That’s Not Hacktivism

It might seem like an unimportant complaint, but the incorrect use of hacktivism is really starting to concern me. Although this post was inspired by Daniel Bourg’s post on Edward Snowden, “Hacktivism is strengthening democracy,” I have come across the misuse of the word with increasing frequency. While the meanings of words change naturally through misuse, I will argue that this has not been the case with hacktivism. Rather, the widening definition of hacktivism is a deliberate attempt to create a narrative in which actors opposing the state are always the “bad guys.”

Hacktivism is a portmanteau of the words “hack” and “activism”. I won’t bother defining activism here, but for the less technologically inclined I will define hacking. Hacking is gaining unauthorized entry into a computer, network, or database. Some forms involve taking down a site or system without gaining access to it. Hacking generally requires a fairly advanced understanding of computers, particularly if the system is well protected. Hackers are often motivated by money, but sometimes they hack for fun, or in the case of hacktivism, for political purposes.

However, hacktivism is often used colloquially and in the media to refer to practices that don’t fit into the above definition. Hacktivism has been expanded to include two categories of online activity: hacking that is apolitical, and online activism that is not hacking.

First, hacktivism loses legitimacy when the apolitical hacking is included. Hacking collectives such as lulzsec have been included under the banner of hacktivism, even though their motto is “we did it for the lulz” (for fun), and they often targeted systems that boast high security, just for the challenge. After online security firm Black & Berg offered a $10 000 prize to anyone who could change the photo on their mainpage. After Lulzsec accomplished the hack, they added text to the webiste that read, “Keep your money, we do it for the lulz” . Although this hack was relatively harmless, lulzsec has also hacked the Sony database and published the personal information of one million users. Referring to lulzsec and similar groups as hacktivists tars the word for affected users, or those who consider lulzsec type activities uselessly damaging.

Second, hacktivism has begun to encompass all illegal activism with an online component. Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide after facing charges for illegally releasing millions of copyright academic articles has been referred to as a hacktivist. Swartz’s actions were both illegal, and distinctly political, but he did not hack anything. Bourg’s characterization of Edward Snowden  as a hacktivist is similarly incorrect. Snowden leaked information that he was cleared to access. He was not a hacker.

Is the expansion of hacktivism an accident? It is possible, but it seems unlikely that it is entirely coincidental. Opponents of activists such as Snowden, Manning, and Swartz have a clear incentive to throw them in the same pool as apolitical hackers. The misuse of the word brings to mind the common characterization of protesters as “anarchists.” It is a subtle tactic used to delegitimize their actions. I don’t mean to suggest that Bourg is part of a government conspiracy. Rather, the intentional misuse of the word by those who oppose activists like Snowden spreads easily, even to those like Bourg who agree with Snowden’s actions.

The meanings of words change. I am inclined to roll my eyes at those who vehemently defend a strict definiton of the word “literally.” But when expanding “hactivism” serves a political purpose, the original meaning of the word should be upheld and defended.