CLASH OF THEORIES: HACKTIVISM VS SURVEILLANCE

One of the most important ideas in the field of international relations has always been security. People and communities have sought security throughout history, whether by going on food hunts or fighting wars to gain their own independence. After the two World Wars upended the world and altered its course, the importance of security was greatly increased. Globally, governments utilize extensive monitoring initiatives to gather information about their populace under the pretext of ensuring safety and security. This can include using facial recognition software or keeping an eye on online activities. These programs, however, give rise to worries about potential abuse and invasions of privacy.

As a kind of online protest, hacktivism emerged. Hacktivists are anonymous groups who use cyberattacks to disrupt government operations, reveal official secrets, or bring attention to particular concerns. One such instance is the disclosure of secret documents about spying initiatives. Although hacktivism can expose government abuses, it can also cause instability in international relations and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the strategies used. Hacktivism is a type of activism in which political or social causes are advanced through the use of hacking tools. Data breaches, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, website vandalism, and other cyber disruptions are examples of what it can include.

The CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, is a federal body in the US responsible for coordinating government intelligence activities. Established in 1947 and originally intended to operate only overseas, it has since also operated in the US. It is responsible for providing intelligence to policymakers in order to help protect the national security interests of the United States. It has been accused several times for their intense surveillance systems, misusing data, and has been subject to many leaks and hacks.

THE CASE OF EDWARD SNOWDEN: 

Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA, comes from a line of whistleblowers like John Kiriakou and Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on two of the biggest scandals of the Bush administration — the use of torture, and secret domestic surveillance. He was responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history. Snowden leaked classified documents from the NSA because he believed the government's surveillance programs were too invasive and violated the privacy of innocent people. He worried the programs collected data on a massive scale, not just on suspected criminals or terrorists, but on ordinary citizens. Snowden felt the public had a right to know about these programs and hoped sparking a public debate would lead to reforms. “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,” he said. 

THE CIA VS TEENAGERS:  

A teenager named Cracka, leader of a group called Crackas with Attitude, orchestrated cyber attacks on US security agencies, targeting John Brennan, the director of CIA back then, while another teenager, Default, got involved with hacking groups like Anon SE, controlling a botnet and accessing a university's finances. The hackers' primary reasons for acting were their sense of justice, political involvement, and the desire to draw attention to causes close to their hearts. Anger over foreign policy, particularly US engagement in the Middle East, surveillance, and corruption drove the hackers to do what they did. They sought to confront and disgrace prominent figures in the intelligence agency, make private material public, and ignite discussions about personal privacy vs national security. Their intentions were to spread chaos, increase public awareness, and make influential institutions answerable for their deeds. Their activities can be interpreted as supporting liberal ideals like accountability, transparency, and the advancement of individual rights.

The hackers were fighting for more civil liberties and government accountability by exposing corruption and opposing government monitoring. Liberalism places a high value on the rule of law and individual freedom, which the hackers aimed to defend with their actions.

The hackers' acts might be seen as attempts to create and mold societal norms and identities from a constructivist standpoint. The hackers aimed to alter public perceptions of privacy, monitoring, and government openness by disclosing private information and upending established hierarchies. Constructivism places a strong emphasis on the ideas, identities, and beliefs that influence international relations. The hackers' acts can be interpreted as an effort to subvert and disrupt accepted norms and practices.

Realists prioritize power and national security, and they view surveillance as a crucial tool. States can use it to gather intelligence on possible outside threats and to keep an eye on internal populations to maintain order. This viewpoint holds that surveillance aids a state in preserving its advantage in a global competitive system. Liberals, on the other hand, favor taking a more objective position. They emphasize the importance of confidentiality rights while acknowledging security concerns. They can call for clear legal frameworks to prevent abuse and suitable oversight of targeted surveillance to preserve the delicate balance between personal freedoms and security needs. A contrasting approach is taken by constructivists, who place more emphasis on the value of concepts and narratives. They look into how perceptions of acceptable security and intrusion are influenced by prevailing societal norms. The way security issues are presented and understood has the power to either legitimize or cast doubt on surveillance methods and technologies.

There are aspects of realism that can be attributed to the hackers' conduct, even though their goals might not exactly match realist ideals. Since realism places a strong emphasis on the value of security and power in international affairs, it is possible to interpret the hackers' acts as attempts to subvert and contest established power structures. The hackers were playing power games and attempting to undermine the authority of those in command by disclosing sensitive information and targeting high-ranking members of the intelligence community. Furthermore, since the hackers aimed to oppose government monitoring and uphold individual liberties, it is possible to interpret their acts as representing a realism concerned with state sovereignty and the balance of power.

REFERENCES:

1. Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero? Ethics Unwrapped. (n.d.) McCombs School of Business. Texas

2. Fern (2024). The Kids Who Hacked The CIA. YouTube

3. Hampson, Noah C.N. (2012). Hacktivism: A New Breed of Protest in a Networked World.  Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 35(2). 

4. MacAskill Ewen (2013). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian.

5. Radack, Jesselyn (2013). Whistle-Blowers Deserve Protection Not Prison. The New York Times

6. Savu, Lavinia (2021). Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism in the Pursuit of Security. Strategies. XXI - Security and Defense Faculty. 17. 20-31. 2668-2001-21-02. 

7. Zetter, Kim (2015). Teen Who Hacked CIA Director’s Email Tells How He Did It. WIRED