Jordan and Taylor (2004), in their explanation of mass action hacktivism (MAH), and digitally correct (DCH) hacktivism, categories that are subsumed into Samuels’ tripartite taxonomy, argue that digitally correct hacktivists are generally more interested in the ‘bandwidth rights’ component of human rights than their mass action counter parts. While they are correct in identifying tension between the two groups in terms of how their actions affect the Internet architecture (a tension that is also noted by Samuel and Vegh (both 2003)), bandwidth or Internet rights, in terms of unhindered Internet access, and in terms of the struggle for control over the Internet architecture and content, are becoming increasingly inseparable from human rights as a whole. This struggle is bound up with the basic human right detailed in Article 19 of the 1948 International Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(‘The International Declaration of Human Rights’)
The Internet is increasingly the medium through which many of us seek, receive and impart information, as well as practise our freedom of opinion and expression, not to mention conduct many more mundane aspects of daily life. Furthermore, it is through this exchange of knowledge and facilitation of activity that many other basic human rights are increasingly facilitated and upheld. As such, holding
bandwidth or Internet rights separate from other human rights is increasingly erroneous, and is only likely to become more so.
This perspective and belief is corroborated by much recent research. The Pew Internet and American Life Project has published research report after research report, all freely available on their website, confirming the increasing importance of Internet access to people’s daily lives, and particularly their political lives (‘Pew Internet and American Life Project’). We increasingly access news, information and other media of all kinds via the Internet (Purcell et al. 2010), from a multitude of traditional and alternative media sources. We also engage with governmental information and services online (Smith 2010), both for activities of everyday life and during election campaigns. Indeed, over half of the adult population of the Unites Sates of America went online to get involved in the political process or to get news and information about the 2008 presidential election (Smith 2009). This trend towards political engagement via the Internet is particularly strong amongst young people (Kohut 2008; Smith et al 2009), suggesting that the trend is only likely to accelerate.
There is no doubt that the selection of this cause, and the cause itself, exhibits a post-industrial bias. In a world where many have yet to achieve access to basic necessities such as adequate water, nutrition and shelter, let alone telephone connections or Internet access, focusing on struggles over unhindered Internet access, and over the governance of Internet architecture and content, may seem at best, ignorant, and at worst, arrogant. Indeed, even amongst those who do have Internet access, the demographics of political and civic involvement continue to echo offline biases towards those with higher levels of income and education – although the trend towards blogs as prominent sources of information, and political activity on social networking sites amongst younger netizens hints at possible upheavals within these participatory demographics (Smith et al. 2009). However, hacktivism is already a privileged activity – it occurs on the Internet, and is done by citizens who have Internet access in terms of both a physical connection and technological know-how and skills. As such, this thesis is already biased towards a post-industrial perspective and topic.
Furthermore, hacktivism involved in struggles over the control of the Internet tends to be aimed at securing an ideal Internet that the hacktivists see as best serving citizens, as opposed to governmental or corporate elites. As such, it is aimed at preserving, promoting and maintaining an ideal Internet not only for current, but also prospective or future ‘netizens’. And there is no doubt that citizens on both sides of the digital divides (Selwyn 2004; van Dijk & Hacker 2003) recognise the importance of Internet as a communicative medium. The BBC World Service recently commissioned a survey (administered by GlobeScan) of over 27,000 adults across 26 countries, only 14,000 of whom were actually Internet users, asking them about their perceptions of the importance of the Internet to modern life (‘Global Poll on Internet Access’ 2010). A massive four in five adults (78%) saw access to the Internet as a fundamental human right, with 87% of the Internet users and 71% of the non-Internet users surveyed holding this opinion (ibid.: 1).
Indeed, this belief is something that has been legislatively ratified by several nations, with Finland, France and Estonia making Internet or broadband access a human right for their citizens. Internet-using respondents to the BBC survey valued the Internet most highly for sourcing information of all kinds, and for communicating and interacting with other people. 90% and 78%, respectively, felt that the Internet was a good place to learn and that it gave them greater freedom (ibid.: 4). As the BBC’s Bill Thompson summarised:
As a long-time contributor to Digital Planet, the BBC World Service programme about the impact of digital technology on people's lives, I've seen the growing awareness within the developing world that computers and connectivity matter and can be useful. It's not that computers matter more than water, food, shelter and healthcare, but that the network and PCs can be used to ensure that those other things are available.
