by Jeff Shantz
Qualitative research is a situated activity where the observer focuses and interprets the world around them. At the heart of the research, audiences are better able to understand the researchers position in society and how they observe others in their daily lives based on their interpretations. When it came to the research process, there were initial assumptions relating to the depiction of hackers. Particular biases that we brought to our research in regards to hacking, whether criminal or non-malicious, are similar to those seen by grey hat hackers. Based on our personal values, attitudes, and beliefs, hacking and hackers are seen as either ethical or non-ethical. For example, if a hacker were financially motivated then we viewed that person as harmful to society as we feel that hacking should be selfless and that it should be conducive to creating something for public use. When hackers strive for revolutionary or political aims, generally we held a favourable view toward their goals as the films idealized propositions that we cheerfully assent to. The process of hacking without permission, to us, appears normalized with technology at societies disposal one way or another and where access to information seems requisite. At any given moment the digital brain—that is the Internet—provides users with a wealth of knowledge. With the aid of hackers, private information and knowledge can be exposed to those who follow and those who listen. It is plausible that this phenomenon deters individual and corporate rights to privacy, although hacks by Anonymous can sometimes stem from a vision to expose the harm that others are doing. Needless to say, the position that one takes against hackers will be highly reliant on their perspective of the act and whether or not they are being victimized in the process. It is one thing to believe that it is “good” or “bad” and it is entirely another to be hacked and victimized as a result. Notwithstanding, hacking is a multifaceted phenomenon that can be of value in the political affairs of life.
Another essential step to conducting proper research is ethical dilemmas. In this case, research was based on a content analysis of audiovisual material. The ethical issues in this process were not directly related to the collecting and coding of data. Gathering the films involved legal transactions and did not require permission of use given that it is publically available. Ethical dilemmas were more critical to the nature of hacking alone and dependent on an individual’s position, whether hacking is ethical or not. For example, hackers in the films and, in reality, are sometimes depicted as being “deviant.” This gives rise to the question of who determines deviant behaviour? If we are to take a legal approach, then the answer is more clear and explicit. Nevertheless, if our ethical position is driven by culture then the question becomes relative vis-à-vis how people conceptualize issues around hacking and hackers. In any case, ethics were not as important in this process as there were no controls that could have been taken to control how the creators in the films portray hackers.
Hacker Portrayals
The coding process in this study generated nine categories revealing the various ways in which hackers are portrayed through film. Initial literal codes yielded eighteen distinct categories but the coding process became more specific as the data was interpreted and as relationships were drawn out. Our aim was to obtain different movie plots to observe how hackers were portrayed and where variety exists among the community. With this goal in mind, we were able to compare and contrast hackers across the board. Once the films were chosen, equal time was allotted to each movie, thus ensuring equal observation, sufficient coding time, and preventing potential favoritism. Data was then collected over a five-day period and each of the films was analyzed in chronological order. This process averaged about two minutes of coding per every one minute of film.
In this following sections, we present the dominant portrayals of hackers through the use of content analysis in descending order from most frequent to least frequent: (a) revolutionary & political—shaping the world; (b) advanced understanding of computers; (c) terrorist—anarchist enemy of the state; (d) fun and entertainment seeking; (e) malicious, harmful intensions and fearless of punishment; (f) curiosity; (g) lack of malicious intensions; (h) financially motivated; and, (i) vengeful.
Revolutionary & Political – Shaping the World
The revolutionary and political hacker was the most recurrent depiction. In relation to computing, hackers of the early twentieth century shaped our contemporary society, owing to the fact that some were more eager than others in bringing their ideas to fruition. Revolutions that hackers undergo throughout these films shapes society and change the course of history in online and offline communities, real and fictional. The film “V for Vendetta” (2005) by James McTeigue is a contemporary film where Libertarians and Anarchists take up revolution against oppressive governments. In this film, a totalitarian regime, reflecting a Nazi-like propagandist state, governs the United Kingdom. With personal liberties infringed upon through the course of censorship, curfew, and substantial cultural material being blacklisted from use, society prepares from a coming insurrection. The protagonist of the film “V” is fed up with the government inflicting hardship and constraint within the community and takes up arms against state. “V” begins as a non-violent demonstrator who believes, “words will always retain their power. Words are the means to meaning for those who will listen; the enunciation of truth.” This demonstrates that he is pensive and searches for an audience to follow him in a time where the masses are apprehensive to tread against powers that be. “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people,” he argues. He suggests that the public has accepted subordination and that collectively they could forcibly overthrow government. This quote aligns with Slevin’s (2003) Anarchist philosophy as “V” holds the state to be immoral and hopes to restore the nation to a utopian form. Ultimately, “V” destroys the Old Bailey, the central criminal court in the city of London, to remind the country of what it has forgotten. He explains that “cruelty, injustice, intolerance and depression” have come to be the norm and that nearly “400 years ago a great citizen [Guy Fawkes] wished to embedded the 5th of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are all more than words; they are perspectives.” This statement is relevant to contemporary society with the group Anonymous, as members fight against oppressive regimes in Egypt, Syria, and the United States (Schwartz 2012a). The later section of that quote makes a fundamental point of how hackers are portrayed: it’s a matter of “perspective.” This idea is essential to how the opponents of “V” view his stratagem. From their point of view, he is an anarchist and a terrorist who is fearless of punishment and a stern opponent to the role that the state wishes he would assume, which may be passivity or conformity. However, he firmly believes that “this country needs more than a building right now, it needs hope,” and is unperturbed by the repercussions of his actions as they are selfless in his mind. Some under the banner of Anonymous assume a similar analogy in their fight for freedom of speech online and offline. More importantly, the film provided the so-called face to the faceless collective with the adoption of the Guy Fawkes masks, unifying affiliation and commitment to their shared cause while also serving to protect individual identity (Waites 2011). We would also argue that the use of Guy Fawkes masks by Anonymous hints at the removal of hierarchy within the collectives’ structure as “members” openly declare opposition to authority, believing that the current state of affairs is undesirable.
In the film in “Swordfish” (2001) by Dominic Sena, the revolutionary and political hacker is presented in the back-story of protagonist Gabriel Shear (John Travolta). Shear argues his political beliefs forthright, believing that “some men are put here to shape destiny, to protect freedom, despite the atrocities they must commit. I am one of those men.” This quote reveals that the means to an end are not always virtuous but necessary. While “V” believes “violence can be used for good; justice,” Shear’s thinks he is “at war with anyone who infringes on America’s freedom.” The
two, however, differ substantially as Gabriel possesses alternative motives, be it financial. In Iain Softley’s “Hackers” (1995), the creator suggests that hackers “exist[s] without nationality, skin colour, or religious bias.” In reality, this statement is not true as members of Anonymous openly declare their disgust in the Church of Scientology (Dodd 2011), and more recently the Westboro Baptist Church (Stryker, 2011). The quote reveals that hackers are essentially stateless suggesting concepts of society related to anarchist perspectives (Taylor 1982, 6). By taking an anarchist perspective, the excerpt aligns with Merriam-Webster’s (2011) definition of anarchy: “a state of lawless or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.” In the context of the film, it is plausible that some hackers believe that a utopian society is one in which individuals enjoy complete freedom without government; as well, certain institutions and systems that are seen as oppressive (like the Church of Scientology and the Westboro Baptist Church who are both engaged in controversial issues).
Advanced Understanding of Computers
For hackers, computer skillfulness is essential to their ability to communicate their message as they have a plethora of technological delivery systems at their disposal. In “Swordfish” (2001), Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) exclaims to Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman), “with a laptop and a phone line you can make God look like a thirteen-year-old with a stack of Playboys and lack of imagination”, suggesting that he is a technological geniuses with remarkably skillful. The comical excerpt gives an enormous amount of credit to hackers with the use of language and implies that skilled hackers are akin to a Supreme Being. In contrast, enemies and opponents of hackers do not describe them with the same positive remarks and rather discredit their work to being “no different than any other terrorist.” In Lawrence Lasker’s “WarGames” (1983), computer skillfulness is put to its limits when protagonist David Lightman (Mathew Broderick) accidently accesses a United States military supercomputer—the War Operation Plan Response (WOPR)—capable of causing nuclear war and starting World War III. In the film, hacker David Lightman begins by engaging in phreaking, an activity that garners unpermitted access to telecommunication technology. With his skillful tactic, he is able to “call every number in California for free.” In the midst of this process, Lightman gains entry to the WOPR and accidently runs a program nearly causing a nuclear war between Soviet Russia and the United States. Ironically, the film portrays the hacker as being extremely virtuous, however, he uses a Macintosh computer in film that was not capable of hacking at the time. Furthermore, Apple computers are rarely used today for hacking purposes since they are not part of the open-source software. Lastly, in the film “Hackers” (1995), the computer hackers are described as being like a “samurai,” a “keyboard cowboy,” as well as warriors thus implying power and determination in their dexterity in the use of computers. Although the films are fictional in their depiction of their skills, it is no surprise that real life hackers perform with considerable virtuosity as they navigate throughout the technological landscape.
Terrorist–Anarchist Enemy of the State
A common theme present at the forefront of the data was terrorism. Likewise, a hacktivist is both a hacker and an activist who utilizes hacking to promote social or political cause. The parallels between the two are similar in the sense of having an awareness and action related to their ideologically driven beliefs. The difference in the use of language—whether described as “hacktivists” or “terrorists”—most likely has to do with a matter of perspective and whether someone has a favorable or unfavorable view. To some, their actions may be seen as heroic and noble, whereas others will see the person’s attempts as acts of treason and anarchistic. When “V” in “V for Vendetta” destroyed the Old Bailey, High Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt) exclaims, “I want this terrorist found, and I want him to understand what terror really means.” This character in this example explicitly mentions his perspective of the hacker. Ironically, he reveals that state acts of terrorism are acceptable. Sutler even goes so far as say that V is a “psychotic terrorist” and that they “can’t except him to act like [them],” revealing that hackers do not fit within the supposed functionality of society. In “Swordfish” Jobson describes Shear as “no different than any other terrorist,” implying that although a hacker may view himself or herself as a revolutionary, a political activist or a hacktivist, its adversaries rarely characterize them from this perspective.
Malicious, Harmful Intentions and Fearless of Punishment
The fourth most popular portrayal of hackers in film is that they are malicious, have harmful intensions, and are fearless of punishment. In the film “V for Vendetta” examples of this portrayal are seen within the opening scenes when V destroys the Old Bailey. The act is committed intentionally to “remind the country of what it has forgotten.” Terrorism is intentionally used to convey his message to the public and seemingly carries forth his agenda without fear of punishment. In “WarGames” (1983) Lightman, and intelligent and thoughtful hacker, explains, “you can only go to jail if you’re over 18.” The protagonist throughout the film unintentionally engages in harmful acts of hacking, however, his lack of mens rea does not discount the harmful and malicious nature of the act. In reality, this theme resonates among many members of Anonymous as some are unafraid of persecution as they believe what they are doing is necessary for the benefit of us all (Gallagher 2012). Moreover, many hackers engage in illegal activities that, to some, may be seen as moral and just. For example, operations under the banner of Anonymous have targeted Jihadist websites, pedophiles, and child pornography as they realize that police agencies take years and have to follow legal process along the way (Mlot 2012). Subsequently, some hackers are doing police work without fear of repercussion because many in society might agree that their aims are virtuous, thus not persecuting their actions.
Fun and Entertainment Seeking
This category was the most surprising in the research in terms of the lack of examples where hackers are engaging in fun or entertainment seeking. It was not anticipated that there would only be a handful of examples in light of Orly Turgeman-Goldschmidt’s (2005) article “Hackers’ Accounts: Hacking as a Social Entertainment.” In her study, the researcher was able to form ten categories of accounts used by hacker to “justify the wide range of computer offences they commit in software piracy, hacking, and phreaking” (12). The most notable account was “fun, thrill, and excitement, which provided a comprehensive understanding of the hacking phenomenon as hackers offer society new rules for play: a form of entertainment. Nevertheless, this theme did not reveal itself as often in the research process. It was anticipated that this would be the most popular portrayal given that powerful hacking collectives, like Anonymous, begun with simple pranks on 4chan—the imageboard site where the collective originated in 2003—and later engaging in hacking simply “for the lulz” (Williams 2011). In fact, the group was not renowned for widespread hacktivism until much later in 2008 with “Project Chanology.” The operation was a protest against the Church of Scientology who attempted to censor an internal video of Tom Cruise that had leaked onto YouTube. Subsequently, Anonymous hacked and defaced the Church of Scientology’s website and it was here where the world got a glimpse of their hacktivism and ominous signoff on blogs, websites, and elsewhere seen today exclaiming, “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us” (Olson 2012, 4).
In the movie “Sneakers,” the film opens with two hackers committing pranks and phreaking, ultimately leading one of the hackers to be apprehended by the FBI. In the final scenes of the film, the arrested hacker mistakenly believes that everything he was doing was for revolutionary and political purpose, whereas the other who was not arrested discredits him suggesting that “it wasn’t a journey, it was a prank.” This excerpt reveals that the matter of perspectives lies heavily in the eyes of the beholder. While one black-hat hacker believed that they should continue to enga
ge in malicious hacks, the white-hat hacker wishes that it had never escalated past mere pranks. When Lightman is apprehended by the FBI in the film “WarGames,” an agent asks him why he would set the WOPR to run a program potential causing World War III, to which one agent responds, “he does these sorts of things for fun.” This demonstrates that his intentions were non-malicious and that his hacking motives solely were to play a game, and he unknowingly hacked into a powerful military computer.
Curiosity
Without doubt, hackers engage in various activities out of mere curiosity. In the article “Hackers as Tricksters of the Digital Age: Creativity in Hacking Culture,” author Svetlana Nikitina (2012) presents an examination of hacking as it relates to American popular culture and service economy. In this article, Nikitina portrays hackers as being a “universal changeling” (2012, 136), a person who subverts clearly established hierarchies and crosses all boundaries as a matter of course. In order to illustrate her findings, the author makes parallels between hackers and trickster gods in myths. The reason for this connection is that both hackers and tricksters offer a perspective on divinity that combines goodness and wickedness (Nikitina 2012, 135). In the study, the author presents four categories for comparison for a hacker-trickster: the motif of duplicity (propensity for lying and deceit), the motif of boundary crossing (propensity for long-distance travel and connection making), the motif of subversion of power (propensity for pranks and deconstruction of power hierarchies), and the motif of creativity and craftsmanship (propensity for finding creative solutions and making original discoveries) (Nikitina 2012, 136). In summary, Nikitina presents hackers as having an “addiction to knowledge, love of technology, and boundary-crossing for its own sake” (2012, 146), suggesting that hackers are curious by nature.