Amazon.com Widgets
  • Hacktivism doesn't target everyone

    Hacktivism only targets websites that represents the point they want to get across. Someone who is trying to protest through hacking will not target a small web site that isn't in the wrong. This alone is what separates Hacktivism from hacking. Chances are if your website gets targeted there is a reason behind it. Lastly the websites of "ordinary people" usually are not targeted due to these websites not being the problem. That would be the equivalent of someone wanting to protest against Walmart and to do so picketing a small business that has no affiliation.

  • Yes, neither defacement nor DOS permanently damage a site.

    DOS (denial of service) and defacement are a common form of Internet protesting. Hackers will either put their own message on a site, or they will disable the site completely. Neither of these attacks permanently damage their targets, nor the entities behind them. Once a DOS attack is over, the site can instantly come back online, and defacement is easily fixed by implementing backups of databases and file systems. These two attacks are modern-day equivalents to sit-ins and picketing; in fact, they are safer than their predecessors because no one is at risk of physical violence.

  • It depends, but I support the basics

    Basic cosmetic damage can be repaired with a restore of a backup, making website defacement easier to fix than spray paint on a wall or other forms of graffiti. All visitors to the hacked site see your message. With basic cosmetic damage, the only 'harm' caused is downtime. It's frustrating, to be sure, but no one is actually harmed.

    In physical protests one runs the risk of being arrested, or injured. I am no tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, but I have no illusions that the government has my best interest at heart. Anonymity is required in some cases to protect yourself and your loved ones from reprisal.

    Protest in any form is an act of violence. One is causing people discomfort or harassment to promote one's agenda. I see no difference between hacking a website to display a message and picketing in front of a business. I see 'hacktivism' in the same light I view 'eCommerce'. There are physical stores and virtual stores. There are physical protests and virtual protests.

    All of that said, protest in any form that targets an individual to the point that it ruins that person's life is just wrong.

  • Yes, it's relatively harmless and gives a large audience

    The basics of hacking are harmless. No one gets injured, no one gets arrested, no one even feels like they are intimidated when going into work (as someone who has had to walk past protests for a job, I can tell you that even without actual violence it's still pretty scary). Hackers hijack a site for a short period of time to get their message out, and that message reaches many more people than holding a picket sign. I think it's a great form.

  • Hacking the Venerable

    I totally understand that it is imperative to voice concerns about legitimate issues, however hacking ordinary peoples websites is not the way to gain support. Working people take time to create their sites and most of us have families to support.

    It would be interesting to learn if hackers are subjecting their own families and friends to this abusive behaviour. As a single mother I try to run my sites ethically. Most of my sites offer free information and free books for children. This is mainly due to our libraries closing because of lack of government funding.

    Protest at those who are liable, NOT the ordinary men and women trying to redress the unequal balance or giving free access to valuable information.

    There’s an old saying "what goes around... Comes around". The sites you hack may be a potential donor to your cause or you might end up being the victim of your own destructive behaviour.

  • Hacking the vulnerable

    I totally understand that it is imperative to voice concerns about legitimate issues, however hacking ordinary peoples websites is not the way to gain support. Working people take time to create their sites and most of us have families to support.

    It would be interesting to learn if hackers are subjecting their own families and friends to this abusive behaviour. As a single mother I try to run my sites ethically. Most of my sites offer free information and free books for children. This is mainly due to our libraries closing because of lack of government funding.

    Protest at those who are liable, NOT the ordinary men and women trying to redress the unequal balance or giving free access to valuable information.

    There’s an old saying "what goes around... Comes around". The sites you hack may be a potential donor to your cause or you might end up being the victim of your own destructive behaviour.

  • Vandalism is never viable

    We do not support destruction of physical property in the name of protest why allow digital destruction. If they want their own websites or social media campaigns those are viable but taking over and destroying websites while safer then bombing an abortion clinic is in essence no different. Peaceful protest and gathering physically or digitally is protected criminal vandalism is not.

  • Hacktivism Not Viable As A Protest Platform

    In my mind "hacktivism" is not a viable form of protest. Most protests are held by people who believe strongly enough to put their name and face to what they believe. Many, if not all, "hacktivists" work from behind a computer monitor and keyboard, virtually anonymously.

    Quite simply, if you have something to protest stand up and protest ... don't sit on your butt and just attack companies from behind your wall of anonymity.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.