Essay Example on Technological Advancement: Rise of Hacktivism and Cybercrime

Introduction

The technological advancement has changed a lot of things in recent times. Most of the things we engage in are controlled by technology and most importantly the cyberspace. Among the activities done on cyberspace is hacking, which has increased in the recent past and has been tied to political activities. This has led to increased criminal cases with intentions of attacks that are tied to a given agenda. Hacktivism, in particular, has increased recently with persons who have the intention of planning to impact political change and destroy the competitors. At some point, hacktivists have depended on stealing information to expose delicate files of the target group. Various questions have been raised concerning hacking and hacktivism and whether the protests are acceptable.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

What form of protests and acts of civil disobedience in cyberspace is morally legitimate and acceptable? Is hacktivism in cyberspace morally acceptable active resistance movement? The two questions are the ones that people really want to know concerning hacking and hacktivism. The civil protests such as those conducted by Martin Luther King Jnr are attributed to the social change that has been experienced in modern societies. Some forms of protests and acts of civil disobedience in cyberspace are considered morally legitimate and acceptable. Civil disobedience should be having an honorable viewpoint and communicate censure and the longing for transformation. Additional characteristics of civil disobedience include publicity, non-violence, consciousness, and communication.

In most cases, civil disobedience is considered morally defensive than the other ordinary offenses. When trying to justify civil disobedience, it is important to evaluate the individual's motivation for involving in the action done. Civil disobedience can at times be justified when taken as the final alternative and again is coordinated by other minorities according to Rawls. Rawls argues that disobedience can only be justified when it has the possibility of bringing positive change. Further, for civil disobedience to be justified, it must be motivated by the right reasons to meet particular objections.

Whether hacktivism is acceptable or not depends majorly on the intentions of the hacker. Hacktivism being part of political activism heavily targets strong institutions and administrations and it does not embrace democracy most of the time even if it is done in a more democratic environment. Hacktivists might expose great ideas that are important to people or it might give out information that is of less relevance to people. Though hacktivists have the possibility of lacking extensive support, they at times have the ability to command great powers. Hacktivism being part of cyber-activism may be legitimate or illegitimate. This means that some hacktivism may be acceptable while others may be considered unacceptable. The acceptable form of hacktivism is the one that involves mobilization of publicity and condemnation of poor governance and injustice. Such activism involves fighting for the rights of the people and seeking a social change. Hacktivism can again utilize its capabilities to challenge the administration of certain churches, organizations and religious groups that are using their powers in inappropriate ways to harass the ordinary people. Such hacktivism is very acceptable in society since it advocates for a better change. Hacking is intrinsically immoral since it involves accessing other persons' privacy without their prior knowledge. Hacking and hacktivism activities like those of WikiLeaks can be considered legitimate when they meet the features of civil disobedience which are focused on driving a goal for social change that is positive. Hacktivism can be made moral by embracing the characteristics of justifiable civil disobedience.

Hacktivism can be used to put up protests to support freedom and free expression since they are very powerful. Once the hacktivists meet the features of publicity, consciousness, communication, and non-violence, they will be considered a reliable way of fighting for the people and expressing discontent. The hacktivists can be used to fight for democracy and justice to the people in an oppressive government. For example, the WikiLeaks has at times had its activities written in the human right's language. Since hacktivists are sheltered by their concealment, they are rarely repressed in the expression of their philosophies and can be very important in criticizing the oppressive administrations and escape punishment. In this regard, it is viewed as a safe way of expressing information and criticism than the traditional methods where one could go public and say their ideas only to be slain later in cold blood by the dictatorial governance.

Someone may strongly say that hacking and hacktivism is legitimate, but I point it as illegitimate. Its power is considered less legitimate than the traditional democratic form. Although many hacktivists may seem to be campaigning for human rights, some use this path to demean the very rights. Hacktivists are distributed all over even in the most democratic states. They exist in infinite numbers across the world, and while some are fighting for better rule and justice, others are intriguing for poor and dictatorial governance.

Information Privacy rights and Ownership

Information systems have got great influence especially in the world of business. The advances in technology have brought sophisticated means of storing and manipulating information. Currently, organizations consider personal identifiable information as property right since they claim to have invested in them both financially and physically. The corporations claim that they collected the data using their resources and therefore it should be considered their property. The question that many people would like answered is whether this claim should be treated morally right.

The claim to own personal identifiable data as a property is morally wrong since it demeans the person who gave out the data and treats them as objects as Cohen argues. Personal data identifies an individual and defines their human integrity. Thus considering this as personal property by a company is inappropriate since it treats the owners of the information as objects. Personal information describes who certain people are and therefore should never be treated as personal information. Things that should be objectified are such as cars, pieces of lands and houses and not peoples' descriptions. Information involving people should not be measured the same way the information that refers to objects should be regarded. Many privacy protection advocates claim that personal information should never at any point be objectified unless there is an agreement between the person giving the data and the organization following informed consent.

John Locke, thru his philosophy of reserved property, contends that each individual has a property in their own individual and therefore each person has unchallengeable central humanoid privileges. From this view, it is evident that a right to personal property can result in a right to privacy. However, whereas the right to privacy possesses a strong link to private property, it is in itself a property. This means that selling a person's privacy makes privacy itself a property.

Utilitarianism involves placing the loci of right and wrong on the consequences of selecting one activity over the other. From this regard, utilitarianism goes beyond the space of a person's concern and places it in the interest of others. An action is considered right only if it intends to cause joyfulness to people and inappropriate when it intends to cause sorrow. This should not only affect the one doing the action but also the people around that person and is affected by that action. Utilitarianism dictates that a person should engage in an activity while viewing how that very action is going to impact on others that are affected by the action. If the action affects the people concerned positively, then it is considered right. Considering these diktats by the Utilitarianism, actions can be considered as right or wrong following their outcomes in the course of performing the action or after performing the action. According to this theory, actions can be classified as morally right or wrong basing on how they impact other people. Trading a person's privacy can be considered either wrong or right depending on how that person will react. If at any point disclosing an individual's personal information will have a positive consequence to him/her and benefit both parties then it will be viewed as right. However, if on disclosing a person's data impacts negatively on him/her then that is considered wrong. Hence before trading a person's privacy rights, it is important to evaluate the aftermath.

The Kantian deontological theory asserts that everyone is ethically indebted to act in agreement with particular doctrines and rules that have been set notwithstanding the consequences. In the line of religious doctrines, Christians are indulged in following the commandments that were set many years ago. The deontological theories need that the action being done should follow the rules regardless of its consequences, whether good or bad. In this case, an action can be considered morally wrong, yet it yields positive outcomes. This theory opposes other theories like the Utilitarianism which justifies any action that leads to positive outcomes. According to Kant, personal data privacy should follow certain rules that have been set concerning them and that anyone who goes against the rules is wrong whether the result is good or bad.

In my opinion, I consider Kant's deontological ethics the most appropriate when handling personal privacy. When a company or someone else wants to disclose another person's information, he/she should follow the set laws. Whether the disclosure brings good or bad outcomes is not considered important since in most cases the person giving the information is unaware of the consequences. It is considered a breach of law to give out a person's data without their consent. Someone may bring an objection considering my choice, but I strongly support it since it will lead to increased precaution when handling people's personal data.

American versus European Privacy Protection Policies

Each country has its own privacy protection policies which dictate how personal identifiable information should be handled. In most cases, this is regardless of how the data was collected, whether online or offline. Personal identifiable information includes name, email, phone numbers, home addresses and any other information that defines an individual. America and Europe for example, have different policies when it comes to privacy protection policies.

On 25th May 2018 the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was affected and came with a large range of outcomes that will affect all trades that trade with EU from anywhere across the world. Among those countries that are not in the EU, the United States has been struggling to conform to the newly enacted laws. The GDPR has established a competition for obedience among industries immense and trifling tired of its retributive controls. Trades that will be mortified of the chief principles or fall victim of main files openings because of underprivileged documents safety policies will be given substantial penalties. The objective of the GDPR is to synchronize information privacy regulations throughout Europe. In this way, they will protect sensitive data of European citizens as well as empower them to improve their data control. This regulation presents the requirement for confidentiality through nonpayment and by scheme among other needs, has...