Why hacktivism cannot be a substitute for a fair trial
The past few weeks have shown us how digital landscapes shape our social, political and economic lives. This has used misinformation and disinformation to fuel and generate a real-world response.
As a result of the impact of the digital world, the rise of hacktivism has become an influential force in advocating change and drawing attention to perceived injustices. Hacktivism, the use of hacking to further political ends, often presents itself as a modern form of civil disobedience, challenging power structures and exposing wrongdoing.
Examples of hacktivism can be seen around the world, including Belarusian cyber groups trying to slow down Russian forces in opposition to the ongoing war against Ukraine, and during the Arab Spring, where cyber groups allowed civilians access to information.
However, despite its appeal and occasional successes, hacktivism cannot serve as a substitute for due process in a democratic society. A fair trial, based on legal standards and fair procedures, ensures that justice is administered impartially and equitably.
Cybersecurity consultant, CyberSmart.
Legal and ethical boundaries
While their goals may be well-intentioned, hacktivists often skirt around them or outright violate laws designed to protect privacy, property, and security. These illegal activities often include methods such as unauthorized access to systems and data breaches that violate laws and ethical standards.
By contrast, due process adheres to legal frameworks that ensure that actions are lawful and rights are protected. When hacktivists circumvent legal processes, 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 damage. For example, exposing personal information during a hack can lead to identity theft, financial loss, and serious privacy issues for innocent individuals. These actions raise critical ethical questions about the means used to achieve perceived noble ends. By bypassing legal channels, hacktivists deny individuals the protections the law provides, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
While most people won’t worry about this in cases of hacktivism targeting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the law remains in place to protect everyone; Failure to comply sets a dangerous precedent that may not be used with such noble intentions in the future.
Accountability and transparency
Due process ensures accountability and transparency through a transparent legal process in which actions and decisions are subject to scrutiny and scrutiny. Judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers are held to consistent standards and their actions are continually assessed. Hacktivism lacks these processes, which often operate in secret and without accountability, leading to questions about their motives and the accuracy and truth behind the information they release.
Potential for unintended consequences
Hacktivism attacks, no matter how well-intentioned, are often indiscriminate and can lead to collateral damage, such as service disruption, harm to innocent parties, and escalation of conflict. A hack intended to expose corporate wrongdoing could also compromise the personal data of employees and customers, leading to widespread damage.
The actions of hacktivists can also lead to serious responses from governments and companies seeking to increase security after a cyber attack. Stricter regulations and cybersecurity measures could potentially limit freedoms in the digital space.
Furthermore, hacktivist actions can undermine legitimate efforts to address complaints through legal means. When hacktivists release illegally obtained information, it can damage public perception and jeopardize investigations that rely on legally obtained evidence. This can hinder the work of journalists, watchdog groups and legal advocates who strive to expose misconduct through legitimate channels.
Due process aims to minimize such risks by providing a controlled environment for resolving disputes and addressing misconduct. This point highlights the potential dangers of hacktivism and contrasts it with the structured and balanced approach to due process, intended to protect societal interests and prevent harm.
I look ahead
While hacktivism can shed 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 and provide a system of checks and balances that hacktivist operations lack.
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, a fair trial remains indispensable, because it provides a structured and fair framework for addressing complaints and resolving conflicts. While hacktivism has impact, it lacks the legitimacy, accountability, and comprehensive justice that due process provides, underscoring the importance of adhering to legal principles in pursuing social change.
We list the best malware removal tools.
This article was produced as part of Ny BreakingPro’s Expert Insights channel, where we profile the best and brightest minds in today’s technology industry. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Ny BreakingPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing, you can read more here: https://www.techradar.com/news/submit-your-story-to-techradar-pro