Why hacktivism can’t be a replacement for due process | usagoldmines.com

The past few weeks have shown us how digital landscapes shape our social, political, and economic lives. This has been using misinformation and disinformation to stir up and generate a real-world response.

As a result of the digital world’s impact, the rise of hacktivism has become an influential force in advocating for change and drawing attention to perceived injustices. Hacktivism, the use of hacking to promote political ends, often presents itself as a modern form of civil disobedience, challenging power structures and exposing wrongdoing.

Examples of Hacktivism can be seen throughout the world including Belarusian cyber groups attempting to slow Russian troops in opposition of the ongoing war against Ukraine as well as during the Arab Spring where cyber groups granted access to information to citizens.

However, despite its appeal and occasional successes, hacktivism cannot serve as a replacement for due process in a democratic society. Due process, with its foundations in legal standards and fair procedures, ensures that justice is administered impartially and equitably.

Legal and ethical boundaries

Although their aims can be well-intentioned, hacktivists often skirt around, or outright break laws designed to protect privacy, property, and security. These illegal activities often involve methods such as unauthorized access to systems and data breaches which violate laws and ethical standards.

Due process, on the other hand, abides by legal frameworks that ensure actions are lawful and rights are protected. When hacktivists bypass legal procedures, they undermine the rule of law, which is fundamental to democratic governance.

The actions of hacktivists can be ethically ambiguous. While some may see themselves as digital Robin Hoods, their methods can cause significant harm. For instance, the exposure of personal data during a hack can lead to identity theft, financial loss, and severe privacy violations for innocent individuals. These actions raise critical ethical questions about the means used to achieve perceived noble ends. By circumventing legal channels, hacktivists deny individuals the protections afforded by the law, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

While most people will not lose sleep over this in instances of hacktivism targeted against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the law remains in place to protect everyone; Failing to adhere to it sets a dangerous precedent which may not be wielded with such noble intentions in the future.

Accountability and transparency

Due process ensures accountability and transparency through a transparent legal process where actions and decisions are subject to scrutiny and oversight. Judges, lawyers and law enforcement officials are held to consistent standards and their actions are under constant review. Hacktivism lacks these processes, often operating in secrecy and without accountability, leading to questions about their motives as well as the accuracy and truth behind the information they are releasing.

Potential for unintended consequences

Hacktivism attacks, however well intentioned, are often indiscriminate and can result in collateral damage such as disruption of services, harm to innocent parties, and escalation of conflicts. A hack intended to expose corporate malpractice might also compromise the personal data of employees and customers, leading to widespread harm.

The acts of hacktivists can also result in severe responses from governments and corporations who look to increase security following a cyberattack. Stricter regulations and cybersecurity measures can potentially reduce freedoms in the digital space.

Additionally, hacktivist actions can undermine legitimate efforts to address grievances through lawful means. When hacktivists release information obtained illegally, it can taint public perception and compromise investigations that rely on legally obtained evidence. This can impede the work of journalists, watchdog groups, and legal advocates who strive to expose wrongdoing through legitimate channels.

Due process aims to minimize such risks by providing a controlled environment for resolving disputes and addressing wrongdoings. This point emphasizes the potential hazards of hacktivism, contrasting it with the structured and balanced approach of due process designed to protect societal interests and prevent harm.

Looking forward

While hacktivism can shine a light on pressing issues and serve as a catalyst for change, it cannot replace due process in a democratic society. The legal and ethical boundaries that define due process ensure that justice is delivered fairly, protecting the rights of individuals while maintaining social order. Accountability and transparency are fundamental to the integrity of legal proceedings, providing a system of checks and balances that is absent in hacktivist operations.

Furthermore, the potential for unintended consequences highlights the risks associated with bypassing established legal channels. For a society committed to justice and the rule of law, due process remains indispensable, providing a structured and equitable framework for addressing grievances and resolving conflicts. Hacktivism, while impactful, lacks the legitimacy, accountability, and comprehensive justice that due process provides, underscoring the importance of adhering to legal principles in the pursuit of social change.

We list the best malware removal tools.

This article was produced as part of TechRadarPro’s Expert Insights channel where we feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro