hacktivist culture and violence

Running head: HACKTIVIST CULTURE AND VIOLENCE 1

Hacktivist Culture and Violence

Amy Stockhausen

University of Utah

HACKTIVIST CULTURE AND VIOLENCE 2

Hacktivist Culture and the Concept of Violence

Between the years 2007-2012, 16 people were arrested and charged with violating the

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for advocating and participating in distributed denial of service

attacks (DDOS). These attacks have been used by myriad groups since the early 1990s to

temporarily shut down websites. The 16 individuals who have been arrested for DDOS were all

associated with political activist groups, and their cases have led to a discussion about DDOS

and whether it should be considered an act of activism or fraud; advocacy or terrorism

(Doctorow, 2011; Gladwell, 2010; Lawson, 2011; Morozov, 2009). For this study, the goal is not

to decide which perspective is correct; asking which is correct is, frankly, the wrong question.

Instead, this paper focuses on the construction and designation of violence by activists operating

within a framework of social movement rhetoric. This study is built on the understanding that the

fundamental problem in this issue is a clash of perspectives between that of the law and

politically motivated cyber-activists. Using concepts from Benjamin’s Critique of Violence and

Kafka’s parable Before the Law and the framework of social movement criticism, it is possible to

construct the force behind the rhetoric of DDOS activists as it is portrayed in various online

sources. This construction acts as a clear example of how individuals can act under a definition

of violence that does not coincide with that of the law and at times overtly opposes it. This

behavior is thus criminalized, perpetuating the cycle of violence and retaliation.

In order to contextualize its rhetorical artifacts, this study will use the framework of

social movement criticism. The rhetoric used by DDOS activists tends to fit the various functions

of social movement rhetoric by “raising the possibility that the system itself is in question and

that a group can successfully challenge it” (Cathcart, 1980, p. 269). In doing so, cyber-activist

speech fulfills certain categories, such as justifying the movement and prescribing a course of


action to non-institutional entities (Cathcart, 1980; Griffin, 1980; Lucas, 1980; Stewart, Smith, &

Denton, 2007; Stewart, 1980). These two areas are of great concern because they invoke

interpretive frameworks surrounding the issue of DDOS as an activist technique. The social

movement must first articulate a threat from an outside organization—in this case, the threat of

the law—and then specify what must be done (Stewart et al., 2007; Stewart, 1980). The threats

articulated in the chosen artifact are interpreted through Benjamin’s Critique of Violence

(Benjamin & Demetz, 1986), paying particular attention to law-preserving violence and the

violence that occurs in denying natural law. For hacktivists, the method of choice for pressuring

the law is DDOS, a computer-facilitated attack on a website. These attacks are likened by the

activists to civil disobedience and other tactics of non-violence (Anonymous, 2012a;

Dominguez, 2012). The tactic itself does not specify a threat or articulate a grievance, but it is

sometimes used as the sole communication with an offending institution. For this reason, the

artifacts collected for this study are not confrontational, but rather the rhetoric that articulates a

problem and suggests DDOS as a solution. Found on websites for the Electronic Disturbance

Theatre and Anonymous, the five artifacts are aimed at existing members of the group and

interested parties. Although the two groups differ in structure and purpose, both the Electronic

Disturbance Theatre and Anonymous advocate the use of DDOS in order to address perceived

violence in the form of law.

Before venturing further into the use of DDOS, it is necessary to examine the topic of

speech and the internet. Whether we choose to call it speech, writing, or code, symbolic

communication takes on a vital role online. Nowhere is Derrida’s (1998) argument for the

difference between speech and writing more clearly enacted than the internet. Derrida asserts that

writing encompasses much of what speech cannot, as exemplified by the disjunction between the


spoken and written différance as opposed to its homonym différence. The meaning here resides

in the peculiarity of the written text as opposed to its spoken sound. The same can be said of

language use online, which further problematizes the categorization of rhetoric and action. What

is a webpage but a list of written commands? The user who surfs the internet does so by sending

and receiving encoded packets of written data, a transaction that would fit even the most

elementary of communication models. From the lowest level of computerized communication,

the writing is apparent: binary is written in combinations of ones and zeroes that resides on

physical media; this code is translated by a computer into Arabic characters and symbols which

comprise a written code for a file or program; this level of code is then read by the computer to

constitute and create the specified item (Lessig, 1999, 2006). If it is a program, it will execute

commands and cause the computer to act in a specified way. If it is a file, it will engage another

program to act and make sense of the file. When it comes to the digital realm, writing or code

alone implies action, and when it is read, it causes action. On this scale, it becomes difficult to

state that an event is purely rhetorical or mechanical. This contributes to the competing

perspectives on the issue of DDOS as a protest tactic. By interpreting the denial of service as a

rhetorical act, it implies non-violence. No one is hurt, and nothing is lost. On the other hand, if

interpreting the denial of service as pure action, it is far easier to see it as law-breaking activity.

There is no statement, only monetary damage. We must ask, is the computer seen as a bullhorn

through which to broadcast a message or a weapon with which to cause destruction?

In the case of a distributed denial of service attack, the computer tries its hardest to take

down a targeted website (“How a ‘denial of service’ attack works - CNET News,” 2000;

Strickland, n.d.). The user initiates the attack by using a program that they either gain access to

through a website or download. The program then uses the computer’s internet connection to


repeatedly attempt to access a previously specified webpage. This involves the computer sending

a small amount of data to the server where the webpage is stored; the data is essentially a request

for the server to send back the content of the page. By sending requests in quick succession,

theoretically, the server will become overloaded—so burdened with processing all of the

requests that it shuts down entirely. However, this is very rarely done by a single user. Servers

owned by corporations and government entities are designed to withstand a great deal of traffic,

far more than what can be produced by a single computer. It is for this reason that activists tend

to recruit huge numbers of people to run the attack at the same time. In doing so, they generate

enough traffic to put the website down.

