Is public interest hacking a legitimate way to avoid legal regulation for social good?

While public interest hacking can be a useful means of addressing information monopolization, the inappropriate means and unforeseen side effects of hacking require legal regulation. Public interest hacking should be carefully weighed alongside other alternatives to pursue the social good.

 

Hacking is defined as “the unauthorized entry into another person’s computer system to remove or destroy data and programs. In the modern world, where information is an asset, not only the ability of an individual, but also the presence or absence of information is an important condition for survival. In this context, hacking is akin to stealing money. Because of this, hacking has been used in a bad way and is socially discouraged. However, there has been a recent rise in public interest hacking, or hacking that benefits a large number of people. This is where hackers seek to serve the public interest by providing information to organizations that would otherwise keep it to themselves. Given the growing social benefits of hacking, there is a debate about whether it should be legally regulated. Many argue in favor of it because it’s the only effective way to address the problem of information monopolization by large, powerful organizations. However, this article will argue that it should also be regulated because it is an unethical act of breaking into someone else’s computer system without permission.
The first reason why public interest hacking should be legally regulated is the inappropriateness of the means of hacking. Examples of public interest hacking by the world-renowned hacking organization Anonymous include hacking into the North Korean internet to provide free internet access to North Koreans and hacking into pedophile sites to reveal their membership lists. When you look at the purpose of these cases, you might think they’re righteous. However, these actions hide the ethically questionable means of hacking behind a public good. Let’s take a look at the rule of limitation of fundamental rights. Rules of restriction of fundamental rights describe special cases where normally prohibited behavior is permitted to fulfill a legitimate purpose, so it stands to reason that public interest hacking should fall under similar rules. Currently, the rules include legitimacy of the end, proportionality of the means, and least harm. It’s easy to see that the first rule, legitimacy of the end, would allow for public interest hacking. However, if either the legitimacy of the end or the minimization of harm is not satisfied, then the hacking is not free to be carried out. The appropriateness of the means means that the causal relationship between the means and the end is appropriate, and no one can be sure that hacking with the expectation of a public good will always result in a public good. In other words, the causal relationship between the means and the end is not clear. In other words, altruistic hacking does not satisfy the means-end test and should be avoided.
In response, people argue that there are compelling benefits to utilitarian hacking, and that utilitarian hacking should be free because there is no substitute for it. The argument is that public interest hacking is the most unconventional and effective way to solve the problem of information monopolization by governments and large corporations, which has recently become a major social concern. If hacking is the only way to solve the problem of information monopolization, then it makes sense that it should be freely practiced, but these arguments are not convincing because there are other alternatives. Media organizations and surveillance agencies were originally created to address the problem of information monopolization. Public interest hacking has emerged as an effective tool because these institutions are currently not doing their job, but strengthening them and making them independent of governments and large corporations is a better alternative to hacking. One of the rules for limiting fundamental rights is the rule of least harm. This means that any alternative that does not minimize harm among the alternatives cannot be justified. In this respect, public interest hacking groups have a major weakness. Journalists and surveillance organizations do not use improper means, and they act based on a detailed and careful analysis of the social impact of disclosing proprietary information. However, the activities of public interest hacking groups to date do not indicate that they are disclosing information in a way that takes into account the emerging harms. Therefore, public interest hacking needs to be properly regulated, complementary to other alternatives, and transparent.
The second reason to argue that public interest hacking needs legal regulation is that public interest hacking groups are also information monopolies, and as mentioned earlier, the information they release based on their personal judgment can cause unexpected harm. This is what hacking groups such as Anonymous and WikiLeaks do: they attack organizations that seek to monopolize information and withhold it from the public for their own benefit, and they pursue the public interest, but they do so at the behest of a specific group. In other words, hacking groups have a secondary monopoly on information that may be of public interest, and it is their choice to release it. This means that hacking groups are no different from organizations that monopolize information for the benefit of individuals or groups. Therefore, without legal regulation, public interest hacking groups would lose their legitimacy.
Furthermore, the fact that the decision to disclose hacked information is made solely by the hacking organization means that the negative effects of disclosure may not be fully analyzed. Some human rights organizations are now demanding that hacktivists remove the identifying information of international organization partners that they initially released. This kind of hasty disclosure is a violation of human rights. Furthermore, WikiLeaks is releasing a very large number of documents without adequate review, so there is a high probability that the information is inaccurate. Therefore, the release of information at the discretion of hacking organizations without proper regulation is not in the public interest. The disclosure of hacked information should be done with sufficient time and analysis, as the identity and accuracy issues it creates will only incite society in the wrong direction. In fact, Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, announced an agreement with WikiLeaks that governments and companies around the world should use the information within the bounds of international law. As you can see, the regulation of public interest hacking is one of the most important issues that society will need to address in the future.
Finally, this article is not about solving the problem of information monopolization or banning public interest hacking per se. It’s clear that this is a very effective way of solving problems in a society where information is an asset. But there’s no telling what the future holds for public interest hacking if we allow it to continue indiscriminately. It hasn’t been that long since hacking groups like Anonymous and WikiLeaks started working in earnest for public good. So far, these groups have been fortunate not to use hacking for malicious purposes. Nor have they caused any major negative consequences. However, in the absence of adequate regulation of altruistic hacking, there is no assurance that these groups will continue to pursue altruistic goals in perpetuity, and that there will be no negative consequences. Therefore, legal regulations are needed to ensure that the activities of public interest hacking groups are carried out with the consent of the entire population, or that hacking technicians and experts who can anticipate the side effects and social impacts of information disclosure act together. Even if it reduces the current inefficiency and slows down the development of society, a well-considered regulation of public interest hacking is the way to make an uncertain future safer.