Talk:Hacktivism/Archive 1

Merger
Hacktivism <> Hacktivismo. Therefore, a merger should not take place. Merging the two would be like merging Greenpeace and environmentalism. Sure, they're related, but one is a group and one is a concept. It wouldn't make sense to merge them, and it doesn't make sense to merge this group and concept, either. --Myles Long 22:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree. I guess I was being too conciliatory.  Let's take the merge tags out. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 22:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Myles Long 22:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

wow this article is awesome. has there ever been any major hacktivism against North Korea, Communism USA or Nazism USA?? --Nerd42 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

is hard out there for a geek =/\= zakpaz

Violent?
"The other strand thinks that all protest should be peaceful and non-violent." How are malicious cyber-attacks violent?

Could the authors of the WANK Worm not spell?

On a similar note, why is Malcolm X cited as a violent revolutionary? In his early career, he engaged in violent rhetoric, but that's a little bit different; to my knowledge, he and his followers have never been accused of violent political action. I think you should search for a different example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.248.236 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Neologism?
This article could meet the criteria for deletion under WP:NEO. It does not have enough reliable sources to verify it's notability. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

that seems to have been corrected. Bob Emmett (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed ridiculous "Code is law" quote
Reasons should be clear. Has nothing to do with the article, and is just plain lame. 24.128.247.236 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Over 9000 protesters"
Well played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.246.129 (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

NedaNet
If NedaNet isn't hacktivism, I don't know what is. kencf0618 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a neutral third opinon is called for re the notability of, and the inclusion of, NedaNet, Raymond's P.R. skills notwithstanding. kencf0618 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't just have to be hacktivism to be mentioned in the article, it has to be notable by encyclopedic standards to be listed. NedaNet doesn't appear to be yet. DreamGuy (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. ¡Que sera, sera!  I.e., time shall tell. kencf0618 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of the 'writing clever code' definition of hacker?
The introduction of the article mentions a few different ways the term 'hacktivist' could be understood, but the body of the article seems to focus exclusively on one of these understandings -- the approach that could instead be called 'cracktivism'. Does this mean that no one could find examples to illustrate the other understanding? I find that a bit hard to believe. For one thing there is a very nice report on the subject that is found via the second google hit after this article (http://www.thehacktivist.com/). There, this definition is offered: "A policy of hacking, phreaking or creating technology to achieve a political or social goal." Or later on: "It is the use of one's collective or individual ingenuity to circumvent limitations, to hack clever solutions to complex problems using computer and Internet technology." Or a bit later on still: "Hacktivism is about using more eloquent arguments - whether of code or words - to construct a more perfect system." From these understandings it seems like it should be easy to find examples of activities unrelated to 'cracktivism'. E.g. this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8567934.stm says that the Chaos Computer Club rules out attacks on websites, so at least some of the things they do won't match the descriptions given in this article (though Chaos Computer Club does in fact list many activities that would match the definition given here). --Arided (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

hacking = "elegant computer programming"?
I'd say it never had this meaning, nor is it in any way inferrable from the linked jargondb entry. If anything, it would be the opposite - quick and/or dirty coding, not elegant. --Tartaros (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a "hacker aesthetic" for which "elegant" would be an appropriate adjective. JargonDB uses the word on a related page, which itself has its own hyperlinked entry there.  The "quick and dirty" fix would be called a "kluge", an inelegant solution synonymous with "hack" in a different sense (compare definitions 5 and 6 at Wiktionary).  If the footnote is changed, however, I think it should link instead to the canonical version at the Jargon File. B7T (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Notable hacktivist events"
In the above section, there are many references to Anonymous. DDoS is not hacking, some early usage may have been, but since the past few years all it takes to execute an attack is to download a free program and enter an IP address. Anonymous's activist tactics are largely based off DDoSing and "strength in numbers", not actual hacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y5Phl2x (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved inclusion
This seems to be an unresolved statement:
 * What separates hacktivism from cyberterrorism is a distinctly political or social cause behind the "haction". Some argue

As it begs finer points of distinction & makes the flow clunky, I removed it. Anyone can reinstate it, but I've implied its range in the text. Manytexts (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

