He has worked as a legal assistant for Finley & Buckley, RC. and as law clerk at the Office of the General Counsel at National Public Radio (NPR). Hampson believes that a particular part of Hacktivism can be protected under the freedom of speech laws because of the extreme similarities shared with orthodox protesting. Noah explains, “The term hacking has not always been used to describe the conduct of a cybercriminal, it originally described an innovative use of technology to solve a problem”. The art of Hacktivism provides a new stage for protesting. In order to be heard, protesters needed to keep up with our cyber-oriented democracy. Hampson maintains that, “ permissible forms of Hacktivism should have as their primary purpose the nonviolent communication of a coherent message. Those forms of Hacktivism that do pose a threat of physical threat or violence… are better described as cybercrime or cyberterrorism”. Hacking can be used to get your point across to your audience in a peaceful way.
However, when it goes a step further to sabotage and maliciousness, then the action can be classified as a felony. The author believes, “To some, the conflict surrounding the WikiLeaks controversy was the first real example of war over digital information. WikiLeaks’ actions ignited a phenomenon. He reports how WikiLeaks hacked into top-secret Government databases and shared them with the world. Hacktivism can be construed as a form of terrorism because of its constant attacks focused on Government. Another expert, Francois Heisbourg, was chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and Vice-President at Thomson-CSF, in charge of European and Euro-American cooperation. He was also an international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence. First Secretary at the French Permanent Mission to the UN, dealing with international security and disarmament issues, and was a Member of the French Government’s Steering Committee for the White Paper on Terrorism He believes that WikiLeaks events have tarnished international relations because of the long list of infractions against our country’s security.
Francois argues, local effects of the leaks are likely to increase, both by virtue of the sheer cumulative effect and the probability of a seriously embarrassing revelation. However, this impact may be ambiguous rather than purely negative”. Although the outcome of hackers’ transgressions against state seems counteractive, it is more enigmatic, than anything. The acquiescence of hacking for a cause is dubious because it is such a new practice and multi-faceted, Heisbourg believes, “The heart of the matter is America‘s inability to conduct private and confidential business with its partners, notably on contentious items and often in conflict-riven societies”. He can see the benefits of WikiLeaks’ cause, but judges that the website’s actions prevent protected parley between nations. In a way, Hacktivism retards the political processes of those infiltrated by hackers. Francois reports, “Of the more than a quarter-million cables and memos leaked, some 100,000 were ‘confidential’ and about 15,000 ‘secreted. No ‘top secret’ or code»word material appears to have been involved, although there is plenty of NOFORN (no foreign eyes) material” .
Those files that weren’t meant for non-Americans became completely available to the entire world. Heisbourg expounds that Hacktivists, “tend to be forced to adopt a degree of at least apparent transparency” (11), He arrives that this is not the case with WikiLeaks. Instead, the website’s fiscal and jurisdiction transactions remain uncertain The fact that most foreign affair documents were infiltrated stereotypes Hacktivism into terrorism. Mark Milone works as Senior Counsel to Information Technology at The Boeing Company and specializes in advising on matters relating to cyber security, global privacy, emerging technologies, and corporate governance. He published an article in the Knowledge, Technology & Policy, whose main focus is to examine how doctrine and technology impact humanity. Milone believes the computer-literate activists are not cognizant of the possibility of using their skills to enhance America’s cyber security against authentic terrorists Instead of arguing about who are the true protestors and who are not, Mark thinks that Government and hacktivists should work together to fight against the real antagonist’s Milone reasons that Government, “,,,is composed of “critical systems“ which facilitate the core functions of modern society. These systems share one common element: each is dependent on computer networks to organize, coordinate, and execute functions”.
Since our country is so cyber» oriented, who else is better to maintain computer security than those who know all the entrances? The author relays, “Individuals have reportedly developed a viral code that infiltrates recipients‘ computers, searches for file names that could contain child pornography, and reports results to law enforcement agencies”. These hackers were not federal workers, but regular Joes wanting to improve user’s cyber experience Government should employ their technology skills if they want to protect American privacy Mark believes, “Our security will require vigilance and education in the hacking community, understanding and innovation among government actors, and acknowledgment of the useful role that each party plays”. The government accuses hackers of violating national security and hackers accuse the Government of encroaching on Freedom of Speech Hackers have the potential title of terrorists, however, we cannot be truly safe from malicious outside attacks until we work as a team and stop the floccinaucinihilipilification of hacking.
