Category: Wikileaks

Hacktivism is derived from “hack” and “activism,” it is an act of hacking that is described as a “combination of grassroots political protest with computer hacking [1]” through the “nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools [to pursue] political ends [2].” There are many forms of hacktivism are used to access illegal information, steal money and create damage to businesses/ government. Hacktivism can often be anonymous, sometimes gratuitously so, and can operate with a kind of impunity that its technology seems to afford. Hacktivism is sometimes also claimed to serve interests that transcend those of particular states, that is, the interests of the global population generally. But this claim is implausible if hacktivism is not accountable to anyone. WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of U.S. military documents is a phenomenon example of hacktivism. A hacker is known as The Jester, launched a denial service (DoS) attack, which overwhelmed WikiLeaks server and ended up making more than 250,000 confidential U.S. military documents public. Besides, hacktivists also target some businesses either to gather their client’s information or make use of financial gain. Because hacktivists like to gain publicity and spread confidential data to express their views, they are very active in debate and protest. They questioned the right of free speech, privacy, and freedom from the Communications Decency Act in 1996. Forms of hacktivism are diverse which includes redirect, site defacement, DoS, DDoS.

There are many people who misunderstand the difference between hacking and hacktivism. As we mentioned above, even though hacktivism is the combination of “hack” and “activism,” the distinction between hacking and hacktivism is unclear. Hacking often refers to the hacker’s self-interest and it is normally described an innovative use of technology to solve a problem like defense the company’s confidential data or security information, whereas hacktivism’s aim is to support for society and politics. Hackers are most likely cybercriminals and their intentions include criminal and fraudulent aims. Government agencies have declared that cybercrime create expensive damage that can go up to trillion of dollars [3]. Hacking can also be motivated by political objectives in which cyber warfare, a use of technology to attack nation so what is the difference between hacking and hacktivism? Hacking in cyberwarfare can be used in the real battlefront, war, whereas hacktivism in cyberwarfare is most likely a form of sit-ins or other forms of nonviolent civil disobedience [4]. A cyberattack in hacking can damage significantly an economy, air traffic, water purification system of a nation [5]. Hacktivism focuses more on politics and protest. It is a way for the mass to stand up for their rights, so it is not destructive.

There are many forms of hacktivism that we mentioned above which are DoS, DDoS, Website Defacements, Site Redirect, Virtual Sits-Ins, and Information Theft [6]. DoS is more well known because of the WikiLeaks incident. A Denial-of-Service (DoS) is used to shut down a machine or network so users cannot access the website. It uses the method which slows down/ stop the traffic by flooding it with information until the target machine/ network crash. Even though DoS is more frequently used than DDos attack because of its low cost and ease to use, DDoS has more destructive consequences than DoS because it is harder to be monitored and also it is used for large-scale targets like commercial companies, and government agencies. For those reasons, DDoS started to be more commonly used.

The most popular form of hacktivism is Website Defacements. Instead of vandalizing the wall with graffiti, website defacement is a virtual version of it on the websites. It is an attack on a website that change the visual appearance of the website by breaking into the web server and alter the website with one of their own. Website defacement is not only capable of replace one website, it can thousands of sites [7]. Its intention is to send the audience the message, it does not damage the target website [8].

Site Redirect can be called a URL redirection attack that tricks the user to click a trusted website then redirects them to a malicious one. To do that trick, it has to access to the web server and then adjust the address setting to redirect traffic to their page by embedding URL in their website code. It often happens but not always that the redirected page is full of criticism of the original page because its purpose is to show new audiences, and supporters the opposing viewpoints of the original page.

The virtual sit-in is another form of hacktivism and according to Wikipedia [9], virtual sit-it is also a form of electronic civil disobedience where “sit-in” was from the civil rights movement in 1960s. During the virtual sit-in, thousands of activists perform distributed DoS attack to unauthorizedly access target website on computers or other devices simultaneously which ends up crashing the target website. The major difference between commanding network of the voluntary botnet and having each protestor to reload the web page. Some virtual sit-in requires a lot of manual work of repeating reload the target page; some make it available for protestors to download program which helps automatically reload the page.

Information theft is the final form of hacktivism which is used to achieve the private data of others by unauthorizedly access their computer/machine. Even though it is clearly illegal to steal others’ information, this form of hacktivism is well-accepted by hacktivists.

In conclusion, government in many nations try very hard to prohibit and limit the act of hacking. For many regimes, the freedom of expression is not protected and most likely to be ignored. For hacktivism as a form of protest, doctrines protective of freedom of expression could be used to protect a subset of hacktivism from the prohibition of hacking.

1. Alexandra Whitney Samuel, Hacktivism and the Future of Political Participation, 2 (Sept. 2004) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University), available at http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/dissertation/pdfs/Samuel-Hacktivism-entire.pdf; accord Robert Vamosi, How Hacktivism Affects Us All, PC WORLD (Sept. 6, 2011, 6:30 PM), http://www.pcworld.com/article/239594/how_hacktivism_affects_us_all.html.
2. Samuel, supra note 19, at 6–7 tbl.1.
3. See Will Knight, Hacking Will Cost World $1.6 Trillion This Year, ZDNet (U.K.) (July 11, 2000), http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2000/07/11/hacking-willcost-world-16-trillion-this-year-2080075/.
4. Compare Mueller, supra note 43, with Samuel, supra note 25, at 6.
5. See Mark G. Milone, Hacktivism: Securing the National Infrastructure, 58 Bus. Law. 383, 385 (2002).
6. Hacktivism: A New Breed of Protest in a Networked World (2012)
7. See Taylor Barnes, Booted from U.S.-Based Domain, WikiLeaks Site Finds Refuge with Swiss Pirate Party, Christian Sci. Monitor (Dec. 3, 2010), available at http://www.csmonitor. com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1203/Booted-from-US-based-domain-WikiLeaks-sitefinds-refuge-with-Swiss-Pirate-Party.
8. Charalampos Patrikakis et al., Distributed Denial of Service Attacks, Internet Protocol J., Dec. 2004, at 13, available at http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ archived_issues/ipj_7-4/ipj_7-4.pdf.

Radical transparency is a term used in various fields, including business, software design, politics, and governance, to refer to approaches that radically increase the openness in a specific process or data. It is also a method that utilizes vast networked information to reveal previously confidential information. In the 21st century, radical transparency has been incorporated into the public through the use of modern information technologies such as the internet. The use of the internet has led to radical transparency being broken down into voluntary and involuntary transparency (Heemsbergen, 2016). Voluntary transparency comprises of revealing of previously withheld information to the public. Involuntary transparency involves the reveal of secrets and information without the consent of the party that held the information. Involuntary radical transparency has become monotonous in the digital age, where modern forms of involuntary network data dissemination methods are used. The paper focuses on radical transparency, especially in Australia. The article will further highlight the role played by WikiLeaks and their connection to the media. Moreover, the paper will evaluate the role of deception and secrecy in politics. Finally the paper will analyze the impact of Cablegate on Australian law evaluating whether law was broken in revealing the classified cables.

Globaleaks, SecureDrop, Snowden, Anonymous and WikiLeaks have been the leading companies using digital technologies to uncover political secrets. WikiLeaks is the company that has been globally known to leak vast secrets enhancing radical transparency worldwide. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange began the company as a little experiment in radical transparency (Heemsbergen, 2016). By the 2000s, the page posted private documents ranging from Sarah Palin’s emails to Swiss Bank documents. The company’s breakthrough came in 2010 when it posted a graphic video showing the killing of several Iraqis, including Reuters journalists by the U.S military. The company received numerous praise form transparency, and libertarians advocates and shame fell to the US military.

The viral video posted showed US military in a helicopter flying over a group of unarmed men walking down a Baghdad suburb street in the company of two Reuters journalists. The Military then fired at men killing a dozen men and the two journalists in 2007. In the military defense, they claimed that the killings were unintentional, and they confused the camera gear as weapons. They blamed WikiLeaks for the editing of the video, but it did not change the fact that innocent men who did not engage in any violence were killed that day (Heemsbergen, 2015). The additional killing of the journalist proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the killings were an act of hostile action.

Consequently, WikiLeaks posted the largest cache of leaked material, which was a set of diplomatic cables and army documents in 2010. The leak mainly focused on the conduct of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is during this period that the United States declared it a threat through the national security officials (Kampmark, 2016). The leak of the classified documents intensified the public’s right to know in the US. The tension was not something new since it had occurred in the 1970s about the Pentagon Papers, which were leaked linking the US involvement in the Vietnam War. However, a confidant of the leaker Chelsea Manning was handed to the authorities and would serve seven years in prison (Heemsbergen, 2015). In 2016 WikiLeaks further posted hacked emails obtained by the Russian Intelligence apparently in an effort to sway the US presidential election. The leak was from stolen hacked emails by the Russian intelligence from the Democratic National Committee. The director of CIA then, in 2017, Mike Pompeo declared WikiLeaks as a hostile intelligence service. WikiLeaks is at the forefront to incorporate a radical transparency culture into society.

WikiLeaks raises several issues in its various disclosures. The 2010 revelations prove that the set conventional mechanism to regulate information held by the government is no longer functional, creating a significant obstacle in the achievement of radical transparency (Johnson, 2015). WikiLeaks, therefore, aims to challenge the increasing government tendencies as well as the growth of unaccountable power. The extensive leaks also prove that there exist obstacles to the achievement of radical transparency, even in the digital age. Moreover, the large volume of classified information revealed in 2010 shows that the quantity of such information held by governments is continuously increasing.

Additionally, in this digital age, both political and commercial considerations disrupt the free flow of information hence making it almost impossible to realize radical transparency. When WikiLeaks released the US department cables in 2010, they used various companies such as Apple, EveryDNS.net, PayPal, and Amazon Web services. However, the companies cut their services, claiming that it violated contracts, and it posed threats to businesses that would hinder other clients. WikiLeak’s ability to distribute leaked information was crippled, and it also damaged it financially. Companies willing to support the radical transparency journey are few, making the journey even more stringent (Johnson, 2015). Moreover, the extradition threats issued to the founder have forced him to seek refuge in the Cambodian embassy crippling the ability for the company to operate adequately. The jailing of a confidant of the leaker Chelsea Manning for seven years also serves as a significant setback in the achievement of radical transparency. The Government is therefore ready to act fast and ruthless to ensure that ensure classified information remains classified as citing American interests. Administrative controls have been instilled on access to sensitive information.

The content leaked from the Defense Department was also deemed very complicated and did not spark strong reaction nor press attention since the story was not easy to grasp. The major media houses that WikiLeaks chose to handle the information releases also did not meet their expectations (Johnson, 2015). The media houses functioned as gatekeepers for the information and would choose the information to be published and which to be left out. Also, the US public could be considered naïve since they did not react with the expected levels of outrage. The people choose not to oversee the abuse of power. Therefore, the achievement of radical transparency, even in the digital age, has a long way to go to be realized.

Deception and secrecy have been used by numerous governments worldwide, claiming to hold the citizens’ best interest at heart. It is for this reason that a majority of citizens no longer trust the government; still, it does not always tell the truth (Bjola & Murray, 2016). Deception of the Vietnam War dented the trust of American people and its government. The disclosure of the Pentagon Papers revealed that government officials used security classification to keep information from the public (Fenster, 2019). It is through official secrecy such as the existence of classified files that a system if institutionalized lying cropped up. The press has also failed citizens since they are no longer vigorously question the government information. The media has been accepting official handouts as facts hence incorporating passive reporting. The submissive reporting culture has made it easy for governments to mislead the public.

Every government, for instance, the Australian government is not only built around formal checks and balances but also around a balance of confidence between the government and the people. The consent of the governed is built around democracy. Once the people are misled and not availed the truth either through secrecy or deception to base their decisions, the system may continue, but they may have been denied their democracy (Fenster, 2019). The government may decide to incorporate deception and secrecy to conceal the truth of their wrongdoing and mistakes and misleading the public. However, in a democratic state, the public should be informed hence the rationale should be unacceptable.

Secrecy and bureaucracy, however, is sometimes considered as logical. A government may need to keep some of its operations a secret to gain the upper hand in dealing with the enemy. Governments are required to maintain some level of secrecy and bureaucracy, especially in military and diplomatic operations. The military must maintain secrecy and bureaucracy in their operations in their goal to keep a given nation safe. A government may also decide to maintain secrecy and bureaucracy when conducting operations that the public may not approve of (Murray, 2016). A good example is the testing of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The public may feel the need to oppose the government on the same, but the government has no option but perform its operations (Fenster, 2019). When secrecy and bureaucracy have a foundation in a rational concern to improving efficiency it may be considered logic. Moreover, when secrecy and bureaucracy are maintained for matters of national security then it can be regarded as legitimate.

Australia in June passed foreign interference and national security to make a complete overhaul of counterintelligence in the country. The legislation introduces stricter penalties for traditional espionage activities, such as interfering with public infrastructure and leaking classified information. The new laws had huge implications not only to whistleblowers but also to media houses who publish leaked information (Pha, 2018). The rules, according to the majority of Australians, seem to be denying them the fundamental democratic rights and the freedom of speech. Australia does not, therefore, allow radical transparency. The laws direct that for espionage offenses, a person has to commit the crime intentionally or recklessly, and the conduct should jeopardize the Australian national security or benefit the national security of a foreign country. The law directs that they must be a link to a foreign principal. Therefore, if a journalist was involved in similar conduct and the above circumstances existed then espionage offenses would apply.

In WikiLeaks conduct in 2010, publishing a series of leak sourced within the US military revealing American war crimes and diplomatic conspiracies was deemed legal. Despite using an entire Cablegate used in the highest ranks of the Rudd Labor government, under the Australian laws acted incapacity of a media organization and the editor in the interest of the public; hence they were protected (Pha, 2018). However, if WikiLeaks had been labeled a non-state hostile intelligence agency like in the USA then Assange would be considered to be charged with espionage for assisting in publishing of the leaks. In WikiLeaks case though, Assange was an Australian citizen with a media organization hence no link to a foreign principal.

The majority of Australian citizens welcomed WikiLeaks’s actions since it fulfilled the democratic right for the public to be aware of the truth. WikiLeaks not only exposed US imperialism but also revealed of the American government attempts to influence Australian politics and policy. There are concerns about the new laws since the passing of the laws the public was involved in and advised on the same (Pha, 2018). The Australian people tend to feel the laws were rushed since they were in parliament for only three days. Moreover, the rules were not subjected to any scrutiny. The Australian people have been denied the chance to vote for the most severe and punitive legislature since the Second World War. It is a fundamental principle of democracy to derive power from the people. The Labor and Coalition parties should not have any powers to deny the population democratic rights, which have been achieved through struggle and decades. The public should also come forward and express importance of being involved in legislature processes.

In a nutshell, there is a need for countries to be open to radical transparency. Governments should seek to remain truthful to their people. Governments should not cover up mistakes and wrongdoings but highlight them to the public to prevent such from happening in the future (Fluck, 2015). The act of deception and secrecy should not be present in a democratic country such as Australia. Companies such as the WikiLeaks should intensify their efforts in exposing the truth to the public. Media houses and other big companies should also join in the movement to ensure that the public is aware of the happenings worldwide. Moreover, media houses should be willing to foster governments to deliver information that is truthful and not provide false official statements. Lastly, the public should not remain naive, and any investigation that proves the government lied should hold their governments responsible for promoting the radical transparency culture.

Originator of WikiLeaks Julian Assange imprisoned in London. Julian was taken into detective custody for neglecting to surrender to safeguard and on a U.S. removal warrant. The U.K. Home Office stated: “he is blamed in the US for PC related offenses”. Detective captured Assange after the South American country chose to disavow the political shelter that had given him haven for very nearly seven years. Ecuador’s leader Lenin said he made the move because of ”rehashed infringement to worldwide traditions and day by day life”.

Reasons for Assange Capture

The single complaint, scheme to submit PC interruption, was recorded in March 2018. It originates from what investigators said was his consent to break a secret phrase to an ordered US government PC. It conveys a punishment of as long as five years in jail and is noteworthy in that it’s anything but an undercover work charge. More importantly, it is a detail that will come as an alleviation to squeeze opportunity advocates. Consequently, the US government had considered until in any event a year ago accusing him of an undercover work-related offense.US specialists have said that the frameworks were hacked by Russian operators.

Assange’s Future in the Administration Office

Mr. Assange’s future in the authority office was raised doubt about a year ago after the leader of Ecuador said he would ‘inevitably’ need to leave the property and uncovered that he was in dialogs with British experts to end his haven.

Mr. Assange has been in the sights of the United States government since his association’s 2010 revelations. Most as of late, Mr. Assange has been enduring an onslaught for his association’s discharge amid the 2016 presidential battle of thousands of messages stolen from the PC frameworks of the Democratic National Committee, prompting a progression of disclosures that humiliated the gathering and Hillary Clinton’s crusade.

WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks rose to notoriety in 2010 when it distributed an accumulation of ordered US archives spilled by Chelsea, the previous Army knowledge expert who shared military and political privileged insights.

Assange was likewise given another arrangement of house runs back in October, including requests to take care of his feline and maintain a strategic distance from political impedance utilizing the international safe havens Wi-Fi. These principles pursued Assange selecting Hrafnsson to supplant him as the WikiLeaks editorial manager, following his earlier absence of web get to.

Footage of the arrest showed a heavily-bearded Assange shouting and gesticulating while being led out of the commission by police officers.

Foreign Office Announcement

In an announcement discharged by the Foreign Office, Hunt stated: “What we’ve demonstrated today is that nobody is exempt from the rules that everyone else follows”. He is no saint. He has escaped reality for quite a long time. It is correct that his forthcoming ought to be chosen in the UK legal framework”.

Hunt said that Ecuadorian leader Lenín took a gallant choice which has implied we had the capacity to determine the circumstance today. We’re not making any judgment about Julian Assange’s guiltlessness or blame, that is for the courts to choose. However, what isn’t satisfactory is for somebody to avoid confronting equity and he has endeavored to do that for an exceptionally prolonged stretch of time.

PM Theresa May said the capture “demonstrates that in the United Kingdom nobody is exempt from the rules that everyone else follows”.