Neutralizing Ideological Cyberattacks

如果不久前还难以组织社会运动，如今，计算机技术的广泛使用创造了新的机会，推动政治议程和社会变革。这种激进主义和黑客行为的结合被称为黑客行动主义。随着这种现象变得越来越普遍和有条理，理解活跃在网上的政治亚文化的叙事至关重要。然而，缺乏对出于政治动机的网络攻击的实证研究。从赛克斯和马扎的中和理论开始，我试图确定极左翼和极右翼黑客活动家是否以及在多大程度上发展了中和技术，以证明他们的行为是正当的。为了理解这一理论框架对所研究现象的适用性，我对无政府主义组织安提赛克泄露的文件和爱国黑客小丑发布的采访进行了定性的内容分析。采用理论驱动的方法，对数据进行了深入的调查，并采用演绎和归纳的方式进行编码。更具体地说，我测试了以下假设：H1：意识形态黑客活动家为采用受害者中和否认技术的网络攻击辩护。H2：意识形态黑客活动家为网络攻击辩护，采用谴责者中和技术。H3：意识形态黑客活动人士为采用更高忠诚度中和技术的网络攻击辩护。H4：意识形态黑客为采用更高道德原则中和技术的网络攻击辩护。H5：意识形态黑客活动家为采取必要防御的网络攻击辩护。总体而言，这些发现表明，与其他形式的传统犯罪和网络犯罪一样，如网络骚扰和网络种族主义，黑客行动主义可以用中和理论作为框架来解释。此外，尽管极左翼和极右翼黑客组织对其网络攻击进行合理化的方式略有不同，但在最大程度上，他们都开发了中和技术。扩大我们对这一现象的认识是至关重要的，主要有两个原因。首先，如今越来越多的人可以使用勒索软件工具，黑客行动主义者代表着更危险的威胁。最后，在未来，随着技术的进步以及物理空间和数字空间之间的相互联系，黑客行动主义可能成为最常见的抗议形式。基于这些案例研究的发现，我鼓励更多的研究，看看中和理论是否可以成为审查其他黑客活动团体和爱国黑客的有用的理论框架。通过更好地了解意识形态网络罪犯参与网络犯罪的过程，将有助于制定更有针对性和更有效的干预措施，以预测和对抗出于意识形态和政治动机的网络攻击。

If not long ago was difficult to organize social movements, nowadays, the widespread use of computer technology created new opportunities to promote a political agenda and social changes. This combination of activism and hacking is known as hacktivism. As this phenomenon become increasingly common and structured, it is crucial to understand the narratives of political subcultures active online. There is, however, a lack of empirical research on political motivated cyberattacks. Beginning with Sykes's and Matza's neutralization theory, I seek to determine if, and to what extent, far-left and far-right hacktivists develop techniques of neutralization to justify their actions. To understand the applicability of this theoretical framework on the phenomenon examined, I apply a qualitative content analysis of documents leaked by the anarchic group, Antisec and interviews released by the Jester, a patriotic hacker. The data were investigated in depth and coded in a deductive and inductive manner by adopting a theory-driven approach. More specifically, I tested the following hypothesis: H1: Ideological hacktivists justified cyberattacks adopting denial by victim neutralization technique.H2: Ideological hacktivists justified cyberattacks adopting condemnation of condemners neutralization technique. H3: Ideological hacktivists justified cyberattacks adopting appeal to higher loyalty neutralization technique. H4: Ideological hacktivists justified cyberattacks adopting appeal to higher moral principal neutralization technique. H5: Ideological hacktivists justified cyberattacks adopting defence of necessity. Overall, these finding demonstrate that as other forms of traditional crime and cybercrime, such as cyber harassment and cyber racism hacktivism can be explained by adopting neutralization theory as a framework. Furthermore, despite slightly differences on the way through which far-left, and far-right hacktivist groups rationalize their cyberattacks, at the greatest extend, they all developed neutralization techniques. Expanding our knowledge on this phenomenon is essential for two main reasons. Firstly, nowadays with growing access to ransomware tools hacktivist represent a more dangerous threat. Finally, in the future, with the advance of technology and of the interconnections between physical and digital space, hacktivism might become the most common form of protest.Based on the finding of these case studies I would encourage additional research into whether neutralization theory can be a useful theoretical framework to examine other hacktivists groups and patriotic hackers. By better understanding the process by which ideological cybercriminals engage in cybercrime would help to develop more targeted and effective interventions to anticipate and counteract ideological and political motivated cyberattacks.