The Blurred Lines between Cyberterrorism and Hacktivism

In contemporary warfare, as cyber warfare becomes increasingly prevalent, distinguishing the motives behind hacking and cyber attacks can often be tricky. This complexity primarily arises from the potential confusion surrounding two specific terms: cyberterrorism and hacktivism.

Cyberterrorism and hacktivism are frequently misunderstood and muddled, making it difficult to distinguish the underlying motivations and objectives of cyberattacks and hacking activities. While both involve the use of digital tools and techniques, they differ in their fundamental purposes and potential consequences.

In a nutshell, cyberterrorism typically involves attacks designed to create fear, disrupt critical infrastructure, and cause large-scale harm, often with political, ideological, or extremist motives. On the other hand, hacktivism is a form of digital activism where individuals or groups use hacking to support social or political causes, such as promoting transparency, exposing wrongdoing, or advocating for specific issues.

Given their strong ties to political identities, it can be tricky to differentiate between these two terms. In today’s politics, for instance, opposing groups often use labels like “Nazi” or “Commie” to describe each other, blurring the lines further. The distinction between terrorism and activism as terms can also become blurred, especially when it depends on perceptions of who is oppressed and who is in power. Hacktivism generally carries a more positive connotation, while cyberterrorism tends to have a more negative perception.

Operation Payback (2010) is the perfect example for this argument, two different views can be applied to view the motives. According to the Guardian, during the technological battle over WikiLeaks, web censorship, and perceived political pressure, the websites of entities like MasterCard and the Swedish prosecution authority have recently fallen victim to coordinated online attacks. These attacks, conducted by supporters of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, have disrupted various online targets, including the website of the Swedish lawyer representing Assange’s alleged victims, as well as commercial and political entities. MasterCard, in particular, was partially paralyzed in retaliation for discontinuing donations to WikiLeaks.

On one hand, they launched Operation Payback to champion freedom of information and counter censorship, directing their actions against entities like PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard for their refusal to process donations to WikiLeaks, reflecting a hacktivist motivation. However, a cyberterrorism dimension emerged as some of their tactics involved Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, which temporarily disrupted the targeted websites. While their primary aim was to promote unfettered information flow, the scale of disruption led to debates about whether these actions could also be considered a form of cyberterrorism. This case highlights the nuanced and complex nature of such activities, where hacktivism and cyberterrorism can overlap.