Research Review

Cyber-activism or Cyber-terrorism?

By Tarja Kallinen

According to a recent Seattle Times (Nov. 30, 2007) article the Department of Homeland Security reported having received 37,000 “attempted breaches on government and private [computer] systems in fiscal 2007.” This is an increase of over 60 percent from the previous year. U.S. military officials speak of an “electronic Pearl Harbor” that could shut down the government and modern day-to-day life if ‘cyber-terrorists’ were able to get their way. These attacks come from various groups: criminals, terrorists, hacktivists, and foreign governments, say U.S. officials.

The Seattle Times article ignores “home-grown” hackers. It doesn’t mention citizen-activists targeting government or corporate websites in order to cause havoc. According to the Times all of the hacktivists seem to originate outside U.S. borders: China, Russia, Eastern Europe.

Sandor Vegh, in his article Classifying Forms of Online Activism, defines ‘hacktivism’ in more neutral terms. He legitimizes hacktivists’ efforts by describing them as “struggle… against oppression,” or “global resistance against capitalist imperialism.” Vegh separates cyberwar - as carried out by states - from hacktivism, which is perpetrated by politically motivated non-state actors. The latter can also be described as “electronic civil disobedience,” “performance art,” or “online activism.”

In their book Women’s Activism and Globalization (2002) Nancy A. Naples and Manisha Desai describe the importance of “information politics” in the women’s grassroots movement. As the financial markets and production of goods have gone global, so have the strategies of activists who agitate for social change. Through media campaigns, online action alerts and lobbying, transnational women’s organizations work toward their goals.

Communication technology is vital in establishing women’s networks, and information is “the key commodity.” This is especially true in Third World countries where women are often powerless and have very little access to official sources of information. Naples and Desai see the need to “facilitate the development of counterhegemonic networks” and create transnational connections among activists. This flow in information and ideas is increasingly “multidirectional” as women from Third World countries have better access to women’s networks through modern technology.

Whether used by terrorists, state actors, or grass-roots activists, modern communication technology is a powerful tool for good and evil. It gives small, non-state actors access to information and to each other; but it also enables large corporations and governments to gather huge amounts of information about the small, non-state actors. Any information can be used in unscrupulous ways in the hands of unscrupulous minds.