(Thompson 2010)
Further research provides more evidence of this across-the-board belief in the importance of Internet access, and particularly high-speed Internet access. The
Social Science Research Council (SSRC) recently researched the adoption of broadband in low-income American communities (including homeless citizens and those relying on governmental welfare for survival). While previous research (mostly quantitative and survey based) done by the Pew Internet and American Life project has identified various proportions of non-Internet users who do not use the Internet because they see it as ‘not relevant’ to their daily lives, the SSRC research, which had a smaller sample size but engaged research subjects much more deeply, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, found a different reality:
…we found no such group, even among respondents with profound histories of marginalization—the homeless, people with long-term disabilities, people recently released from lengthy prison sentences, non-English speakers from new immigrant communities, and residents of a rural community without electricity or running water. No one needed to be convinced of the importance of Internet use or of the value of broadband adoption in the home.
Indeed, most respondents viewed broadband connectivity to be of paramount importance. Over 90% of our non-adopter respondents reported personally using the Internet. Taking into account proxy use via family members and friends, the number approaches 100%. Even respondents with the highest barriers to use, such as those with very limited literacy in any language, reported making efforts to use the Internet. Social networking, games, and media sites—especially YouTube – seem to be common gateways for these low-skill users. But the strongest drivers by far among our respondents are access to employment, education, and government services.
(Dailey et al. 2010: 15)
Clearly, those on both sides of the digital divides share a belief in the importance of Internet access, and particularly high-speed Internet access. Those who do not have Internet access know they are missing out, and their numbers are decreasing constantly (and will hopefully continue to do so apace). We still have a long way to go before we can claim global connectedness, but there is a strong sense that this is a goal of fundamental importance. While hacktivism in the name of debating
control over the Internet’s architecture and content is not directly involved in securing broader Internet access, it is engaging with rights that should not be set aside from other ‘offline’ rights. The Internet is part of and generated by a significant proportion of modern humanity, and deserves to be recognised in terms of general human rights, rather than set aside as something important only to the privileged, particularly as access continues to grow. We would do well to remember that:
[t]he Internet is only that wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in a single connection. It's only vital to the livelihood, social lives, health, civic engagement, education and leisure of hundreds of millions of people (and growing every day). (Doctorow 2008)
As such, I believe that the selection of this particular ‘binding cause’, while certainly following the post-industrial bias of this thesis in general, is not as elitist as it may initially appear. Certainly, hacktivism is a form of protest used by and differentially available to a technological and socio-economic elite, and on what is still a (globally) technologically and socio-economically elite medium. But as access to the Internet is ever-increasingly accepted as a fundamental human right (even if, like many other rights, it is not globally upheld in actuality), hacktivism engaging with this cause is arguably little more elitist than that engaging with many other causes. Furthermore, given that this cause is inherently associated with the very platform upon which hacktivism occurs, and that the increasing ‘mainstreaming’ of unhindered Internet access as a fundamental human right goes some way towards bridging the schism between the trends of mass action and digitally correct hacktivism identified by Jordan and Taylor (2004), it is hoped that it is seen as a considered and logical choice for providing cohesion between the following case studies.
As such, the three cases (as depicted in Tables 2 to 4) were theoretically sampled using Samuel’s typology, and the ‘binding cause’ of the struggle for control over
the current state and evolutionary future of the Internet. No further detail on each case will be provided at this stage, as the analysis of each will necessarily provide a detailed description of them. For now, it is sufficient to see that each case deals primarily with a single category within Samuel’s hacktivist taxonomy, and that in combination, the three cases cover the vast majority of the variations within Samuel’s typology of hacktivism (2004a). Bold entries indicate specificities within cells with multiple variations, and unknown variations are indicated with italics. The tables representing each case are placed so as to avoid breaking across pages.