minimal.Information theft involves hacking into websites and stealing information. The goal of this attack is to publicly embarrass an organization by showing a lack of information security and sometimes go as far as publicly displaying the stolen information. One example occurred in 2001 when the World Economic Forums computer system was infiltrated and conference participants email addresses and travel itineraries were stolen and sent to a Swiss newspaper.[footnoteRef:37] [37: McDonald, Tim. 2001. "Hackers Invade World Economic Forum." NewsFactor Network, February 5.]

Virtual sabotage includes online activities that are designed to manipulate or damage the information technology of the target. Such sabotage can occur in the form of viruses and worms that can cause harm by destroying data in the computer system when infiltrated. The first protest to use a worm occurred when antinuclear hackers released a worm into the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administrations SPAN network in 1989 (Metac0m, 2003). Scientists that were logging into their computer systems were greeted with a banner from the WANK worm. John McMahon, protocol manager with NASAs SPAN office estimated that the worm cost them up to half a million dollars of wasted time and resources.Virtual sit-ins involves gathering hundreds to thousands of protesters to simultaneously reload web pages continually to overload the servers causing them to crash or slow down.[footnoteRef:38] This technique depends on the number of participants in order to succeed with a meaningful impact. [38: Denning, D. E. (2002). Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a toolinfluencing foreign policy. Retrieved July 18, 2008, fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch8.pdf]

Site parodies involve replicating a target websites appearance or by using a web address that is confusingly similar to the target website (Samuel, 2004). An example occurred in 1999 when a group called ark (pronounced art mark) created an anti-globalization website using the web address http://www.gatt.org. This was meant to cause confusing between the WTO and GAAT, its predecessor organization. The result was that the website replicated the appearance of the WTO website except the content was produced to be highly critical of the WTO.[footnoteRef:39] [39: http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf p. 23]

Software development involves creating open source code and distributing it to hackers in carry out specific political purposes. This type of code is free and allows users to modify the code and improve upon it in order to maximize the effectiveness of potential attacks.Email bombs involve sending thousands of email messages at once, usually targeted to government policymakers, with the use of automated software.[footnoteRef:40] The result is that the mailbox will overflow, making it impossible for the user to accept or perhaps locate legitimate email. [40: Denning, D. E. (2002). Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a toolinfluencing foreign policy. Retrieved July 18, 2008, fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch8.pdf]

Impact of hacktivism on businessesThe growing number of hacktivist acts is causing a concern for many organizations. The importance is even greater for professional accountants and IT professionals in assessing the effectiveness of a clients information systems and controls. This requires an understanding of the impact various attacks can have and the steps to minimize any damages such as downtime, theft of data and loss of reputation. Manion and Goodrum states that hacktivism poses a threat at two levels: the private industry/intellectual property level and the national/government security level.[footnoteRef:41] The authors note that the only entities that truly benefit from the Internet are large transnational business corporations. Hacktivists often do not wish to cave in or agree with corporate manipulation, thus, prompting attacks on such targets. Many of these corporations are clients of the Big 4 accounting firms. Therefore, auditors will need to be aware of such attacks and ensuring that clients have effective controls in place to allow them to continuously operate. [41: Manion, M. &Goodrum, A. (2000). Terrorism or civil disobedience: toward a hacktivist ethic. ACMDigital Library, 30(2), 14-19.]

For many businesses, the most significant impact from hacktivism is not the potential downtime from the attacks, but the impact such attacks may have on their reputation (Anderson, 2008). The attacks can quickly gain media attention so that when attacks have minimal impact on the organization, the media coverage creates a more significant problem for the target. Anderson believes that as technology continues to develop, disruption will increase both in volume and impact.[footnoteRef:42] Also, hacktivists will continue to use public relations as a major weapon in targeting organizations. [42: Anderson, K. (2008). Hacktivism and Politically Motivated Computer Crime. Retrieved July 19,2008, fromhttp://www.aracnet.com/~kea/Papers/Politically%20Motivated%20Computer%20Crime.pdf]

While site defacement can severely impact an organizations reputation, it is responsible for the least amount of damages.[footnoteRef:43] Since site defacement is not very costly, many organizations act economically and do not spend very much to prevent such attacks. This approach may make financial sense, but many organizations should still develop a contingency plan to outline the steps necessary to quickly reverse such attacks. [43: McAlearney, S. (2008). CSI Survey: Financial impact of some security breaches skyrockets. RetrievedJuly 18, 2008, fromhttp://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid14_gci1108577,00.html]

