Online “hacktivist” attacks on individuals and social institutions create a sense of insecurity for cyber denizens and give states initiative to step in and impose new rules and restrictions on cyber space, the very rules hacktivists seek to avoid, according to a recent white paper.
The white paper, The Paradox of Cyber Protest, by Marshall Institute Fellow Eric Sterner, explains how online hacktivist groups like Anonymous or Lulzsec attack websites of companies or institutions, such as the Justice Department or MasterCard, as a means of social protest. But because of the negative ramifications beyond the social protests, such as the theft of individuals’ credit card information or the phone numbers and addresses of law enforcement personnel, Sterner said governments feel they must do more to increase security at the expense of individual freedom–exactly counter to the point of the protests.
Sterner’s main example is when a pair of House members introduced a cyber security bill last year. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) introduced the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA) last year and identified nation-states and “scheming hackers” as the principal attackers targeting American business. The bill addressed the long-suggested need of information sharing between the federal government and private industry, but was controversial for purported privacy issues.
Sterner said individuals claiming to represent Anonymous announced intentions to launch a “24-hour Anti-CISPA tweetbomb” and posted instructions to help prevent the bill’s passage. Sterner said the group also claimed credit for attacks on CISPA supporters, such as technology trade groups. These attacks, Sterner argues, were a gift to CISPA advocates, who could argue “legitimately” that it was necessary to defend themselves against attacks like the one they just experienced. He also argued that certain kinds of hacktivist tactics used against perceived enemies have made CISPA passage more likely.
Sterner said potential hacktivist attacks against crucial public infrastructure like power grids have even encouraged lawmakers to propose drastic, and likely unfeasible, measures such as internet “kill switches.” In 2010, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I/D-Conn.) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-Maine) proposed such a kill switch to “unplug” the United States from cyber space during a “significant” cyber attack. Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) also proposed a kill switch in different legislation. Sterner said Lieberman eventually withdrew his legislation due to public opposition.
Sterner ends his paper by arguing that non-invasive cyber protests within the bounds of a rule-based environment and institutions accountable to the public can affect outcomes successfully without creating a sense of insecurity that leads to a growth in state power. He cited European protestors fighting the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by slowing its adoption through public protest and expression of ideas, rather than illegally violating someone else’s privacy. Sterner said tactics such as this also prove effective drawing attention to issues aggressive hacktivists seek to raise.
The white paper can be viewed at: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/1087.pdf