New merge suggestion
I have added a merger tag for Media hacker If you look at the talk page over there noone even gets the article. I offered to edit it and reorganize, but upon further thoguht it belongs on this page since :the two are alsmot synonymous (I might be wrong about this...)
 * Don't merge. Nice idea & I made it a new more recent section for discussion of your proposed merge. Well, on first reading Media hacker's more about spamming for votes, say, or data collection or getting twitter followers happening in the interest of a public figure or movement, than the art of Hacktivism which is more a form of protest against such figures or movements. A hacktivist might intercept, block or whatever in the name of their own ideology. In my view, they are different. Might it go better with Spamming? Any other articles it might go better with, or with some expansion it could stand alone. Manytexts (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, please sign with four ~ so we know who you are and when, cheers MrJosiahT(talk) Manytexts (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Grand merge
I've just merged this article to hacking (innovation), which was formerly titled Hacker (programmer subculture). Please see the discussion at talk:hacking (innovation) for the rationale and a plan for moving forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the term "Hacktivism"
You guys do know that "Hacktivism" is a term used by the mainstream audience right? Now people regard it as a "stupid label" given by the media. I'm pretty sure there should be some section addressing this and giving the perspective from the "crackers'" (a hacker is not a cracker) point of view. - 68.101.100.151 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the beggining of the article you say the term was coined by a member of cDc (Cult of The Dead Cow), and in the "Notable hacktivist events" section, you say:

The term itself was coined by techno-culture writer Jason Sack in a piece about media artist Shu Lea Cheang published in InfoNation in 1995.

Which is which? Which is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.33.67 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Data Liberation
Aaron Swartz is a good example of a hacktivist practicing data liberation and I think this should be added to the methods section. Zeroday (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Djent Band
Right now "Hacktivist" redirects here. Should a page be added for the djent/rap metal band of that name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.228.111.117 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Split away from cyberterrorism
According to this article, it largely equates hacktivism with cyberterrorism. Cyberterrorism and related acts like defacement perpetrate the definition of hacking as malicious, illegal, and violent. Notions related to cyberterrorism should be removed from this article, with some references to that article. (see http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/hacktivists-as-gadflies/ and http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/what-is-a-hacktivist/) --Peter Kinnaird 17 May 2013

Who says there's lexical warfare?
In the third paragraph the article asserts that there is "lexical warfare" around the term hacktivism, citing Peter Ludlow "What is a 'Hacktivist'?" The New York Times. January 2013. Ludlow's argument is wrong. One philosopher's not-well-researched hypothesis should not be treated as fact. In short, hacktivism is a homograph. Like "gay" or "mouse." It's confusion, not lexical warfare. See my response to Ludlow's article here: http://razor.occams.info/blog/2013/01/18/would-the-real-hacktivist-please-stand-up/ (For reference, I have a PhD in linguistics, so I know at least a little about what I'm talking about.) TwigsCogito (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:


 * Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Stuxnet may not be hacktivism
the recent allegations by Edward Snowden, as well as substantial third party investigation, would seem to conclude Stuxnet was an act of cyber warfare sponsored by one or more governments, and not a hacktivist effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.90.74.7 (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2014 Nimbius (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Hacktivism"
I stumbled across this site (http://jerichoattrition.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/on-the-origins-of-the-term-hacktivism/) which seems to contain scans of the term being used in November of 1995 (http://jerichoattrition.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/infonation-nov-1995-03.png). I was curious because I couldn't find an original source for the cDc origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.34.174 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed sentence
"Within the hacking community, those who carry out automated attacks are generally known as script kiddies."

