Monday, July 21, 2014

Gadflies: Philosophy Versus Ideology


This was my very first paper written in college. Not my very best work, but I think I did an adequate job for my initial attempt at a university-level final paper assignment. I did this at the very last minute and I remember the night before it was due very well. I was extremely stressed and panicking because I had run out of ideas to write about. Nonetheless, I survived and turned it in. I got a decent grade for it, so it wasn't that bad.


Philosophical thinking has been a part of the human condition since Ancient Greece, with the likes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These philosophers have played an instrumental role in the development of society and government, and still do to this day. Peter Ludow, in his article “Hacktivists as Gadflies”, calls upon Socrates and places him in the middle of the clash between hacktivists and the state. Ludow claims that hacktivists parallel Socrates in the Apology as they both perform the function of gadflies in society. However, Ludow fails to see that Socrates and hacktivists differ in how they function as gadflies. This difference is what allows hacktivists to be politically involved, and actively challenge the state.

To understand hacktivism requires understanding what hacking is. Hacking is the use of technology to gain unauthorized access to data in a system. Hacktivists are individuals who redeploy and repurpose technology for social causes, according to Peter Ludow, a professor of philosophy at the University of Northwestern. This means that hacktivists are aimed at making a political statement. This sets them apart from what Ludow refers to as “garden-variety” hackers who repurpose technology to gain an economic advantage without any particular political agenda.

Moreover, the meaning of the word varies depending on the context you interpret it in. This is best exemplified by the quarrel between those who wish to antagonize the word, and those who want it to remain the broader, inclusive understanding of it, this is an example of lexical warfare (Ludow). The the dispute between the two connotations is evident in the headlines of various newspapers. For example, the Chicago Tribune ran with the headline, “Arrests a breakthrough in global battle against secretive ‘hacktivists’ movement.” portraying hacktivism as a malevolent movement (Wong, Wailin, and Ameet Sachdev). The headline gives the reader an idea of hacktivism being in opposition with the world, and is hiding something from us. Contrary to this, Al Jazeera America went with the headline, “ Are computer laws too tough on ‘hacktivists’?” implying hacktivists, and their actions, are benign that do not warrant the prosecution they receive (Dosani, Sanya). The battle, however, is not as evenly split at it might appear to be, for there are more headlines that oppose hacktivists than there are supporting them.

Hacktivists reveal data that is not intended to be publicized to make a political point. For example, Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, revealed records in 2012 from the National Security Agency (NSA) detailing extensive violation of privacy rights (Pilkington, Ed). Snowden leaked as many as 200,000 documents to the media, the documents classifications ranged from “Secret” to “Special Intelligence” (Hosenball, Mark). The motive behind Snowden’s action is based upon ideological thinking, for Snowden has a set moral beliefs that he uses to justify his actions. As Snowden puts it himself, “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”(Greenwald, Glen, and Laura Poitras) Hacktivists are taking action on the basis of a preset ideology.

For this leaking of data hacktivists pay a severe price. Hacktivist are harshly prosecuted in the court of law, in which they are given long jail times and costly fines. Ludow explains this phenomenon by stating that because of the political nature of the hacktivist movement, activists are deemed a threat by the state more so than their self-interested counterparts, the garden-variety hacker. Hacktivists are actively challenging the authority in, a realm in which the authority has limited control, the internet. This is why Snowden’s actions were viewed as espionage and a threat to national security instead of being taken as a service to society. Ultimately, hacktivists are being prosecuted because they are violating laws. Just as any other law-breaker would be prosecuted, so will hacktivists.

Ludow draws a parallel between the hacktivists and Socrates by comparing the severity of their punishments. For example, hacktivists Andrew Auernheimer, better known as “Weev”, who for pointing out a security hole in AT&T’s system that left the private information of customers vulnerable, was recently dealt a 41 months prison sentenced and ordered to pay a $73,000 fine (Ludlow). Socrates was given the death penalty by hemlock, which results in vomiting, headache, seizures, and respiratory failure. All of this for provoking philosophical thought in Athens that lead to the charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. Conclusively, the crime does not fit the punishment for both the hacktivists and Socrates.

Moreover, Ludlow also states that, “Socrates’s real crime was being too clever” (Ludlow). Further on Ludlow references a hacker named Mentor who writes, “My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.”(Ludlow) To a degree this is something both hacktivists and Socrates share, for they both have incurred the hatred of the people their actions have challenged. As Socrates says, “I kept going to one after another, all the while perceiving with pain and fear that I was becoming hated”.(Plato, 21e-22a) This quote exemplifies the life of a gadfly, accumulating hatred from the people in power or supposed wisdom.

Furthermore, Ludow states that such as Socrates was a gadfly in Athenian society, so are hacktivists in modern society. “ I awaken and persuade and reproach each one of you, and I do not stop settling down everywhere upon you the whole day” (Plato, 31a). This is how Socrates was a gadfly, he went around and had philosophical dialects with his fellow Athenians. He did this to provoke purposeful thought in the individual, that would catalyze self-analysis upon one’s life. Hacktivists, while gadflies, do not engage in philosophical thinking like Socrates did. As I mentioned before they act upon ideological thinking. Their actions are what makes Hacktivists gadflies, for they are able to make decisions that produce messages that then awaken the individual. Hacktivists do not go to the individual level and tackle ideologies, through the use of philosophy, that keep one asleep, but they rather place their ideologies against the state and the conflict, the “sting”, is what catalyzes thought. Hacktivists do not actively catalyze a dialect about the issues that arise from the content they expose.

Hacktivists aim to make a political statement, while philosophers aim to provoke philosophical thought. This is the essential difference between the two parties. Socrates questioned because he wanted to expose the ignorance that permeated Athenian society, an ignorance he saw as impeding social progress, “ the unexamined life is not worth living.” (Plato, 38a-b) Hacktivists do not share in this essential goal, their motivation to expose information, that is either purposely hidden away or needs to be shown to the citizens of the society, is rooted in ideological thinking. The fact that hacktivists are even taking action is evident that they are not like philosophers, for philosophy does not catalyze action. Philosophy is the engagement of continuous inquiry. This never-ending questioning is what delays any action of any sort.

Hacktivists and philosopher, in general, are different because politics and philosophy are inherently different. Politics is ideologically based and action-oriented, and philosophy is about engaging in questioning, which delays action. Thus, you can either participate in politics or philosophy. In the Apology it is implied that the philosophical life is the just life, and the just life is not fitting with politics. Thus, if you desire to live a life in pursuit of knowledge and wisdom than a life of politics is not for you; you need to hunker down and protect yourself. Furthermore, Socrates later says that if he was engaged in politics earlier in his life they would have executed him sooner. The concept that one who plans to live an engaged live enthralled with the philosophical method is one evident by the prosecution of hacktivists. If hacktivists heeded Socrates warning they would not be brought to court and sentenced to ridiculous jail time. Moreover, hacktivists are motivated by a conception of social justice this is a virtue shared by philosophers. For example, take Edward Snowden: “you have to report wrongdoing to those most responsible for it.” (Pilkington)

The purpose of government is relative to the ideology you subscribe to. Hacktivists subscribe to an ideology that promotes the idea of the informed citizen. Through this the purpose of government can be deciphered into being something along the lines of transparency and openness. A government that's purpose is to allow open discussion among its citizens. Nonetheless, what hacktivists do is show us that there are flaws in whichever government we decide to create. Gadflies (i.e. hacktivists and Socrates) will be present in a society due to politics being an ideological production. People will continually challenge and question the assumptions that make up the ideologies of the politics, for this is the nature of philosophy. Thus, as long as politics exists so will philosophy, and so will gadflies.

Al Maki’s comment while insightful, is not very compelling. “Breaking laws for a higher purpose ends badly” (Al Maki). While at first thought this comment seems to go with the evidence we have seen so far with hacktivists and Socrates. Hacktivists and Socrates both suffer greatly for acting upon what they believe to be good. However, as one looks at the potential benefits that can arise from this rule-breaking we begin to notice that it outweighs the potential harm it can cause to the legal system. For instance, because of hacktivists we are able to notice that some laws have no set punishments, thus creating an unbalance between punishment and crime. Furthermore, the philosophical discussions the hacktivists have catalyzed through their actions, will serve to do exactly what it was intended to do, wake people up to the reality that surrounds them. Most importantly, it is not necessarily true that breaking a law will undermine the rule of law, as Al Maki suggests. For example, if someone loiters, parks in a no park zone, or parks in handicapped spot when not being handicapped they are breaking the law, but not necessarily breaking the rule of law altogether. Our society will continue to function with law still intact. The severity in which these actions defy the rule of law is miniscule, but under the logic of Al Maki they would be unacceptable nonetheless.

In conclusion, hacktivists are the new gadflies in modern society. hacktivists repurpose technology in order to make a political point. Thus, they are ideological thinkers that have a presumed set of ideas that catalyzes their actions. This differs from the gadfly Socrates was in Athenian society. Socrates was a philosophical thinker, that didn’t actively challenge the state, but instead openly questioned the ideas that were commonly held in the society. Through this Socrates is able to create a change in thought of the citizen, and ultimately a change in the state which is composed by the citizens. Nonetheless, Socrates in the whole ordeal is never engaged in politics, but hacktivists are because of their ideological nature and disposition to act.

Work Cited:

Posted on 7:56 PM by Unknown in | with No comments | Permalink

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )