Hacktivism does more good than harm

Contention 1: Hacktivism is Civil Disobedience First of all, we must establish a common ground for our understanding of the term "civil disobedience", otherwise we might just be throwing terms around. I would suggest a definition that states that civil disobedience is the refusal to obey a law that violates an individual right. If we follow that logic any act of violence, force, and/or coercion would not be considered civil disobedience, but an aggression itself. Civil disobedience is a state of resistance, not of perpetration. A person that acts as the initiator of force is not acting in civil disobedience, but to the contrary. Traditional protests, marches, and rallies are a way to exercise our individual right to express ourselves freely. But if violence, force, and coercion are adopted against another individual right at such protests, then they ought to be considered not only illegal but immoral, and definitely not an act of civil disobedience. In those cases State force must be applied in order to protect the rights of those victimized by the protesters. But, if the State is the initiator of force and use violence and intimidation against a peacefully protest, then we can consider the protest an act of civil disobedience. We must be very careful in determine who is the initiator of force, without that in mind we cannot establish if an unlawful act is an act of civil disobedience or an act of aggression. Hacktivism by its nature, and by the definition given by the instigator as "an act by a computer hacker whose activity is aimed at promoting a social or political cause", is the perpetrator and the initiator of force. He acts as a hacker against the property and liberty of another individual, which means that he invades private property and limits another individual liberty in order to promote his views; his intentions does not change the fact that he initiated force and abuse. Thus, hacktivism cannot be considered civil disobedience, but an act of aggression. If Rosa Parks had destroyed the bus to make her point, her act would not be considered of civil disobedience, but of vandalism, even though she was fighting for a good cause. She did not initiate the use of force, thus she acted in civil disobedience. Her actions did not affect anybody else rights, even though it was an unlawful act. An act of civil disobedience must not create any victims in the process. The same rule applies for Dr. Martin Luther King, but not for the Boston Tea Party. Some founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, thought the act was of a lawless mob and suggested that the destroyed tea must be repaid. The fact that actions such as the Boston Tea Party, along with hacktivism, can be done for good causes it is irrelevant to be considered civil disobedience. Contention 2: Hacktivism Promotes Free Speech & Democracy How "freedom" of speech is promoted by appealing to "force"? Are not those two words contradictory? Freedom means to be left alone, to have no interference. When a hacktivist defaces a website, for instance, he immediately invades the right of freedom of speech of another individual, or group of individuals. The promotion of freedom requires that everybody respects the freedom of each other, it requires tolerance. I cannot assert my freedom taking away yours. Hacktivism does not promote free speech, to the contrary, it promotes an invasion of freedom and of mob rule. It might also promote something else along the way, such as the good causes you mentioned, but what if I use my hacker skills to promote tyranny? Am I exercising free speech? Apparently, yes. But in reality someone else paid the cost of my speech, so it was not free. If in order to exercise an individual right I deprive someone else of theirs, then I have no right to do so. Contention 3: Hacktivism Promotes Anti-War, Anti-Crime, & Anti-Terror Causes If you believe in moral consequentialism, that in a nutshell means to advocate that the "ends justify the means", then it is something for another debate, because that theory can be applied in many situations in life. But even if we consider your argument, nothing in fact suggests that hacktivism promotes anti-war; the intention of the hacktivists to promote such cause does not mean that they achieve it. We must never forget that hacktivism is a tactic, it is not a philosophy. The same way it can be used for the cause of anti-war, it can be used to propagate racism, intolerance, hatred, and even wars. To say that hacktivism promotes those things it is the same as to say that ideology promotes peace, without mentioning which ideology. Again, hacktivism is a tactic not a philosophy. Final thoughts: Summarizing all the three points made by the instigator I would not accept that hacktivism does more good than harm. I cannot accept that the initiation of an act of force against another individual or group of individuals it is justified by the intentions behind it. Especially if we are trying to measure the amount of good it can produce in society. That would lead to a lack of respect and tolerance in order to promote a personal sentiment. The same way it would be wrong to steal someone on the street to donate the money to charity, even if that someone is much richer, it is wrong to invade someone's property and deprive him of liberty in order to promote a cause.