Link Search Menu Expand Document
Publications
  1. Phases of Hacktivism

Phases of Hacktivism

Political DDoS attacks (or DDoS actions as Sauter prefers to call them20), especially those performed by Anonymous, are usually considered as part of a broader history of hacktivism. In a recent overview over hacktivism research, Romagna offers a precise

18 For an early empirical investigation from this perspective, see Ethan Zuckerman et al., “Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Against Independent Media and Human Rights Sites” (The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, December 2010), https://cyber.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.harvard.edu/files/2010_DDoS_Attacks_Human_Rights_and_Media.pdf, 10.

19 A case that has been the subject of substantial debate, both in technical and legal circles, was Cloudflare’s decision to terminate its services for the neo-nazi site, “The Daily Stormer,” in 2017, see Steven Johnson, “Inside Cloudflare’s Decision to Let an Extremist Stronghold Burn”, Wired, 16 January, 2018, https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/; Kate Klonick, “The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors”, The New York Times, 13 September, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlottesville.html.

20 Sauter, The Coming Swarm.

definition of the term as well as a synthesis of periodisations suggested in various historical accounts. Incorporating previous definitions, 21 he defines hacktivism as,

the sum of ideologies, individual and collective actions typical of traditional activism, applied in cyberspace using hacking techniques, while addressing or exploiting network infrastructure’s technical and ontological features, with the final goal of reaching a sociopolitical change in society.22

According to Romagna, hacktivism can be placed in between cyberattacks that have permanently destructive consequences and less invasive forms of cyberactivism that primarily rely on disseminating information. Hacktivism involves actual hacking practices, yet with a merely temporary disruptive impact.

Romagna suggests a distinction between three different phases of hacktivism based on changes in normative, organisational and technological aspects. The first phase (from late 1980s to early 2000s) is characterised by the expansion of hacking practices from the specific concerns of the hacking community itself to wider political issues. A prominent example indicating this development is Floodnet: a DDoS software developed by the Electronic Disturbance Theater in 1998 in order to raise attention for the cause of the Zapatistas in Mexico. As Sauter points out in a more detailed analysis of these developments, the extension of hacking practices into more broad-ranging politics did not come without frictions; for example, when silencing political opponents clashed with ideals of a “free flow of information” that was considered central to hacker culture. 23 Karatzogianni highlights the central role of hacktivism in different “ethnoreligious struggles” with patriotic or nationalist agendas during this phase. 24

The second phase, from 2003 onwards, is characterised by the rise of Anonymous. While Anonymous remains an amorphous organisational formation that

21 Stefania Milan, “Hacktivism as a Radical Media Practice”, in The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media, ed. Chris Atton (New York: Routledge, 2015), 550-60; Dorothy E. Denning, “Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy”, in Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy, ed. John Arquilla and David F. Ronfeldt (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2001), 239-88.

22 Marco Romagna, “Evolution of Hacktivism: From Origins to Now”, in From Sit-Ins to #revolutions: Media and the Changing Nature of Protests, ed. Olivia Guntarik and Victoria Grieve-Williams (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), 65-76, 65.

23 Sauter, The Coming Swarm, 47.

24 Athina Karatzogianni, Firebrand Waves of Digital Activism 1994-2014 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

is difficult to categorise25, Romagna sees its growing importance during this phase as a sign of consolidation. The organisational form of hacktivism shifts from smaller, clandestine hacker groups to a larger collective that resembles social movements and with successful strategies for gaining media attention. 26 However, the “patriotic” strand of hacktivism also remains relevant in this phase, with the targeting of Estonian websites in 2007 as a prominent example. The planned transfer of a Russian monument triggered a surge of DDoS attacks against Estonian publications, banks and government websites. 27 The case highlighted the vulnerability of internet infrastructure, eventually leading to the establishment of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn. 28It is also an example of DDoS attacks where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between “grass-roots” hacktivism and state-sponsored attacks.

The third phase is characterised by diversification. What sets this phase apart from the second, according to Romagna, is that it becomes less of a priority to involve average internet users. Whereas hacktivism software during the second phase was often designed to lower the threshold for participation, the third phase is characterised by small expert teams, some of them with loose affiliation to Anonymous, cooperating in varying constellations. In terms of values, there is a tendency towards particular forms of “vigilante justice”29 against particular targets, rather than concerted efforts to align with broader sociopolitical agendas.30 Again, the patriotic strand of hacktivism prevails in this phase, often in reaction to specific geopolitical tensions or conflicts.

Table of Contents