One of the more devastating attacks is caused by denial of service kits. This poses a major concern for businesses because it can be difficult to counter such attacks. The problem is due to the fact that it is difficult to identify whether the increase in traffic is from hackers or whether they are legitimate.[footnoteRef:44] A prime example can be a new product launch by Microsoft that is made available on their website. There are many users that are against the monopolistic behaviour of the company and so, may time their attacks during times of increased traffic such as product launches. [44: Barnes, S. (2008). The Changing Face of Hacktivism. Retrieved July 18, 2008, fromhttps://forums.symantec.com/syment/blog/article?message.uid=323368]

Case studies Related to HecktivismCyber Activist use the internet to promote the Democracy in BurmaThe case of Burma raises intriguing questions about the effect of modern computer communications on the balance of power between citizens and elected officials, and among local, national, and international power structures and, ultimately, their effect on the conduct of diplomacy in the 21st century.[footnoteRef:45] Geographically dispersed but knitted together by the Internet, Burmese and non-Burmese activists from the United States as well as from Europe and Australia joined a longstanding effort to bring democracy to Burma (a small, and to many, obscure Southeast Asian nation).[footnoteRef:46] Burma remains in the grip of a powerful military junta, known until recently as the State Law and Order Restoration Council. [45: http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/NetworkNetWar/MR1382.ch5.pdf] [46: Ibid.]

In the early 1990s, a few Burmese exiles opposed to the regime in Rangoon began communicating on the Internet via electronic mail. Among the first was CobanTun, an exile living in California who redistributed newspaper reports from Bangkok, Thailand, and other information about Burma on the Usenet system, using an electronic mailing list called seasia-l.[footnoteRef:47] The first regular and consistent source of [47: Various interviews and electronic correspondence with Coban Tun.]

information on Burma available on the Internet was BurmaNet. It took shape in Thailand in late 1993, the brainchild of student Douglas Steele. In October 1993, at the Internet Center at Bangkoks Chulalongkorn University, he perused an online Usenet newsgroup called soc.culture.thai and Thai newspapers that carried the only in-depth English-language accounts of events in neighboring Burma.[footnoteRef:48] Steele realized that the Internet could be used to provide information about human rights abuses and the usurpation of democracy in Burma.[footnoteRef:49]BurmaNetmaintained on a computer server run by the Institute for Global Communications (IGC), a computer network serving peace and human rights activists.[footnoteRef:50] The number of electronic subscribers went from a handful, to 30, to 100, to 400 in its second year, until it was impossible to keep track of the real readership, because BurmaNets reports were posted on the Usenet system and reprinted in paper newsletters.[footnoteRef:51] At about the same time BurmaNet was ending the international drought on news about Burma and helping both form and inform an international network whose members were dedicated to ending SLORCs rule, related efforts got under way to challenge the regimes choke-hold on information within Burma.[footnoteRef:52] [48: http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/NetworkNetWar/MR1382.ch5.pdf] [49: Interview with Douglas Steele, Washington, D.C., February 2, 1997; A. Lin Neumann, The Resistance Network, Wired, January 1996, Vol. 4.01, p. 108.] [50: Neumann, The Resistance Network, 1996; Martha FitzSimmon, ed., Communicators of Conscience: Humanitarian and Human Rights Organizations Use of the Internet (New York: The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, 1994), p. 25] [51: The BurmaNet News, No. 603, January 3, 1997. The full text of BurmaNets daily newsreports are archived at ftp://Sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/political-science/freeburma/bnn/. ] [52: http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/NetworkNetWar/MR1382.ch5.pdf]

.Egyptian Revolution and online Activism-We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.[footnoteRef:53]The 6 April Youth Movement (Arabic: 6 ) is an Egyptian Facebook group started in Spring 2008 to support the workers in El-Mahalla El-Kubra, an industrial town, who were planning to strike on 6 April. Activists called on participants to wear black and stay home on the day of the strike. Bloggers and citizen journalists used Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, blogs and other new media tools to report on the strike, alert their networks about police activity, organize legal protection and draw attention to their efforts. The New York Times has identified the movement as the political Facebook group in Egypt with the most dynamic debates. As of March 2012, it had 325,000[footnoteRef:54] predominantly young and educated members, most of whom had not been politically active before; their core concerns include free speech, nepotism in government and the country's stagnant economy. Their discussion forum on Facebook features intense and heated discussions, and is constantly updated with new postings.[footnoteRef:55] The Internet has been heralded as an effective weapon of the weak and disenfranchised against their authoritarian leaders, resulting in what New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoflabeled the quintessential 21st-century conflict, in which on one side are government thugs firing bullets[and] on the other side are young protesters firing tweets.[footnoteRef:56] Much attention has been paid to the role that the Internet has played in generating awareness of the Arab Spring in both the Middle East and internationally.[footnoteRef:57] A poll by The Arab Social Media Report indicated that in Egypt, the majority of Facebook users polled agreed that Facebook was used most effectively to raise awareness of the causes of the movements within the country.[footnoteRef:58] [53: Anonymous Cairo activist, quoted in Nadine KassemChebib&RabiaMinatullahSohail, The Reasons Social Media Contributed to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, International Journal of Business Research and Management 3 (2011): 139.] [54: https://www.facebook.com/shabab6april] [55: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12400319] [56: Nicholas D. Kristof, Tear Down This Cyberwall! The New York Times, 17 June, 2009. Accessed 30 October, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18kristof.html. ] [57: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/2012-02-bifef/The_Role_of_Social_Media_in_Political_Mobilisation_-_Madeline_Storck.pdf] [58: Arab Social Media Report 2011, 6www.arabsocialmediareport.com/]

Legal Aspect of HacktivismHacking-specific legislation: UK, US and India In the present age, the legal machinery is geared up to tie the noose around the hackers as they started using their skill for illegal purpose. In UK, Computer Misuse Act, 1990 became law on 29 August 1990. The direct origins of the Act are found in the Law Commissions Report on Computer misuse.[footnoteRef:59] The Act was formulated with the sole purpose of securing the computer system from the unfounded ambitious intention of the hacker which was showing the criminals the path to misbehave and make money by breaking into the systems of orders and at the same time remaining unnoticed and uncaught by law enforcement agencies. Under the 1990 Act, the offence of hacking is crystallized into different sections starting from Section I which contain the basic hacking offence and regards causing a computer to perform any function[footnoteRef:60] [59: Law Commission Report No. 186, Computer Misuse (Cm 819) (HMSO, 1989)] [60: Section 17(1) of the same Act defines function to include alteration or erasure, copying or moving data, using it or producing output from the computer. ]

Section 2 Intent to commit a further offence- This section pre requires commission of an offence under section 1 along with the intent to commit, or facilitate the commission of further offence. Such further offence is any other offence for which punishment is fixed by law and which may be an offence under any other Act. R v. Strickland and R v. Woods[footnoteRef:61], where the defendants were given six-month jail sentence for conspiracy to commit offence under Section 1 and 3 of the Computer Misuse Act , 1990. The defendants activities were said to have caused damage, valued at 1,23,000 pound to computer system ranging from those of the Polytechnic of Central London to NASA. The opinion of the Judge was expressed in following words: [61: Southwark Crown Court, March 1993]

There may be people out there who consider hacking to be harmless but hacking is not harmless. Computer now, from a central role in our lives containing personal details..it is essential that the integrity of those system should be protected and hacking puts that integrity in jeopardy.[footnoteRef:62] [62: Supra n. 22, 305]

Thus, such a judicial pronouncement lays stress on the facts that with the increasing involvement of computer in our lives, hacking can no longer be regarded as a skill or art; in fact; it is the emerging criminal misconduct.[footnoteRef:63] [63: Talat Fatima, Cybercrimes, Eastern Book Company, p. 146. ]

In US too complacency prevailed regarding hacker activities but In 1990, there came nationwide crackdown on illicit computer hackers, with arrests, criminal charge, one show trial, several guilty pleas, and huge confiscations of data and equipment all over the United States.[footnoteRef:64] [64: B. Sterling, The Hackers Crackdown (1992) xii.]