I've removed this sentence from the controversy section; while true, it has nothing to do with the controversy, nor is it clarifying a sentence that does. However, I'm leaving it here in case another editor sees a place where it does belong. 71.29.211.162 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal. It was unsourced as well. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"subversive"
I think the word "subversive" should be removed from the first sentence as this is not always the case (at least not with the negative connotations of the word). Alternative wording (from Activism below) --K (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hacktivism or hactivism (a portmanteau of hack and activism) is the use of computers and computer networks to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis.
 * "Subversive" is what separates the subject from e.g. online activism or, as the proposed definition, everything from Barack Obama's website to Change.org petitions, campaign computer-driven call centers, political contribution databases... --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous vs ISIS
Seems like it'd be good to add something here about Anonymous vs ISIS given all the news about what they're doing. I'm certainly hopeful their efforts can help. Here's the most credible news source I've found so far: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/anonymous-war-isis-encrypted-messaging-6860099 Don't have ability to edit this article atm, but hope someone else here can add it and let me know? Thanks! DrMel (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hacktivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Topics for elaboration/improvement
While there are mentions of Julian Assange in the article, there is no section for Wikileaks or himself. Furthermore, the source of a document written by Julian Assange in the first point of the timeline section is not very reliable, and sources directly related to those events should be used instead. Also in the timeline section, a short summary of Project Chanology would help. Citation 22 is an article that seems to lack objectivity to the various organizations it addresses, including Anonymous and uses several biased adjectives. Using a different source is probably advised. Finally, the use of the word netizens in the Forms section seems unclear as overly technical language, and can be easily simplified to "users". I wanted to post these here before going in and making above edits. Kendrawsing (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LulzSec and Wikileaks are both not covered in this article, but it may be excessive to have several sections on various groups. Thus, I was considering creating a new section titled "Notable Hacktivist Groups" under which Anonymous, Lulzsec, and Wikileaks can fall. Kendrawsing (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Analysis
There are a lot of areas in the article that need to be updated with citations. There are multiple unsubstantiated claims in paragraphs staying "some hactivists" or "some critics", which needs to include who these people actually are. I'm going to be integrating a few sources to back up or disprove the claims that are made in the article. If you find anything to be wrong, change the source and I'll review to ensure that we come to the same understanding. Everything said related to hacking and there were a lot of real word examples of hactivists which was good for the article. It was pretty good about spreading itself out regarding types of information that was written about. Nothing was distracting because it was all about hacking and its relation to politics, so the article is very relevant. Jurgen.Prambs (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Dyn cyberattack
User:Fixuture Re: "the source isn't ridiculously claiming that it's hacktivism instead of state-sponsored or criminally motivated hacking but just saying that the hacktivist group A (anybody) claimed res."
 * The two hacktivist groups (a redirect to hacktivism) are claiming this hack. Not sure what you're challenge is to include this obviousness... a) hacktivist groups do things that aren't hacktivism b) proof isn't high enough for inclusion here (although they've claimed it, so are making capital from it ie sounds like hacktivism even if not them) c) ? . Curious. Widefox ; talk 23:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating this talk page entry. So Anonymous can be anybody - really you, me, hacktivists, intelligence agencies, criminals or even extremists can be or at least claim to be Anonymous. So Anonymous claiming to be behind sth doesn't mean much (once again such claims can be made by anybody) - it depends on how much traction that operation gains within the movement (and also whether it's about Anonymous' core values such as Internet freedom and who of the movement's visible members - twitter accounts etc - support it). This attack wasn't operated decentralized by the movement but by a small group that just used the Anonymous name for the claim of responsibility. Who on Earth would support such an attack (what's its purpose even?) of Anonymous? Check social media. The source used just accurately described Anonymous as hacktivists but didn't describe the attack as hacktivism.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to question/challenge the sources. We go by what sources say. WP doesn't care about our opinions - see WP:OR. It's irrelevant whether you or I think the action is aligned with core values. You're also asserting that your opinion is better than Assange's.. WikiLeaks alluded to the attack on Twitter, tweeting "Mr. Assange is still alive and WikiLeaks is still publishing. We ask supporters to stop taking down the US internet. You proved your point." I would agree this is uncorroborated but it's still notable, sourced content. Without a source to back up your opinion, it seems like OR to me, and there's no reason to remove sourced content. As there's two groups claiming it, the focus on one groups internals seems bizarre. I will reword it as a unconfirmed claim and reinsert. Now, we go by what sources say. Do you have any sources for your claim it isn't (claimed as) hacktivism? Widefox ; talk 10:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fixuture - is the current wording better? Widefox ; talk 13:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it's better. I still do think that it would be better to leave out this particular attack and instead feature some of the many *actual* hacktivist operations that aren't yet in the article. I don't want to say that it's not hacktivism even though that appears to be highly unlikely - I'd just like to not call it so with extra focus via this article while there are no clear indications of it actually being so. (WikiLeaks' statement on it is notable though.) --Fixuture (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Two facts, backed by WP:RS - the biggest DDoS ever, and claimed by two hacktivist groups. Anything else is WP:OR. See WP:NOTTRUTH. Widefox ; talk 20:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bosgo
ผมจะเข้ารวมกลุ่มคุนได้ยังไง Bosgo (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hacktivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419071903/http://www.counterpunch.org/assange11252006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/assange11252006.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221211746/http://iran.whyweprotest.net/ to http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515021046/http://hemisphericinstitute.org/hemi/en/workshops/item/320-09-new-hacktivism-from-electronic-civil-disobedience-to-mixed-reality-performance to http://hemisphericinstitute.org/hemi/en/workshops/item/320-09-new-hacktivism-from-electronic-civil-disobedience-to-mixed-reality-performance
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108145039/http://www.meskelsquare.com/archives/2005/11/hacking_baby_cheetahs_and_hung.html to http://www.meskelsquare.com/archives/2005/11/hacking_baby_cheetahs_and_hung.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hacktivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160718014246/http://sfist.com/2016/07/15/black_lives_matter_protests_happeni.php to http://sfist.com/2016/07/15/black_lives_matter_protests_happeni.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513181323/http://www.contra.org/pgp/PhilZimmerman.html to http://www.contra.org/pgp/PhilZimmerman.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160718014246/http://sfist.com/2016/07/15/black_lives_matter_protests_happeni.php to http://sfist.com/2016/07/15/black_lives_matter_protests_happeni.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227132540/http://www.aracnet.com/~kea/Papers/Politically%20Motivated%20Computer%20Crime.pdf to http://www.aracnet.com/~kea/Papers/Politically%20Motivated%20Computer%20Crime.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Coinage of the term "Hacktivism"
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

