In the modern world, public interest hacking is seen as a valid means of checking the monopolization of information by powerful entities, but it is characterized by the unethical use of trespassing. Even for public good, there are unpredictable side effects and the potential for information misuse, so it is argued that legal regulation should ensure that hacking groups’ activities are transparent and secure.
Hacking is defined as “the unauthorized entry into another person’s computer system to destroy or delete data and programs. In the modern world, where information has become a critical asset, it is not only an individual’s ability to survive, but also their access to it. Against this backdrop, hacking is seen as an act similar to physical theft. Because of this, hacking is often associated with negative connotations and socially discouraged. However, in recent years, there has been a rise in public interest hacking, i.e., hacking that benefits the many. This involves releasing data from organizations that have kept it private to the public in order to serve the public good. Given the growing social benefits that hacking can bring, there are varying opinions on whether it should be legally regulated. On the one hand, there are those in favor of public interest hacking because it is an effective way to combat the monopolization of information by large power groups. However, this article argues that it should be legally 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 hacking as a tool. The world-renowned hacking organization Anonymous has hacked into the North Korean internet to provide free internet to the people of North Korea, or hacked into pedophile sites to publish their membership lists. While these examples serve a noble cause, the problem with these actions is that they are based on the ethically questionable means of hacking. According to the principle of derogation from fundamental rights, behavior that is normally prohibited may be specifically permitted for a legitimate purpose. Hacking in the public interest should be judged under similar principles. Some of the principles include legitimacy of the end, proportionality of the means, and least harm. While it is likely that public interest hacking will be judged to have a legitimate end, it is not freely permitted if it does not satisfy both the legitimacy of the means and the minimization of harm. The appropriateness of the means ensures that the causal relationship between the end and the means is appropriate. However, when hacking for a public good, it is not always certain that the outcome will be a public good, i.e., the causal link between the hacking and the public good is not clear. As a result, public interest hacking does not satisfy the ends justify the means test and should be discouraged.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that the powerful benefits and irreplaceable nature of public interest hacking make it a tool that should be freely practiced. The argument is that public interest hacking is the most effective way to solve the problem of information monopolization by governments and large corporations. The argument is that if hacking is the only way to solve the problem of information monopolization, then it should be allowed, but in practice, there are other alternatives. Media organizations and watchdogs were originally established to address information monopolies. Although public interest hacking has emerged as an alternative because these institutions have failed to fulfill their original role, strengthening these institutions is a better solution than hacking. Minimization of harm is also an important element of the principle of limiting fundamental rights. If an alternative is not the least harmful of several alternatives, it cannot be justified. Public interest hacking groups have a weakness in this regard. Journalists and surveillance organizations do not use improper means and carefully analyze the social impact of disclosing proprietary information. However, public interest hacking groups often release information without such considerations. Therefore, public interest hacking should be legally regulated and complementary to other alternatives in order to move towards a more transparent society.
The second reason for legal regulation is that public interest hacking groups are also a kind of information monopoly power, and the information they disclose can cause unforeseen harm, depending on their judgment. While they seek to serve the public interest by criticizing organizations that monopolize and profit from information, they are also monopolizing the public interest in that their actions are based on the judgment of a particular group. This means that there is no real difference between them and information monopolies, and without legal regulation, public interest hacking groups could lose their legitimacy.
Furthermore, if the hacking organization is the sole judge of whether or not to disclose information obtained through hacking, there is the potential for disclosure to occur without sufficient review. Some human rights organizations have called for hacktivists to redact the identifying information of their international organization partners. This shows that hasty disclosures can violate human rights. WikiLeaks has also released many documents without sufficient review, raising questions about the accuracy of the information. This shows that reckless disclosure has the potential to cause social disruption. In fact, Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, announced an agreement with WikiLeaks that urged governments and companies to utilize the information within the bounds of international law. As such, the regulation of public interest hacking is an important issue for social safety.
This article does not argue for a ban on altruistic hacking per se. In a society where information is an asset, it can be an effective way to solve problems. However, there’s no way to predict the long-term consequences of indiscriminately allowing it. Hacking organizations like Anonymous and WikiLeaks have only been around for a short time, and we don’t know of any instances where they have used hacking for malicious purposes. But we can’t be sure that new hacking organizations will act solely in the public interest, so we need legal regulations to ensure that public interest hacking is done with the consent of the governed, or that hacking professionals work with experts who can consider the social impact of disclosing information. Regulation of public interest hacking, even at the cost of current inefficiencies, is a good way to better prepare for an uncertain future.