The task of generating traffic through multitudes of networked users can, at times, be

difficult. For some DDOS users, the easier way to increase numbers is through a botnet—a string

of computers that have been remotely accessed and hijacked, almost always by a virus or piece

of malware (Strickland, n.d.). These operations are almost always prosecuted for their use of

botnets rather than their use of DDOS. It is, perhaps, this use of force against unexpecting

computers that tends to set such actions apart from the basic use of DDOS. For many activists,

this kind of action is distasteful; it implicates those who are not involved or savvy enough to

realize that their computer is hanging out with a bad crowd. It could be said that botnets elicit

unintentional writing; evoking unwelcome code in others’ computers.

As long as the writing and reading of code originates with the computers’ owners,

activists are happy to claim it as their own. It is popular as a hacktivist tactic, but even those

politically-minded internet users would argue that it is hardly hacktivist (Hick & McNutt, 2002;

Jordan, 2002; Taylor, 2005, 2007). It requires no hacking at all. Hacking involves the targeted

invasion of a computer either without authorization or exceeding intended authorization


(“Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - Internet Law Treatise,” n.d.). During a DDOS

attack, users access only public files. They are doing so in a disruptive manner, but their action—

sending the server a request for information—is well within the rights of any internet user.

Arguably, if DDOS users are to be charged with a crime, it is for the monetary damage they

cause in bandwidth fees and lost customers, not hacking. The legal status of DDOS attacks in the

United States is difficult to discern. The users who are arrested for such attacks have been

repeatedly convicted of fraud. The fraud in a DDOS attack occurs through the traffic created by

the computer. Each visit takes a small amount of energy and bandwidth, and by visiting the site

repeatedly, the DDOS user is implicitly saying “I want to see your website again and again.”

However, what we know to be true is that the user is in fact taking energy and bandwidth for the

purpose of crashing the website, not viewing its content. Therefore, the user has committed many

tiny infractions, each one chipping away at the resources of the website and its server.

When cyber-activists wage a campaign, they must convince their followers that

something must be done and that they can specify just what ought to be done (Cathcart, 1980;

Stewart et al., 2007; Stewart, 1980). There is a particular vision of the world that permeates

hacktivist culture, and it encourages the use of tactics like DDOS (Jordan, 2002; Taylor, 2005,

2007). This worldview is concerned with violence, and it describes the actions of the law as

violent. Protests using DDOS, on the other hand, are described as tactics of civil disobedience.

As long as these activists and the government hold polarizing opinions on these issues, there will

be continued struggle, more arrests, and further website blackouts. First, we must explore what

constitutes violence for internet activists and how it relates to the law. Then, using artifacts from

the Electronic Disturbance Theatre and Anonymous, we can construct a view on violence both as

it pertains to their opposition of the government and their understanding of the DDOS tactic.


Once the use of violence by the law is defined as a social movement motivator and its absence

noted in describing DDOS, it becomes clear that the activists are using rhetoric that is

constrained within a particular perspective. This perspective limits their ability to compromise

with or find solutions within the law.

Before the Law

When DDOS is used for activist purposes, it is often because the protesters understand

the internet to be a more level playing field than the non-digital world. This is seen where groups

of people with no notable power are able to bring down the websites of large corporations or

government entities. In recent years, Anonymous has taken on Sony (Neal, 2011), the RIAA

(Hachman, 2010), and Israel (McMillan & Ackerman, 2012); a more classic example is the

Zapatista takedown of Mexican government websites (Krempl, 2000). Such as in these cases, it

is far more common to find an individual who can make sweeping changes to online

infrastructure than it is to find an individual who can bring legitimate change to the structure of

law or government. In fact, the ability for individuals to code and create programs that change

the average user’s experience and interaction with the digital realm signifies the drastically

different nature of code online. One can hardly imagine the parallel: an amateur lawyer sitting at

home playing with bits of law; he eventually crafts a legal mechanism which, upon its speaking,

enacts different protections and limitations on its speaker. Instead, this phenomenon is solely

property of the internet, and quite likely what increases the sense of efficacy held by so-called

‘hacktivists.’

One of the greatest benefits of the internet to activism is its increased promotion of

efficacy (Elin, 2003). Not only can an interested individual join a group immediately (Ayers,


2003), they can begin to organize and participate within moments of receiving acceptance by the

group. The speed with which one can join and assimilate only exacerbates the differences

between traditional and online social movements. The greater efficacy of hacktivist culture

engenders a distrust of the government and American democratic method, along with an

acknowledgement that the government favors corporations and the wealthy (Anonymous, 2011;

Dominguez, 2012; Electronic Disturbance Theatre disinformation, 2011). To them, it is nearly

impossible to be influential to the government through legitimate, legal means. To abide by the

law is to accept and propagate the status quo. This attitude may appear overly cynical, but as a

foundation, it leads directly to the support and utilization of DDOS tactics.

To better understand the viewpoint of DDOS hacktivists, there is a parable by Kafka that

portrays the law in an equally bleak and problematic way. Before the Law (Gray, 2005) imagines

law as place, existing behind a series of gates. A man arrives to gain access to the law, as all are

free to do, and is informed by a gatekeeper that it is not time to enter the gate. Years pass, and

the man is never given permission. In his dying moments, he is informed that the gate will close

because it was intended only for him. For Kafka, the law is at best a paradox and at worst an

outright lie. While all men in a democratic nation are said to have access, only the elite ever have

significant influence. Any individual who wants to enact change in the law must wait for

permission: to alter the law, one must first obey it. The pre-existing law is given power in all

steps of the process, and as such, it can resist change indefinitely.

