Editing Hacktivism (section)

==Controversy==
Depending on who is using the term, hacktivism can be a politically motivated technology [[hack (computer security)|hack]], a constructive form of [[anarchism|anarchic]] [[civil disobedience]], or an undefined anti-systemic gesture.<ref>{{Cite journal|year=2010|title=Hactivism's New Face: Are Your Company's Enemies Embracing New Tactics?|url=http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bcab9318-79b2-42be-afc2-6e00f7cb80a9%40sessionmgr102&vid=1&hid=127|journal=Security Directors Report|volume=10|pages=2–4|via=EBSCO Host}}</ref> It can signal [[anti-capitalism|anticapitalist]] or political protest; it can denote anti-[[spam (electronic)|spam]] activists, security experts, or [[Open-source model|open source]] advocates.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ragan|first=Steve|year=2014|title=Hactivism Struggles With a Slippery Slope as Anonymous Targets Children's Hospital|journal=CSO Magazine|volume=13|via=EBSCO Host}}</ref>

Some people{{who|date=September 2014}} describing themselves as hacktivists have taken to [[defacement (vandalism)|defacing]] websites for political reasons, such as attacking and defacing websites of governments and those who oppose their [[ideology]].<ref name=Solomon2017>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.clsr.2017.03.024 |title=Electronic protests: Hacktivism as a form of protest in Uganda |journal=Computer Law & Security Review |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=718–28 |year=2017 |last1=Solomon |first1=Rukundo }}</ref> Others, such as [[Oxblood Ruffin]] (the "[[Foreign minister|foreign affairs minister]]" of Cult of the Dead Cow and Hacktivismo), have argued forcefully against definitions of hacktivism that include web defacements or [[denial-of-service attack]]s.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-0384.php | first = Oxblood | last = Ruffin | title = Hacktivism, From Here to There | date = 3 June 2004 | access-date = 2008-04-19 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080423030217/http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-0384.php | archive-date = 23 April 2008 }}</ref>

Hacktivism is often seen as shadowy due to its anonymity, commonly attributed to the work of fringe groups and outlying members of society.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Sorell|first=Tom|date=2015-09-22|title=Human Rights and Hacktivism: The Cases of Wikileaks and Anonymous|url=https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/article/7/3/391/2412155|journal=Journal of Human Rights Practice|language=en|volume=7|issue=3|pages=391–410|doi=10.1093/jhuman/huv012|issn=1757-9619|doi-access=free}}</ref> The lack of responsible parties to be held accountable for the social-media attacks performed by hactivists has created implications in corporate and federal security measures both on and offline.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/01/10/hacktivists-increasingly-target-local-and-state-government-computers|title='Hacktivists' Increasingly Target Local and State Government Computers|website=www.pewtrusts.org|date=10 January 2017 |access-date=2018-05-01}}</ref>

While some self-described hacktivists{{who|date=September 2014}} have engaged in DoS attacks, critics suggest{{who|date=September 2014}} that DoS attacks are an attack on free speech and that they have [[unintended consequences]]. DoS attacks waste resources and they can lead to a "DoS war" that nobody will win{{citation needed|date=September 2014}}. In 2006, [[Blue Security]] attempted to automate a DoS attack against spammers; this led to a massive DoS  attack against Blue Security which knocked them, their old ISP and their DNS provider off the Internet, destroying their business.<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11392 | title = Blue Security folds under spammer's wrath | first = Robert | last = Lemos | journal = SecurityFocus | date = 17 May 2006 | access-date = 2008-04-19 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080511195952/http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11392 | archive-date = 11 May 2008 }}</ref>

Following [[Denial-of-service attack|denial-of-service]] attacks by [[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]] on multiple sites, in reprisal for the apparent suppression of [[WikiLeaks]], [[John Perry Barlow]], a founding member of the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]], said "I support freedom of expression, no matter whose, so I oppose DDoS attacks regardless of their target... they're the poison gas of cyberspace...".<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-cyberwarfare-amateur-idUSTRE6B81K520101209 | title = Analysis: WikiLeaks&nbsp;— a new face of cyber-war? | access-date = 2010-12-09 | work = Reuters | date = 2010-12-09 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120726044154/http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/09/us-wikileaks-cyberwarfare-amateur-idUSTRE6B81K520101209 | archive-date = 2012-07-26 }}</ref>  On the other hand, [[Jay Leiderman]], an attorney for many hacktivists, argues that DDoS can be a legitimate form of protest speech in situations that are reasonably limited in time, place and manner.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/paypal-wikileaks-protesters-ddos-free-speech | work = The Guardian | title = Why DDoS is Free Speech | date = 22 January 2013 | location = London | first = Jay | last = Leiderman | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20161115080459/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/paypal-wikileaks-protesters-ddos-free-speech | archive-date = 15 November 2016 }}</ref>