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 1986 regulates several criminal activities on the Net apart from unauthorised access in order to obtain sensitive information such as defence-related information and financial and consumer credit records, among other things. Trafficking in passwords for computers used by or for the US government is also barred.[footnoteRef:65] The Act in Section 1030 (a)(5)(A) also prohibits the transmission of a program, information, code or command to a computer system with intent to damage, or cause damage to, or to withhold or deny the use of, a computer, computer service and network, information, data, or program. Such transmission is also prohibited if done with reckless disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of the same effect.[footnoteRef:66] [65: 18 USC S. 1030(a)(6)] [66: Ibid, S. 1030 (a)(5)(b)]

In India, Information and Technology Act, 2000, the offence is defined separately defined under Section 66. Section 66 is replaced by a new section by IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009). Instead Section (i) and (j) have been inserted in Section 43 of the Act which reads as follows:

43. Penalty for damage to computer, computer system, etc.[footnoteRef:67] - If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network,- [67: The Information Technology Act 2000]

(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network;(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;(c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network;(d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;(e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;(f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means;(g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder;(h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network, he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-(i) '' computer contaminant'' means any set of computer instructions that are designed-(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or programme residing within a computer, computer system or computer network; or(b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer network;(ii) '' computer data base'' means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer ystem or computer network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network;(iii) '' computer virus'' means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or attaches itself to another computer resource and operates wh n a programme, data or instruction is executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource;(iv) '' damage'' means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or rearrange any computer resource by any means. 66. Hacking with computer system.-[footnoteRef:68] [68: The Information Technology Act 2000]

(1) Whoever with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person destroys or deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes is value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, commits hacking.(2) Whoever commits hacking shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.

Thus the offence of hacking is, through by name, not there in the statement book but it has been qualified with the necessary mental elements. Section 66 and 43 read along with Section 24 and 25 of Indian Penal Code.Section 24- Dishonestly- Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly". [footnoteRef:69] [69: Indian Penal Code 1860]

Section 25- " Fraudulently"- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.[footnoteRef:70] [70: Indian Penal Code 1860]

Basically reason behind read these sections with IT Act that offence is committed mensrea and actusreaus important element of crime. The offence is constituted when you are causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person.Online protest and Defamation A defamatory statement is one which tends to lower the reputation of a person in the view of right minded people, or leads the claimant to be shunned or avoided.[footnoteRef:71] It is a tort and therefore a civil wrong. There are main two types of defamation: slander (non-permanent and generally spoken) and libel (permanent and in written form). First of all, the statement needs to be defamatory in nature, secondly the statement needs to identify the claimant and thirdly the statement needs to be made (or published) to at least one person other than the claimant.[footnoteRef:72] [71: Sim v. Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669] [72: Section 17 of the Defamation Act 1996 states that the statement can be in words, pictures, visual images, gesture or any other method signifying meaning.]

The question has arisen here that whether the online protest is civil wrong or not? In Loutchansky v.The Times Newspaper Ltd.[footnoteRef:73]The Times Newspaper alleged that Mr Loutchansky was linked to international criminal activities. Mr.Loutchansky commenced an action based on the publication in hardcopy print, the subsequently started a second action once the article was placed in the online archive system operated by the newspaper. The court held that that the making online archives subject to defamation principles had only a negligible effect on the right of freedom of expression and that an action could indeed be brought for the second publication found within the archives.[footnoteRef:74] [73: (2002) 1 All ER 652] [74: This cases follows a long history of the common law allowing actions to be brought for each libelous publication. See: Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 and Berezovsky v. Michaels (2000) WLR 2004]

The courts in the United Kingdom are aware of this potential and have historically handed down judgements rejecting the right of an individual to bring an action for defamation in order to protect free speech in the public interest litigation.[footnoteRef:75] [75: See, for instance Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers [1993] AC 534 and R ( on the application of the ProLife Alliance v. BBC [2002] 2 All ER 756. ]

There have been many defamation actions brought due to comments placed on the internet- on media such as message boards, blogs, emails[footnoteRef:76] and social networking sites, including Facebook and Twitter. [76: The use of an email in defamation action is an interesting consideration. A person may not commence an action if an email containing a defamatory statement about him is only sent to him. If that email is sent to elsewhere then a defamatory action may arise. ]

In Smith v. ADVFN Plc[footnoteRef:77] Court decides the question that Whether an individual is record his voice and then publish on internet. Mr Justice Eadyconsidered that these types of posting were similar to heated debate in bar; people add their comments moment. Based on this, his view was this type of posting should be the subject of an action in slander, rather than libel.[footnoteRef:78] [77: [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB)] [78: Ibid. Although curiously in paragraph 108, part of Mr. Justice Eadys conclusion was that blogging could form the legitimate basis of libel claim. Equally, the case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd. (2001) QB 201 (considered below in more detail) suggested that web content should be the basis of a libel claim. ]

One of the core facets of the Internet is that to a very large degree people can be anonymous, either by hiding behind pseudonyms or using a false name. This is an obvious problem when considering defamation as it seems to allow an individual to post a defamatory comment on a blog or a message board, without the law being able to reach them as their identity is hidden. The rights of individual to retain anonymity while writing offensive or defamatory comments and the action potentially defamed people may take to rectify the situation was considered by the High Court decision in Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited et al v. Neil Hargreves.[footnoteRef:79] The Court follows the principal which was established in the case of Norwich Pharmacal v. Custom & Exercise Commissioner[footnoteRef:80] and was explained by Lord Reid as: [79: [2007] EWHC 2375 (QB)] [80: [1974] AC 133.]

..if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortuous acts of other so as to facilitate their wrongdoing, he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoersjustice requires that he should operate co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration.[footnoteRef:81] This principal developed in the decision of Mitsui Limited v. Nexen Petroleum UK Limited[footnoteRef:82] in which Mr Justice Lightmen introduced three conditions that must be satisfied prior to the court granting a Norwich Pharmacal Order. Specifically: [81: ibid. Page 175] [82: [2005] EWHC 625 (Ch).]

1. A wrong must have been carried out or arguably carried out by an ultimate wrongdoer; 2. There must be need for an order to enable action to be brought against the ultimate wrongdoer; and3. The person against whom the order is sought must (a) be mixed up in the wrongdoing so as to have facilitated it; and (b) be able or likely to be able to provide the information necessary to enable the ultimate wrongdoer to be sued. The judge in the Sheffield case, Richard Parks QC, was of the view that the three requirements for a Norwich Pharmacal order had been fulfilled in some of the entries posted on website. The issue of identity was also considered by the High Court in Author of a Blog v. Times Newspapers Limited.[footnoteRef:83] This case concerned a serving police man who was the author of an anonymous blog. Under the pseudonym Night Jack, the police officer commented on his experience at work, including details on criminals and the struggles he faced with police bureaucracy. The court held that there is was no right to privacy in the publishing of a blog which is available to the public. [83: [2009] EWHC 1358]

The role of the Internet Service Provider The position of an Internet Service Providers (ISP) in defamation actions is of great interest.[footnoteRef:84] In Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited[footnoteRef:85] Court held that the Internet Service Provider defence is quite limited once an ISP has been published contains potentially defamatory material. After that ISP will be liable. [84: An ISP is defined in Article 2(b) of the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC as any natural or legal person providing an information society service.] [85: (2007) 1 WLR 1243 ]

In Bunt v. Tiley and others[footnoteRef:86] in which the ISP was held to have no actual knowledge of the posting and had merely passive role in facilitating the posting (they were accused only of providing the required connection to the internet), therefore they could avail themselves of this defence. The key issue is whether the ISP had any knowing involvement in the alleged defamatory posting.[footnoteRef:87] [86: [2007] 1 WLR 1243] [87: Ibid. See paragraph 9 and 36. ]

Damage and abuse of processThe principal was evolved in the case of John v. MGN Ltd.[footnoteRef:88] where the court unambiguously stated that the level of damages will not be higher simply because an article placed online. A key factor will be the number of hits the article has, which in many cases will be technically easier to ascertain than a traditional newspaper. Equally, in Michael Keith-Smith v. Tracy Williams[footnoteRef:89]the court awarded damages for defamatory and offensive posting made by Ms Williams against Mr Keith on an internet discussion group called In the Hole. Court awarded the damages to Mr Keith. [88: [1996] 2 All ER 35.] [89: [2006] EWHC 860 (QB) ]

Sopa & Piracy

SOPA or the Stop Online Piracy Act was a controversial piece of proposed legislation that would allow the US government to censor the internet. HacktivistsAnd major sites like Wikipedia,google,yahoo etc collaborated and were instrumental in preventing this bill to be passed.[footnoteRef:90]

Many experts have argued that privacy is actually beneficial for both consumers and promotes competition in the market. Most Music cds,dvds,games etc are extremely expensive for people in developing countries or third world countries, also for poorer people everywhere. Dont they also have a right to leisure and entertainment? Experts have also argued that piracy doesnt lead to loss in profit, they (corporations) still make a lot of profit.[footnoteRef:91] [90: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/sopa-what-it-is-and-why-its-bad/] [91: http://www.webpronews.com/new-study-finds-that-music-piracy-doesnt-negatively-affect-sales-2013-03]