Can anyone then blame those who approach the gate of the law and turn around? If one

believes that the law reinforces itself, or acts as what Benjamin would describe as a law-

preserving law (Benjamin & Demetz, 1986), then there is little hope of getting anything done

without extraordinary means. The average citizen is deprived of their ability to live in a world


that is just and sensible to them. As Benjamin describes, “the violence of which present-day law

is seeking in all areas of activity to deprive the individual appears really threatening, and arouses

even in defeat the sympathy of the mass against law” (p. 281). The public is aware that it is

constrained by the very laws which it is purported to control, and as such are sympathetic to

those acts that fight against the control of law-preserving laws. This particular type of violence

perpetrated by the law is articulated again and again by protesters who use DDOS as a tactic, and

it thus serves as a viable way to explain the issues of a social movement (Anonymous - Message

to the American People, 2011, Anonymous, 2012b, Electronic Disturbance Theatre

disinformation, 2011; Dorian Batycka, 2012). For them, DDOS bypasses the gates of the law—

forgoes the realm of law entirely—to make a noticeable and tangible change in the outside

world. The change may be temporary, but it is nonetheless noticeable.

What must be stressed here is the element of violence. In his Critique of Violence,

Benjamin criticizes the law, and names it as a source of violence (1986). As a control

mechanism, the law limits the activities of its citizens, particularly in respect to those activities

that would suspend or destroy law. Furthermore, Benjamin posits that violence is necessary to

break out of these bonds, stating that “every conceivable solution to human problems, not to

speak of deliverance from the confines of all the world-historical conditions of existence

obtaining hitherto, remains impossible if violence is totally excluded in principle” (1986, p. 293).

If suppression through law constitutes violence, then so too does the suppression of interaction

and communication through DDOS. In many ways, the enactment of DDOS tactics mirrors the

law-preserving laws of the government; the rhetoric of users tends toward a characterization of

the internet as a bastion of free speech, but the DDOS enforces silence on those who threaten that


ideal. It is an element of control used by those who purport to favor freedom; a laissez-faire

internet with libertarian goals exists only for those who embrace it.

Hacktivist Rhetoric

Performing a distributed denial of service attack requires a large number of people, and

as a result, hacktivists using this tactic are frequently recruiting internet users to join in on the

attack (Anonymous, 2012a; Brown, 2011; Dominguez, 2012). This was, perhaps, more common

before the rise of the hacktivist mega-group Anonymous, but even this group has left traces of

their work. The type of rhetoric used by each group is usually defined both by its location online

and the nature of the group. Highly organized collectives like the Electronic Disturbance Theatre

have official missives written by their leaders. Decentralized groups like Anonymous rely on

everyday discourse that either proliferates as it gains popularity or dies out through disuse.

Regardless of the specific form, the rhetoric that arises from these hacktivist organizations

addresses the concept of violence as it is enacted by law. These articulations then have the force

to send users to battle for the social movement, employing DDOS to silence their opponents. Just

as described in models of social movement rhetoric (Cathcart, 1978, 1980; Stewart, 1980), the

digital attack is precipitated by a perception of violence that is articulated by a leader or

influential member, whether it is done to the hacktivist group or outside entities. These internet

activists then go to battle, motivated by a conception of their own acts as being less violent or an

alternative to that which is being done to the public (Stewart et al., 2007). These basic premises

are repeated frequently, and this study examines both rhetorical components: the call to action

and the definition of an amenable tactic.


The popular webcomic XKCD created a comic strip illustrating the differences in

perception between “people” and “computer experts” on the issue of DDOS. This widely-

circulated comic iterates the difference in perception of a DDOS attack from those are familiar

with the technology behind the attack and those who aren’t, likening the true nature of DDOS to

tearing down a poster (see Figure 1). Such an act would hardly be criminalized, and this

metaphor serves as reinforcement for the attitudes already held by most DDOS activists. This

very argument is used to try to distinguish just why the denial of service attack is criminalized—

because the public, and by extension the lawmakers, are not familiar with what is involved in a

DDOS attack. It gets conflated with more serious actions such as hacking and information theft.

Therefore, DDOS is guilty by association. Misinformation about tactics such as DDOS runs

rampant, and as a result, the public labels it ‘hacking’ (Gunkel, 2005; Vegh, 2003, 2005).

The Electronic Disturbance Theatre

One of the groups that have tried the hardest to dispel the myths surrounding DDOS is

the Electronic Disturbance Theatre (EDT). Starting in the early 1990s to promote art and

Figure 1. CIA. XKCD comic strip portraying how the public and computer experts perceive DDOS attacks.


activism, the EDT is famous for coining the phrase “electronic civil disobedience” (Vegh, 2003).

This phrase alone situates its associated techniques squarely within the realm of social

movements and non-violent protest. For them, the DDOS is simply a virtual sit-in (Dominguez,

2012). Whereas a traditional sit-in involves the participation of many people sitting down in

some type of commercial or institutional building in order to prohibit its functioning by taking up

space, the virtual sit-in occupies the server. When done well, a distributed denial of service

attack effectively fills the metaphorical building, populating it with so many people that the

doors cannot open to legitimate customers. The differences, however, are striking—DDOS

attacks can last as long as there are individuals with access to computers and each person is

taking up space not just for themselves, but rather a multiplicity of self (“How a ‘denial of

service’ attack works - CNET News,” 2000; Strickland, n.d.). The former condition makes for a

plausibly endless attack. The latter is dependent on the computing power of any individual

participant. The stronger the computer, the more frequently it will access the server. This

essentially multiplies ones’ presence in accordance with their processor and internet connection.

While these two effects may constitute a significant differentiation from what one would call a

traditional sit-in, the DDOS is nonetheless frequently referred to through such a metaphor.

The EDT has sponsored and organized many activist campaigns since its creation (Dorian

Batycka, 2012; Garrido & Halavais, 2003), with a theme of supporting indigenous peoples

throughout Mexico and the United States. One of their most recent campaigns focused on the

campus of the University of California, San Diego. A call-to-action was posted on the website

for the b.a.n.g. lab, a virtual lab for visual arts at UCSD run by Ricardo Dominguez—one of the

founders of the EDT. There, Dominguez writes:


Our people will rise to decolonize UCSD, which is on occupied Kumeyaay land, to

decriminalize the border and to smash imperialism and capitalism in our country and

throughout the world. Through collective struggle we will reverse the privatization of our

universities and reclaim public education as a human right for all people. (Dominguez,

2012)

This statement shows a clear perception of violence by Dominguez and the EDT. He asserts that

not only is UCSD on occupied land, it exists near a criminalized border, and it takes part in the

privatization of universities in the United States. The government, the laws, and the culture of

privatization that influence the crafting of the laws have perpetrated a violence against the

Kumeyaay people, those who are made to be criminals for crossing the US-Mexico border, and

the students of UCSD who are guaranteed a public education, but are denied it through

privatization and rising tuition costs. After describing these grievances to engage his followers,

Dominguez offers a course of action.

In order to protest against the multiple sources of perceived violence imposed by the law,

Dominguez and the EDT had planned “virtual action.” This allows not only those who are

present in San Diego to lend their support, but anyone globally who has access to a computer and

internet access. To this end, Dominguez writes, “we cordially invite the citizens of the world to

become actors in a performance of Electronic Civil Disobedience through a virtual sit-in on

bankofamerica.com, universityofcalifornia.edu, and jerrybrown.org” (Dominguez, 2012). Links

with instructions are posted further down the missive. It is interesting to note the choice of

targets—The Bank of America, the University of California, and Jerry Brown, governor of

California. Each serves as a symbolic site of struggle. The banking industry, the university

system, and the state-level government are all players within the issues articulated by


Dominguez. This specific case uses these websites symbolically. It can be assumed that the EDT

is not necessarily concerned with restricting access to these websites, but rather with the

symbolic gesture of silencing them or making them invisible. If the EDT wanted to permanently

remove the functionality of the websites, they would need to resort to other measures. A DDOS

attack, like a sit-in, is only effective as long as there are numerous people presenting a concerted

effort to take space. The DDOS effectively limits the presence of each of these offending

websites during the duration of the attack. Furthermore, these actions also perform the duty of

calling attention to the associated cause. The statement made by Dominguez is easy enough to

find, and it clearly links the DDOS attack to the perceived acts of violence described above. To

deny service is thus a dual action: a performance of silencing and an attempt to raise public

awareness.

Given that Dominguez and the EDT are using DDOS to fight against violence, it must

still be asked how they characterize their own actions. Like the EDT’s use of the phrase

“electronic civil disobedience,” Dominguez clearly links the proposed attack to the techniques of

prior social movements:

By taking part in this gesture of Electronic Civil Disobedience, you will align yourself in

the traditions of non-violent direct action and civil disobedience established by peaceful

dissenters throughout world history. Proponents of Electronic Civil Disobedience are

borrowing tactics of trespass and blockade from earlier social movements and applying

them to the virtual sphere. Electronic Civil Disobedience, as a form of mass de-

centralized electronic direct action, utilizes virtual blockades and virtual sit-ins.

(Dominguez, 2012)


The call to virtual action is clear. Dominguez accomplishes the necessary tasks of defining the

act of violence and providing a set of actions for those who are interested in taking part in the

movement. He then ties those actions directly to non-violent social movement tactics. Such an

argument is deemed innovative by social movement research (Stewart et al., 2007). It switches

violence into non-violence, advocating for the members of the movement to not respond in kind

to the perceived violent act, but rather to change the tone. The DDOS attack, referred to only as a

“virtual sit-in” is described as being non-violent, de-centralized, and a type of direct action.

Describing the act as non-violent highlights a major concern of many protesters, the de-

centralized nature of the action symbolically opposes the hierarchical structure of the

government, and the appeal of direct action is that it is essentially a way to jump Kafka’s fence.

It is an attempt to influence the law without having to go through approved channels and

gatekeepers.

Through Dominguez’s call to action for the Electronic Disturbance Theatre, it is easy to

see the articulation of violence at work. Not only is violence asserted, but the DDOS tactic is

given as the appropriate response. The tactic is couched in social movement terms, labeling it

clearly as non-violent. Dominguez’s writing urges readers to join in the protest, his rhetoric

attempting to garner enough force to take down the listed websites. What is notable about these

assertions of violence is that they are external to the act of DDOS. The occupation of lands by

non-native people encoded into law by the US government and the privatization of the public

education system are deemed violent, but they threaten populations that are not necessarily the

same as those who take part in the DDOS action. It is far more common, especially with the

recent rise of Anonymous, to see the opposite: using DDOS to fight against the violence of

limiting the ability to use technologies such as DDOS.


Anonymous

Since early 2008, the group of internet users known as Anonymous have taken up

increasingly large and public causes that they fight using a host of tactics. Their most commonly

used technique, however, is the distributed denial of service attack (Brown, 2011; Dana

Kennedy, 2010). The DDOS attack is particularly easy to employ because Anonymous consists

of a large network of internet users that spans not only its own user base, but other affiliated

websites. As an example, one of the first highly publicized attacks committed by Anonymous

involved taking down the Church of Scientology’s websites for several days (Denton, 11;

Marcus Baram, 2008). This was done not just by the members of Anonymous, but also users on

various websites where members had posted persuasive appeals to join the campaign. This type

of networking is done on a case-by-case basis, and the highly decentralized nature of

Anonymous only reinforces this tendency. It is also for this reason that rhetoric used by members

of Anonymous must be thought of differently than that which comes from more traditional

organizations. The venues in which Anonymous plans its campaigns are often message boards

and internet relay chat (IRC) rooms. This must be taken into consideration when defining what

constitutes important or forceful rhetoric. For the purpose of this study, that definition hinges on

the repetition of any written text. On message boards and in IRC rooms, the only way to

guarantee that a text survives the automatic deletions inherent in these formats is to repeat the

text. Therefore, if users think that a message is particularly valuable, it will be copied and

reposted in intervals.

One such text during the campaign planning for the DDOS attack on the Church of

Scientology worked as an iteration of perceived violence against the /b/ message board used by

Anonymous. It read (with formatting and spelling preserved):


I think it's time for /b/ to do something big.

People need to understand not to fuck with /b/, and talk about nothing for ten minutes,

and expect people to give their money to an organization that makes absolutely no

fucking sense.

I'm talking about "hacking" or "taking down" the official Scientology website.

(Anonymous, 2008)

This posting served as the first message in a thread that began Anonymous’ strike against the

Church of Scientology. It articulates a threat by referring to a video of Tom Cruise that had been

leaked in which he “talks about nothing for ten minutes.” The video had been posted on the

website Gawker.com, and the Church of Scientology immediately filed suit against the website

and released notices threatening all those downloaded and re-hosted the video. This included

numerous members of the Anonymous user base. Here again, it is possible to see an assertion of

violence in which the offending organization violates the perceived norms of the internet, though

it is somewhat more oblique than previous example. Unlike the course of action proposed by the

EDT, this call to action involves retaliating for the removal of content by barring access to the

websites of the Church. It subversively suggests that Anonymous should silence those who

would silence Anonymous, an idea that a pervasive distaste for anything that would not be

deemed natural law (Benjamin & Demetz, 1986) for the internet. According to Benjamin, natural

law is that which arises out of necessity or common sense. It creates protections and freedoms

that are formed from the citizenry rather than for the protection of the existing government. To

Anonymous, the restriction of information imposed by the Church of Scientology violated the

natural law of the internet and was thus an act of law-preserving violence.


A similar theme is seen in other texts produced by members of Anonymous. In early

2011, a document titled “The Anonymous Manifesto” was posted on the Anonymous-affiliated

website Anonnews.org. In this document, there is a clear delineation of what constitutes violence

for members of Anonymous which is framed in contrast to their suggested natural law. The text

lists five stipulations for a free society. The first, a summary of a point from the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, states that “a society must be allowed to share information

unrestricted and uncensored if it is to maintain cultural and technological evolution and uphold

the rights and liberties of its citizens” (Anonymous, 2011). The second stipulation asserts that

“citizens must be allowed to organize their own institutions without being harassed by existing

institutions privileged by greater resources, influence and power” (Anonymous, 2011). In other

words, members of the public must be free to circulate uncensored information in order to

guarantee their rights; furthermore, those rights are violated when a more powerful institution,

such as the law or government, unfairly uses its sway to disband or harass citizen organizations.

If indeed DDOS is interpreted as a rhetorical act, then the Anonymous manifesto is asserting the

group’s right to assemble and perform such protest activities. In fact, it would not be very much

of an extension to assume that members of Anonymous interpret DDOS in this very way. On

another Anonymous-affiliated website, on a page that explains the use and litigation of DDOS,

the tactic is described as “the online equivalent of fans at a football game yelling so loud that the

offensive line can’t hear the quarterback” (Anonymous, n.d.-a). Through this manifesto,

members of Anonymous are identifying and problematizing the actions of the law that violate

what they would consider to be natural law for the internet. Among these actions, they specify

the ability to circulate information and use free speech. With the mentality that DDOS is

equivalent to tearing down a poster, performing a sit-in, or yelling at a football game, it is not


hard to see how Anonymous members could construe a denial of service as a protected speech

act. This perceived freedom is furthered by the following points in the manifesto.

The Anonymous manifesto continues with the two following points addressing privacy of

citizens and institutions. According to the text, privacy of individuals should be maintained at all

costs, and “citizens shall not be the target of any undue surveillance” (Anonymous, 2011). The

treatment of institutions is somewhat different, in which “privacy and secrecy are privileges

granted to the institutions built by citizens and their communities, as long as the institution does

not utilize that secrecy to deceive, or act against the common interests of humanity”

(Anonymous, 2011). Institutions are granted the privilege of privacy as long as the institution

acts within boundaries of the common good as conceived by Anonymous. These stipulations

suggest that the violation of individual privacy by governmental or corporate organizations

constitutes a type of violence; and additionally, an institution that acts deceitful or against the

“common interests of humanity” constitutes further violence. Whereas the natural law of

Anonymous would stipulate that privacy must be protected at all costs, the law directly

disregards it. Within these postulates, there is an undercurrent of maximizing the rights of the

individual citizen while increasing oversight for governmental bodies, whether that is the realm

of information or privacy.

The final stipulation put forth in the Anonymous Manifesto brings the discourse back to

implementing forms of protest. It states that “it is the responsibility of all citizens to take action

and maintain an open and transparent society, and to deal appropriately with institutions or

citizens whose actions are a direct transgression of these postulates” (Anonymous, 2011). While

this statement does not directly mention the methods through which to deal with offending

institutions, it is nonetheless a call to arms for those who feel that they are hindered or threatened


in their ability to manage information, whether it is about the outside world, their government, or

their own lives. The manipulation or monopoly of information by governing bodies is seen to be

a threat—an act of violence like that portrayed in Kafka’s Before the Law. The gate is there, and

we are purported to have access, but it is demonstrably not so. For Anonymous, the answer is not

to wait for access, but rather to engulf the gatekeepers and silence them with an overwhelming

number of requests for access.

