First of all we want to know the meaning of an hacktivist. Hacktivist is a clandestine use of computer hacking to help advance political causes. Before many people knows that when we say about hacking it is an illegal act but now it has change the minds of many people. There are good and bad types of hacking. Civil disobedience entails the peaceful breaking of unjust laws; it is a technique of resistance and protest whose purpose is to achieve social or political change by drawing attention to problems and influencing public opinion.
Symbolic acts of civil disobedience are accomplished by drawing attention to a problem indirectly. The use of the computer as a tool of civil disobedience has been termed Electronic Civil Disobedience. Electronic civil disobedience comes in many forms ranging from conservative acts such as sending email and publishing websites to breaking into computer systems. The following are ethical justification for acts considered civilly disobedient:
No damage done to person’s property, Non-violent, Not for personal profit, Ethical motivation, and willingness to accept personal responsibility for outcome of actions. Hacktivism can be defined as an act of electronic civil disobedience. Penalties for hacktivism are meted out with the same degree of force as for hacking in general, regardless of the motivation for the hack or the political content of messages left at hacked sites. Three principles of hackers access to computer, all information should be free, mistrust authority. Hacktivist prioritize freedom of information and are suspicious of centralized control over or private ownership of information.
Terrorism or civil disobedience: toward a hacktivist ethic
Computer crime is necessary or even useful, it is important to consider briefly some background issues and discussions involving crime and computer technology that can inform the current debate. Category of computer crime can be advanced from at least three different perspectives: legal, moral, and informational or descriptive. Computer crime might be viewed as a useful category for prosecuting certain kinds of crimes. One view of having a descriptive category of computer crime is worthwhile. James Moor’s respect to certain conceptual confusions that have arisen because of the development and use of computer technology. Moor’s model regarding the process of identifying a conceptual vacuum that arise because of the use of computer technology in general to identify some of the specific confusions that emerge because of criminal activities made possible by computer technology. Three types of computer crime: Software piracy – using computer technology to produce one or more unauthorized copies of proprietary computer software or distribute unauthorized software or make copies of that software available for distribution over a computer network. Electronic break-ins – using computer technology to gain unauthorized access either to an individual or an organization’s computer system or to a password protected website. Computer sabotage – disrupt the flow of electronic information access one or more computer networks including the internet or destroy data resident in a computer or damage a computer systems resources or both. Computer technology especially the internet has provided a new forum for certain illegal activities like pornographies and many more. With these many people doesn’t care even if they know that it is a crime because they are enjoying the things they are doing in the internet. As many people says bad things are more easy to learn than good things.
Panoptic technologies ranging from active badges intelligent vehicle highway systems (IVHS), Closed circuit televisions (CCTV), and data-base mining techniques encourage government agencies, public administrators, and business firms to pursue the communication dream of perfect free riderlessness. Public goods problem is that it contributes to the initial plausibility of their aspirations. The problems can be characterized as free rider problems law enforcement, tax collection, implementation of environmental policy. A free rider problem means it is a situation where a number of persons contribute to the production and maintenance of a public good where each person has individually has an incentive to profit from the public good without making the necessary contribution to its production or maintenance. Information based harm personal information is used to inflict harm or a cause serious disadvantage to individuals does not necessarily make such uses violations of a moral right to privacy. Informational inequality this moral reason is concerned with equality and fairness. One reason for this development is that people welcome the benefits that information technology can give them in exchange for the use of their personal data. Information injustice this is concerned with justice. Michael Walzer has pointed out that “there is no set of basic goods across all moral and material worlds, or they would have to be so abstract that they would be of little use in thinking about particular distributions”. Sphere of success captures an important aspect of what people find threatening and problematic about information technology. Encroachment on moral autonomies example is the capacity to shape our own moral biographies to reflect on our moral careers to evaluate and identify with our own moral choices without the critical gaze.
Privacy according to Posner creates opportunities for hiding information that could render many social interactions “fraudulent”. Surveillance in general is the fundamental flaw of the modernity’s belief in surveillance as a neutral gaze, as a sound basis for certainty. Surveillance can only fulfill its role as guarantor of certainty if it is complete and comprehensive –in short, omnipresent- and if it can be done from a vantage point where all things are of equal or no value – which is impossible. Privacy secures autonomy, creates social capital for intimacy, and forms the basis of structuring many diverse social relations.
Surveillance subjecting all individuals in the institution to reasonable scrutiny and judgment. Distribute the rights to privacy of the individual and right of transparency of the collective in a way that would be seen to be fair to all concerned. There are two perspective first is individual perspective there are no such things as neutral or objective judgements. Every judgement implies interest. In the context of typical organizational settings, the employee is normally in a disadvantaged position – in a relation of severe power asymmetry. Thus it is not possible for the individual as an individual, to bargain for and ensure the fair use of data once it is captured. If data about themselves and their activities are captured it is in their interest to have maximum control over it.
The perspective of an collective without capturing of complete and comprehensive information about the relevant activities of the individual, resources cannot be efficiently and effectively allocated and control over the use of these resources cannot be maintained. Self interested individuals would not always tend to use resources allocated by the collective. In fact they may use it completely for their own purposes. The collective needs to use data collected to coordinate and control the activities of the individuals for the good of the collective.
Concomitant parts of the knowledge discovery process may classify data into preexisting categories, cluster data by mapping them into categories created during data analysis and determined by the data, provide a summary of the data, which is useful in a sense that the raw data are not, describe dependencies between variables, find links between data fields, use regression to predict future values of data and model sequential patterns in the data that may indicate revealing trends? Data mining is easily accomplished when the data are highly structured and available in many different forms at many different levels in what are known as data warehouses. The data warehouse contains integrated data- allowing data to be compared and contrasted, both detailed and summarized data- certain patterns can be detected only by examining data, historical data- which if mined can yield cyclic and seasonal activity as well as long terms trends and metadata- which provides the context of the data. Traditional computer –science terms, data is uninterpreted while knowledge has a semantics that gives it meaning. The process in Privacy is invaded when means are used that bypass the subject’s consent as manifested by the subject’s observable behavior, reasonably interpreted. Computers could be used to infer individuals life-styles, habits, whereabouts, and associations from data collected in ordinary consumer transactions can have a “chilling effect”, causing people to alter their observable activities while answering the need for organizations to devise more pervasive, efficient, and interlinked computerized record-keeping systems, so that everything from consumer credit to social services is not abused.
Personal data is often considered to be the exclusive kind of data kind of data eligible for protection by privacy law and privacy norms. Personal data is commonly defined as data and information relating to an identified or identifiable person. First is personal data should only be collected for specified, explicit, legitimate purposes and should not be further processed in a way incompatible with these purposes. Secondly some principles apply for a legitimizing personal data processing. Thirdly, the data subject has some specific rights with regard to “his or her” personal data. Social consequences, this consequence of KDD using or producing personal data in the broad sense may at first sight seem rather innocent. It loses, however, much of its appearance where the information contained in the profile of is of a sensitive nature. Categorical privacy is strongly connected with individual privacy. The value that oppose infringements of individual privacy equally oppose infringements of categorical privacy. Categorical privacy has its point in respecting and protecting the individual rather than in respecting and protecting the group to which the individual belongs. The conception of categorical privacy is just like many current conceptions of individual privacy – builds on a conventionally predefined conception of the personal sphere. To protect individuals against possible negative consequences of the use of group profiles is by careful assessment of the ways in which the profiles are in fact used and can be used. The notion of privacy is still overwhelmingly dominant in the legal and moral conceptual frameworks of those working in the fields of information technology and the law and information technology and public policy.
Influential approaches to privacy emphasize the role of privacy in safe guarding personal or intimate realm where people may escape the prying and interference of others. There are two realms one is the private realm which is contrasted with a public realm. Private realm is delimited by physical boundaries. Privacy is worthy of safeguarding these approaches argue, because intimacy is important, privacy is worth protecting because we have value the sanctity of a personal realm. Privacy functions to protect the integrity of a private or intimate realm spans scholarly work in many disciples, including legal, political and philosophical discussions of privacy.
Privacy provides “the necessary context for relationships which we would hardly be human if we had to do without – the relationships of love, friendship and trust.” Two misleading assumptions the first one is erroneous assumption: there is realm of public information about persons to which no privacy norms apply. This assumption holds that there is a category of information about persons that is perfectly public which is up for grabs for anyone with an interest in and use for it. The second one is erroneous assumption:
An aggregation of information does not violate privacy if its parts taken individually, do not. This assumption plays an important role in defending a position that databases of nonsensitive information are nonsensitive. When bits of information are aggregated, compiled, and assembled they can be invasive of privacy even if when taken individually they are not. The capacity to manipulate information in these ways may have significant bearing on the humans are who are its subjects.
Privacy is an important part of our life without privacy we will have a hard time living our ordinary life for example an artist also needs privacy even if they are always shown on television. If they don’t have privacy they will really have a hard time living their life. Control of personal information is extremely important as of course is privacy. The concept of privacy itself is best defined in terms of restricted access, not control.
Privacy is fundamentally about protection from intrusion and information gathering by others. Privacy and control fit together naturally just not in the way people often state. We can have control but no privacy and privacy with no control. We should aim to have both control and privacy. A fundamental problem about defining the concept of privacy in terms of individual control of information is that it greatly reduces what can be private. Normative privacy should be distinguished into two parts natural or descriptive privacy.
Natural privacy means the right to privacy while descriptive privacy means privacy that exists as a matter of fact. Restricted access model provides a framework for discussing privacy on the internet in a way in which a control theory of privacy is not. Private situation is necessary to define who has access to what under which circumstances. These restrictions bar most people from gaining access and possibly nobody can see all of the records. These restrictions in access also often for bid revelation of private matters to others by those who do not have access.
A straightforward justification for having privacy is the protection it affords us to plan our lives, to decide what benefits we wish to seek and what harms we wish to avoid. Privacy enhancing technologies or PET is a technical and organizational concepts that aim at protecting personal identity.
The data subject’s right to access and to object. The directive gives the individual a general right to access and to correct information about himself. Furthermore, data subjects are given the right to object to the processing of data for certain purposes. The reprocessing of personal data is stressed that all personal data “must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way that is incompatible with those purposes.”
Using personal data for a different purpose – processing of data in a way that is not incompatible with the purpose for which it was collected is a difficult one to interpret. Firstly incompatibility can’t mean logical consistency. Secondly incompatible can’t mean that the purposes are practically inconsistent. Thirdly incompatible can’t simply mean that the two purposes are different. Privacy as restricted access means that privacy is a limitation of other’s access to the individual.” A general problem with the restricted access view is that it is difficult to see how it draws the distinction between private and public situations. A second limitation of the restricted access view is that every case of dissemination of information about oneself must be counted as a loss of privacy, since one makes oneself more accessible to others. Privacy as control is just as simple as that of the restricted access amount.
Channels for the flow of personal information the relationship between privacy and data protection in the directive – the directive has a certain view on the relationship between its own norms pertaining to data protection and the right to privacy. Channels for the flow of personal information- different channels are characterized by different sets of restrictions . There can be restrictions on the audience that has access to the channel, and restrictions on the type of information that is allowed to flow in the channel.
Greased data makes information so easy to access that it can be used again and again. Computers now have big storage of data’s that’s why people should not worry about anything anymore because they can put all their information or the things they do in the computer and if they forgot an information or something they did they can easily access the computer and see it there. But of course they should put privacy in their computer because if they don’t then people can hack or get their information. Two standard ways of justifying privacy instrumental values are those values that are good because they lead to something else that is good. Intrinsic values are values that are good in themselves. Instrumental values are good as means, Intrinsic values are good as ends. Privacy offers us protection against harm.
Core values are the values that all normal humans and cultures need for survival. Although privacy is not a core value per se, it is the expression of a core value, viz the value of security. Without protection, species and cultures don’t survive and flourish. The nature of privacy the term privacy is sometimes used to designate a situation in which people are protected from intrusion or observation by natural or physical circumstances. Setting and adjusting policies for private situations in formulating policies we should try to minimize excess harm and risk. There are three principles the publicity principle – rules and conditions governing private situations should be clear and known to the persons affected them.
The justification of exceptions principle: a breach of a private situation is justified if and only there is a great likelihood that the harm caused by the disclosure will be so much less than the harm prevented that an impartial person would permit breach in this and in morally similar situations, The adjustment principle – if special circumstances justify a change in the parameters of a private situation, then the alteration should become an explicit and public part of the rules and conditions governing the private situation.
