Hacktivism: Inspiring a New Revolution

In the heat of the US Presidential elections, more and more people are finding new ways to express their opinions regarding the candidates, and their staunch supporters. We have recently witnessed one of the more high profile ones in Palingate, when Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's personal email was hacked.

Now, they have gone a step further and hacked the website of Bill O'Reilly, a prominent political commentator. The attack trailed after the personality commented harshly on the Palin internet scandal. And it didn't target merely O'Reilly alone. Over 200 website members' passwords were leaked given away on the internet by the hacktivist.

The attack (On Palin) was supposedly facilitated by using Wikileaks (www.wikileaks.org), where the leaked information from Palin's personal email was hosted.

O'Reilly in his commentary wondered why government officials aren't hopping into their cop cars and arresting the people behind the controversial site. He said "everybody knows where this stuff is, OK, and they know the people who run the Web site, so why can't they go there tonight to the guy's house who runs it, put him in cuffs and take him down and book him?"

The reason is that Wikileaks guarantees that its users enjoy the benefits of the site without having to worry about accountability. You leave no virtual footprints, making your online actions (guerilla-like though they may be) the perfect "crime".

Wikileaks.org claims that it limits its protection to documents which purport to prove corruption, be they in the political, corporate, or religious scheme. The site encourages whistleblowers to post sensitive documents on their site, documents which, if shared with anyone anywhere else, would definitely land them in jail. Its developers call the process "ethical leaking".

Not ironically, the site was purportedly founded by a happy mix of political dissidents from China, and technologists from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Patterned after Wikipedia, the site is powered by volunteers around the world who post the information and work hard to protect it from threats to shut it down. It ensures protection of the leakers by using highly technical coded software, provided by techies who are only too happy to help the cause.

Though the site's primary targets are highly media-oppressive, it welcomes documents from all over the world, for as long as they aim to expose corruption.

The fundamental policies for its operation is laudable indeed, no one can argue that "transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government, and stronger democracies". Technological advances allows an entire world of users who share in this information the benefit of discussing issues with an almost real-time dialogue and a sharing of important points of view, all while lowering the cost (politically and financially).

Its proponents argue that it is not only the citizens of a particular government who is responsible for ensuring a government's honesty, such duty also belongs to the people of other countries who are watching that government.

However, those against it are quick to bring up the dangers of such a site as well. For instance, if a nation's defense plans could be dispersed by nothing more than an email on the pretext that they are corrupt in nature, other hostile nations could very well take advantage. Then it would create the very chaos that the website seeks to prevent. When you think about it, the important ethical decisions of what to post and when to post it are left to the discretion of the site's creators. For another, because of the "secret" nature of the leaked documents, how are the creators sure that the documents they are posting haven't been doctored or manufactured to create instability?

For now, the only assurance that Wikileaks can provide against these possible threats are that the documents are subject to review and revision by a world of users. But that is not necessarily reassuring. However, the site claims that in all of the over 1.2 million documents leaked, there has never, as far as they are aware, been a mistake.

For now, all we have to bank on is that the individuals who submit the documents and the individuals who assess their value and post them have high moral standards and apply the same of their own free will. Or at the very least, that there are more good people out there than bad, who will undo any wrongdoing before any untoward damage is caused.