The ideas of the Manifesto are repeated throughout the texts created by members of

Anonymous (Anonymous - Message to the American People, 2011, Anonymous, 2012b;

Anonymous, n.d.-a; Brown, 2011). After LulzSec, one of the more radical Anonymous splinter

groups, was outed by an FBI informant in March 2012, Anonymous members began planning

campaigns to help the six individuals who were arrested. One such person was Jeremy

Hammond, a Chicago-based activist. Hammond, in particular, has become an important figure

within the Anonymous community because of his treatment by the government. Unlike the

others who were arrested at the same time, Hammond has been held in jail without bail or trial

since March 5th, 2012. This indefinite imprisonment has led to a surge of support among

Anonymous members. On a page promoting a benefit CD for Hammond, there is another

assertion of violence:

Exploiting an organization and exposing its secrets is not a crime when that organization

is corrupt and its secrets protect its crimes. The State calls Jeremy Hammond a criminal

for these, exploiting an organization and exposing its secrets, are the crimes he is accused

of having committed but the organization he exploited is sponsored by a corrupt State and

the secrets he exposed threaten the lies we, the people, have been told by that State; The


very State now prosecuting him. Regardless of their efforts to ignore our grievances, we

will be heard. (Anonymous, n.d.-b)

Again, Anonymous asserts that corrupt institutions have no privilege of privacy; therefore

Hammonds’ acts are warranted. The text refers to Hammonds’ role in receiving and

disseminating data that was leaked from the FBI. However, this leak was planned, orchestrated

by the FBI with the cooperation of the leader of LulzSec. Hammond was caught doing just what

the Manifesto would have him do: take the information of a government he perceives to be

corrupt in order to distribute it to the public. This being the case, it is not difficult to see why

Anonymous would deem such actions violent.

If Anonymous’ use of DDOS and information distribution undermine the laws of the

country, then the arrest of Anonymous activists is merely the enactment of law-preserving laws.

A corrupt democratic government would not be able to continue without risking the loss of its

democratic status. Therefore, according to the logic of Anonymous, it must create and enforce

laws that force its citizens to stay outside, out of the law, and away from the information that

might incriminate it. It is of the government’s best interest to create restrictions on the internet

because it is simply the easiest way for the public to find and share information that might trigger

the public into questioning its government. The status quo is maintained through careful

deprivation, and for this reason, Anonymous is interested in the liberation of the internet.

Whether that liberty comes from the ability to write and not fear censorship or to perform a

DDOS attack without being charged with fraud, it is all deemed progress for hacktivist groups.

One must keep the internet free in order to keep knowledge free, and those who would commit

the violence of suppression are to be suppressed themselves.


Law and Violence

The definitions of violence perpetuated by hacktvist culture are inherently in conflict with

the definition of violence put forth by the law. Whether the hacktivists’ allegations against the

law and government pertain to the occupation of land, the privatization of public colleges, or

criminalization of certain types of information sharing, the government would never

acknowledge them as violent. Similarly, as detailed by Anonymous and the Electronic

Disturbance Theatre, hacktivist culture does not define DDOS attacks as violent, but rather as

rhetorical tactics of civil disobedience. Such a conflict makes it difficult to see a solution for the

two parties. On the one hand, the government is unlikely to change its stance on denial of

service, and as a result, it will continue to arrest and prosecute members of hacktivist groups who

employ DDOS. As long as these perceptions stay in place, there will be legal conflict. Unlike

Kafka’s parable, the fence and what it guards are not just inanimate objects, but rather complex

systems filled with individuals who are concerned with maintaining their status in the order. The

fence cannot just be jumped, but it must be navigated; and gaining access is not just persuading a

series of single gatekeepers, but rather seeking clearance from institutional networks. To be able

to make a change on either side—the law or the activists—there would need to be sweeping

change.

The difference in perspective between the government and the hacktivists leads directly

to conflict. This particular conflict is articulated by Kerr (2003) who describes the issue as a

battle between internal and external perspectives on the internet. The internal perspective is

characterized by the logic that drives the internet. At present, this would be the libertarian ethic

that comes from freedom of speech and a competitive market. The external perspective is one

that attempts to impose the laws of the physical world onto the internet. Both perspectives have


certain complications: the internal perspective assumes that the internet is exceptional, and the

external perspective assumes that the internet is entirely ordinary. The idea of exception is based

in the concept of the internet as an ideal sphere; communication is global and instantaneous, and

the structuring of the internet levels the playing field in all realms. Therefore, it must be

protected at all costs. This perspective neglects the facts that it is only a democratizing agent for

those who either can afford or have access to the necessary technology, and that the structure of

the internet is ideal only if you neglect to note the market functions that dictate who can have

space on the internet and how their content is privileged. On the other side, the external view

assumes that the internet is like anything else: it is a particular situation constituted by facts, and

those facts can lead to a construction of law. The problem here is that the internet allows certain

behaviors that have no parallel in the physical world and thus do not correspond to what would

be traditionally construed as violent or illegal. Even though it is described as a digital sit-in, a

DDOS attack would be better described as protesters knocking on the walls of an institution until

the building temporarily disappeared. There is no clear analog to DDOS in the physical world,

despite all of the metaphors that get used by hacktivists. The lack of precedent also affects the

government. As new technology arises, the law must accommodate new types of offenses, and

one cannot expect a complex governmental body to understand technology like the internet in the

same way as habituated users. The multiple perspectives thus lead to differing allegations of law-

preserving and law-breaking violence, each spurring on the other.

