What do you think about groups like Anonymous and LOLsec? I'm listening to a piece on them playing on Radio 4 at the moment which is interesting, I definitely believe that much of what is considered hacktivism by hackers themselves would appear to border easily upon terrorism, or at the least forms of intimidation, the age profile of many of those involved, teenagers mainly, and a lot of the interviews given by members appear to involve a mass of contradictions, some of them are typical of the "angry young man (or woman I presume)" type but many of them were individuals who simply saw what they were doing as "fun".
So the same motives behind trolling pop up in hacktivism although it is perhaps more nefarious as there is greater power involved and greater consequences for malicious actions, while a lot of the targets appear impersonal, like corporations or churches, the people immediately effected are in fact individuals.
I think there are massive questions about legitimacy here, which I believe is the central question with respect of all terrorism, terrorism is a form of struggle aimed at using fear and intimidation to dominate and coerce rather than convince. It is totally illegitimate in contrast to other methods or processes which are thought of as illegitimate when compared to an ideal or perfect measure of legitimacy in an imperfect world or context.
There are actions which I can understand the public having sympathy with, the hacking and destroying of some pornographic websites and particularly the targetting of peadophiles active online, although on the other hand there are actions which while done under the auspices of resisting oppression, censorship and freedom actually oppress, censor and coerce by denying a platform to opinions which the hackers dont like, such as attacks on websites belonging to the RCC following its refusal to support redefining marriage to reflect minority choices instead of history and heritage.
You dont need to like those opinions, you dont need to endorse them but surely you need to accept that others are entitled to their opinions. To me it seems the logical consequences of accepting simple maxims such as treating others as you would expect them to treat you in turn but this does not appear to be considered very carefully.
Some of the main tactics of these groups, such as the theft of data comprising personal details and information in order to cause share devaluations when announcements are made about security breeches, make the name of their organisations seem ironic. Sort of like "We are anonymous, and the only people with a right to be".
These topics interest me a lot because I remember reading about the history of phrecking, black hats and white hats, hacking from back in the day of the movie Wargames or the Commodore and Spectrum games Hacker and Hacker2, although I doubt that any of those currently involved with these groups would be familiar with those sources really. They also remind me of some of the debates in the protest scene in the later ninties and early noughts, particularly about black blocs and organising in line with anarchist, leaderless, post-modern principles. I'm also interested, as I've posted before in the reciprocity between online and in person behaviour and the consequences too, including culturally and publically (publically comprising political life but also social life too). Does anyone have a view on this or is this something its even safe to discuss without running the risk of becoming a target for hackers?
Its fine this this topic shouldnt be discussed because its only going to attract hackers or nuisance for the site.