ConclusionHow then to people the limitations to free speech online? It would seem that the current rights regime cannot do it unless the notion of how and when the human is the subject of rights is radically rethought or perhaps more accurately the nature of online person-hood is reconsidered. The ontological vulnerability of the user online needs to be foregrounded and emphasised as does the increasingly corporate nature of the Internet. Judicial guidelines need to redefine the boundary between speech and direct action for the digital age old ideas based on trespass and physical harm are not suited to the Internet for the reasons we have discussed namely the lack of public space and a tendency to minimise protest rights.The La Rue report (A/HRC/17/27) has emphasised that ISPs should adopt terms of use which promote human rights. This kind of requirement could be used to invigorate the Internet as a zone of expression.46. The Special Rapporteur notes that multi-stakeholder initiatives are essential to deal effectively with issues related to the Internet, and the Global Network Initiative serves as a helpful example to encourage good practice by corporations. Although only three corporations, namely Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, have participated in this initiative so far, the Special Rapporteur welcomes their commitment to undertake a human rights impact assessment of their decisions, including before entering a foreign market, and to ensure transparency and accountability when confronted with situations that may undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy...48. More generally, the Special Rapporteur encourages corporations to establish clear and unambiguous terms of service in line with international human rights norms and principles, increase transparency of and accountability for their activities, and continuously review the impact of their services and technologies on the right to freedom of expression of their users, as well as on the potential pitfalls involved when they are misused.[footnoteRef:92] [92: La Rue report (A/HRC/17/27) para 46 and 48]

Users can be educated to enhance their understanding of the right to free speech afforded to them and how to use it in a legally acceptable manner. Spaces can also be created where users can set the agenda for protest and information dissemination, for this to be functional and draw impetus away from other forms of protest these would need to be truly open spaces where all forms of protest speech which could fall within the scope of political expression even if they are against the current government or could if untrue be construed as defamation (one of the reasons ISPs are cautious about hosting protest cites is the fear of defamation actions the Rapporteur has already commented on the importance of not using ISPS as censorship tools or holding them for failing to prevent illegal content.)

Until something is done however, it does seem somewhat anomalous that a sphere of human activity created entirely by speech acts, has a greatly impaired protection for free speech.

Bibliography

Article Referred 1. Birnhack M, (2003) 'Acknowledging the Conflict between Copyright Law and Freedom of Expression under the Human Righs Act', Entertainment Law Review 24 Bossuyt MJ, (1987) 2. Guide to the TravauxPrparatoires of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff) Cassel D, (2000) 3. Hactivisim in the Cyberstreetshttp://www.alternet.org/story/9223(accessed 16/1/13) [Originally published as 'Hactivism! Taking It Off the Streets, Protestors Are Acting Up Online' The San Francisco Bay Guardian Vol. 34 No. 28 (Apr 12-18 2000)]4. Cellan Jones R, (2011) LulzSec hacking group announces end to cyber attacks BBC News Reorthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13918458 (accessed 16/1/13)5. Clarke RA, and Knake R, (2010) Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It (London: HaperCollins)6. Dahlgren P, (2005) 'The Internet, public spheres and political communication: dispersion and deliberation' Political Communication Vol.22 147 http://www.cblt.soton.ac.uk/multimedia/PDFs/Internet,%20public%20spheres,%20political%20communication.pdf7. Dominguez R, (unknown) 'Digital Zapatismo' http://www.thing.net/~rdom/ecd/DigZap.html (accessed 16/1/13) 8. 'Electrohippies' (2000) Occasional Paper 1: Client-side Distributed Denial-of-Service: Valid campaign tactic or terrorist act? http://www.fraw.org.uk/projects/electrohippies/archive/op-01.html (accessed 16/1/13)9. Fineman M, (2008)The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20(1)110. Samuel, A. W. (2004). Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation. Retrieved January 19, 2013, from http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/11. Denning, D. E. (2002). Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a toolinfluencing foreign policy. Retrieved January, 16 2013, fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/MR1382.ch8.pdf12. Denning, D. E. (2008). Hacktivism: An Emerging Threat to Diplomacy. Retrieved January 18, 2013, fromhttp://www.afsa.org/fsj/sept00/Denning.cfm13. Knapp, K. J. &Boulton, W. R. (2006). Cyber-warfare threatens corporations: Expansion into commercialenvironments. Information Systems Management, 23(2), 76-88.14. McAlearney, S. (2008). CSI Survey: Financial impact of some security breaches skyrockets. Retrieved January 18, 2013, fromhttp://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid14_gci1108577,00.html

21 | Page