The differences between the internal and external perspectives are not only sources of

conflict, but also indicative of the rupture between online and real-world experience. The

question of how to best apply law to the internet is not easily answered. To this end, Kerr argues:


whether the problem of perspectives will remain as important as it is today depends on

two competing forces. … the advance of technology will make virtual realities more

lifelike and convincing. This should make the internal perspective more appealing… At

the same time, I expect that the external perspective will draw adherents from the

increasing numbers who understand how the Internet works. (2003, p. 25)

The idea that the external perspective is impeded only by a misunderstanding of technology on

the part of lawmakers is echoed in the writings of Lessig on cyberlaw (1999, 2006). Lessig is a

proponent of the libertarian internet, but is concerned by the application of law to such an

unusual space. The uniqueness described by Lessig is summed up in his phrase, “code is law”

(1999). Just as the internet is constituted by code, behaviors and activities are regulated by code.

What one is able to do online is defined strictly through what is coded into the website. For this

reason, law is then embodied in code and vice versa. This gives the power of law to any person

who can create code. Very often, this is done through major commercial entities such as

Microsoft, Apple, or other content providers. These companies effectively restrict and define

behavior in the same way that law condones or constrains behaviors. For this reason, Lessig

advances the idea of external government on the internet. Rule by corporation must be avoided at

all costs, and the way to do that is to extend the freedoms of the Bill of Rights onto the internet.

With that come the protections and processes guaranteed by the Constitution. In this sense,

Lessig is advocating for emancipatory law to be used on the internet, protecting citizens from

undue restrictions or influence rather than solely prosecuting them for perceived acts of law-

breaking violence. In a way, this contradicts the ideas of the Anonymous manifesto while still

upholding the freedoms they seek. While Lessig doubts that natural law can arise from the


internet without commercial influence, he nonetheless wants protection for speech and

information.

Through the frameworks of cyberlaw proposed by Kerr and Lessig, it is possible to see

how the internet has created a multiplicity of perspectives on violence, the role of law, and the

nature of DDOS. Each party’s perspective shapes whether they advocate for self-governance of

the internet or not, and furthermore, it affects their allegations of violence through law-

preserving laws. The hacktivists that employ DDOS tend to frame their own work as non-violent.

It is a rhetorical act akin to traditional types of protest—yelling, ripping down posters, and

performing a sit-in. The denial of service is harmless because they look at it from an internal

perspective. From the viewpoint of the user, they are merely making a website inaccessible, an

act that is more visual than anything. The act is constructed as a new step in the long procession

of social movement tactics, used to assert rights and fight the acts of violence they perceive from

the government and the law. On the side of the law, the hacktivists are certainly committing law-

breaking, violent acts by costing businesses and government entities money, usually for

maintaining their servers after denial of service attacks. In the case of the Anonymous hack of

Sony, the damage was estimated to be from $1-2 billion due to the millions of accounts

comprised and the length of time the Playstation Network was offline (Dwayne Holder, 2011).

The external perspective of government focuses entirely on the material consequences of the

outside world, while attempting to make laws that bridge the gap to the internal space of the

internet. Another rupture in perspective occurs simply because of the differing natures of the two

sides: one is a voluntary network of politically-minded, internet-savvy individuals, and the other

is an immense hierarchical construction concerned with the regulation and protection of an


immense populace. Both parties represent only a partial view of the issue, and from this, there

arises conflict.

It is impossible to declare either side of the issue of DDOS litigation as correct when one

acknowledges the different foundations on which each party is formed. The government is

concerned with maintaining a public free from crime, and the hacktivists appear to be a threat.

Hacktivist culture, conversely, sees the law as opposition to their natural law. Concerned with

upholding a libertarian view of the internet in which all are free to speak and participate in the

economy of information, the hacktivists must fight with what they have available to them. To

uphold their values, they turn to DDOS—a tactic that intuitively feels non-violent. The technique

takes down a webpage by making the server busy; it is an exploit of the material reality of the

system. It is a flood of information: bits, requests, packets, sets of numbers. For this reason, they

define it as rhetorical, and furthermore, as an act of protest. This description is necessary, and it

provides the motivation necessary to continue a social movement by both defining the problem

and prescribing a course of action. DDOS does not change the way that the law works, but

rather, it changes the landscape of the virtual space. It temporarily establishes a virtual, symbolic

world in which the targeted institution does not exist, be that the Bank of America, PayPal, or the

Church of Scientology. These hacktivists are aware that they cannot affect the law in any direct

way. They neither have the power nor the status within society to do so. What they do have is a

replicated universe in which everyone has the same power and status, a micro-cosmos of global

citizens navigating commercial and governmental entities in pursuit of their own ends. In this

digital realm, there is a gate, but the gatekeeper is structured by code. And that code is easily

overwhelmed. All you need to do is ask it too many questions, and suddenly you’re through the

gate.


References

Anonymous. (2008, January 15). #51051816. 4chan.org/b/. Retrieved from

http://web.archive.org/web/20110724205615/http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread

.php5?thread_id=51051816

Anonymous. (2011, January 1). AnonNews.org : Everything Anonymous. AnonNews.org:

Everything Anonymous. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from

http://anonnews.org/press/item/199/

Anonymous. (2012a, January 22). How to Join Anonymous - A Beginner’s Guide. Social

Network Unionism. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/how-to-join-anonymous-a-beginners-guide/

Anonymous. (n.d.-a). Digital Sit-ins: DDOS is legitimate civil disobedience. Anonymous: We

Are Legion. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from

http://anonyops.org/post/16585162289/digital-sit-ins-ddos-is-legitimate-civil-

disobedience

Anonymous. (n.d.-b). Hear Us Now! AnonNews.org: Everything Anonymous. Retrieved

November 5, 2012, from http://anonnews.org/press/item/1837/

Anonymous - Message to the American People. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Anonymous: Operation Israel. (2012b). Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkC357RQt0c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ayers, M. D. (2003). Comparing collective identity in online and offline feminist activities. In

M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and

practice (pp. 145–164). New York: Routledge.