There seems to be substantial controversy in the editing history as to whether cDc coined the term hacktivism, and if they did so, whether it was in 1994 or 1996. I have discovered persuasive evidence that the term hacktivism was used in 1995 by a writer in a now-defunct publication called InfoNation. If the cDc member known as "omega" did, in fact, use the term in 1994, that would reflect the first known use of the term. However, the supporting citations included in this page, and also the [Cult of the Dead Cow] (cDc) page, all note that 1996 was the year "omega" used this term in a communication with the other members of the cDc.

I'm writing this note because I notice the 1996 date has been frequently returned to 1994 by non-registered users. To future editors: if you are positive 1994 is the accurate date, please find a reputable citation and then feel free to change it back.

Here's to local domination, of this page, through saturation of factual information, Nancy Graham (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A IP address user changed the date back to 1994 after my edits yesterday, without offering a reference that supports the 1994 date. Can anyone speculate as to why? Nancy Graham (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hacktivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201043312/http://goodgearguide.com.au/index.php/id to http://goodgearguide.com.au/index.php/id;1823349553

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Edits
Hello all. Over the past several weeks I have been selecting and developing edits for the hacktivism as part of a college English assignment. My edits are nearing completion, and I have developed a finalized list of edits that will be coming within the next few days:


 * 1) Added new techniques to the "Forms and methods" list
 * 2) Revised the "Academic approaches" to instead discuss academic discourse surrounding the history and ideologies of hacktivism/hacktivists
 * 3) Added new events and revised the "Project Chanology" entry in the "Notable hacktivist events" list
 * 4) Changed the "Reality hacking" section to instead discuss culture jamming, a practice more akin to hacktivist ideals

I hope these much needed edits will improve the article as a whole and provide more information for the readers. Upon completion, I intend to also develop a list of possible future revisions that would further help the article and its readers.

Rimstigh (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Completed Edits
Hello all. My assignment has come to a close, and while I completed multiple edits there are still more that remain. Rather than delete the reality hacking item in the "Related practices" section I chose to add culture jamming alongside it. I managed to finish the edits I set out to complete and a few extras with the "Academic approaches" section being the exception. Although I did not complete its revision, I let it be in the hopes someone will provide the necessary edits in the future.

Rimstigh (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)