Benjamin, W., & Demetz, P. (1986). Reflections: essays, aphorisms, autobiographical writing.

Schocken Books.

Brown, B. (2011, May 3). Yes, you should join Anonymous. Daily Kos. Retrieved December 5,

2012, from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/03/972830/-Yes-you-should-join-

Anonymous

Cathcart, R. S. (1978). Movements: Confrontation as rhetorical form. Southern Speech

Communication Journal, 43(3), 233–247. doi:10.1080/10417947809372383

Cathcart, R. S. (1980). Defining social movements by their rhetorical form. Central States

Speech Journal, 31(4), 267–273. doi:10.1080/10510978009368066

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - Internet Law Treatise. (n.d.). Electronic Frontier

Foundation. Retrieved November 3, 2012, from

http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act_(CFAA)

Dana Kennedy. (2010, December 9). WikiLeaks: Who Is “Anonymous” and What Is “Operation

Payback”? AOL News. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-who-is-anonymous-and-what-is-

operation-payback/

Denton, N. (11). Church of Scientology claims copyright infringement. Gawker.

Doctorow, C. (2011, June 29). Moral Suasion. MAKE. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://blog.makezine.com/2011/06/29/moral-suasion/

Dominguez, R. (2012, February 29). Call to Virtual Action – March 1st, 2012 – by Public

Education Coalition (UCSD). b.a.n.g. lab. Retrieved November 4, 2012, from

http://bang.calit2.net/2012/02/call-to-virtual-action-march-1st-2012-by-public-education-

coalition-ucsd/


Dorian Batycka. (2012, June 23). Electronic Disturbance Theatre and Transversals of Rhizomatic

Resistance. b.a.n.g. lab. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://bang.calit2.net/2012/06/network-architecture-and-electronic-civil-disobedience/

Dwayne Holder. (2011, May 10). PSN Intrusion Could Cost Sony Billions. Game Rant.

Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://gamerant.com/sony-psn-intrusion-cost-billions-

hold-83850/

Electronic Disturbance Theatre disinformation. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR1U7uI487E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Elin, L. (2003). The radicalization of Zeke Spier: How the internet contributes to civic

engagement and new forms of social capital. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.),

Cyberactivism: Online activism in theoryand practice (pp. 97–114). New York:

Routledge.

Garrido, M., & Halavais, A. (2003). Mapping networks of support for the Zapatista movement:

Applying social-networks analysis to study contemporary social movements. In M.

McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and

practice (pp. 165–184). New York: Routledge.

Gladwell, M. (2010, October 4). Small Change. The New Yorker. Retrieved from

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell

Gray, R. T. (2005). A Franz Kafka Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Griffin, L. M. (1980). On studying movements. Central States Speech Journal, 31(4), 225–232.

doi:10.1080/10510978009368062

Gunkel, D. J. (2005, October). Editorial: introduction to hacking and hacktivism. New Media &

Society, pp. 595–597.


Hachman, M. (2010, October 29). “Anonymous” DDoS Attack Takes Down RIAA Site.

PCMAG. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371784,00.asp

Hick, S. F., & McNutt, J. G. (2002). Advocacy, activism, and the internet: Community

organization and social policy. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books, Inc.

How a “denial of service” attack works - CNET News. (2000, February 9). CNET. Retrieved

December 5, 2012, from http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-236728.html

Jordan, T. (2002). Activism!: Direct Action, Hacktivism and the Future of Society. Reaktion

Books.

Kerr, O. S. (2003). The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law. Georgetown Law Review, 91,

357–405. doi:10.2139/ssrn.310020

Krempl, S. (2000, February 16). Computerized resistance after the big flood | Telepolis. heise

onlnie. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5801/1.html

Lawson, S. (2011, July 1). Denial of Service: Sit-in? No. Protest? Yes. - Forbes. Forbes.

Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/seanlawson/2011/07/01/denial-of-service-sit-in-no-protest-

yes/

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. Basic Books.

Lucas, S. E. (1980). Coming to terms with movement studies. Central States Speech Journal, 31,

255–266.

Marcus Baram. (2008, March 27). Anonymous Group Takes on Scientology. Retrieved

December 5, 2012, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4513883&page=1


McMillan, R., & Ackerman, S. (2012, November 28). Despite Ceasefire, Israel-Gaza War

Continues Online. Danger Room. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/israel-gaza-ddos/

Morozov, E. (2009, May 19). The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy Blogs.

Retrieved from

http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_world_of_slacktivis

m

Neal, D. (2011, May 5). Sony says Anonymous DDoS attacks distracted it. Retrieved December

5, 2012, from http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2068111/sony-anonymous-ddos-

attacks-distracted

Stewart, C. J. (1980). A functional approach to the rhetoric of social movements. Central States

Speech Journal, 31(4), 298–305. doi:10.1080/10510978009368070

Stewart, C. J., Smith, C. A., & Denton, R. E. (2007). Persuasion and social movements.

Waveland Press.

Strickland, J. (n.d.). HowStuffWorks “Distributed Denial of Service Attacks.” HowStuffWorks.

Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/zombie-

computer.htm

Taylor, P. A. (2005). From hackers to hacktivists: speed bumps on the global superhighway?

New Media & Society, 7(5), 625–646. doi:10.1177/1461444805056009

Taylor, P. A. (2007). Hacktivism – Resistance is Fertile? In C. Sumner (Ed.), The Blackwell

Companion to Criminology (pp. 486–500). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470998960.ch26/summary


Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying forms of online activism: The case of cyberprotests against the

world bank. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in

theory and practice (pp. 71–96). New York: Routledge.

Vegh, S. (2005). The media’s portrayal of hacking, hackers, and hacktivism before and after

September 11. First Monday, 1–1.

hacktivist culture and violence

Documents