“I Did What I Believe Is Right”: A Study of Neutralizations among Anonymous Operation Participants

Abstract

Our knowledge of online activists or hacktivists is growing, but it is still far from complete. The reasons why some of these individuals violate computer laws or how they justify their behavior remains elusive, yet one particular framework that lends itself to understanding a hacker or hacktivist's belief system is Sykes and Matza's (1957) neutralization theory. The present study involved a content analysis of publicly available commentary found online and made by participants in Anonymous operations against United States targets from 2008-2013. Over 13,000 words were analyzed, and of the 384 passages of text and phrases, roughly 62% of passages contained some type of neutralizing statement, whereas 38% of passages were coded as containing no neutralization technique. Among the 238 passages and phrases of neutralizations, over half contained neutralizations that reflected condemnation of the condemners, appeal to a higher moral principle, and denial of the victim. Another important finding was that several participants in Anonymous operations justified their actions as simple acts of protest or civil disobedience. While this study sheds light on how hacktivists may justify their behavior, it also paves the way for exploring other neutralizing techniques and signals the need for developing crime-specific neutralizations.

We are all (not) Anonymous: Individual- and country-level correlates of support for and opposition to hacktivism

“…Related to this point, it is important that these actors are perceived as useful in governing and/or maintaining accountability. Such perceptions are often touted in publicized hacktivist messages where their actions are framed as legitimate (DeTardo-Bora et al, 2019). Supportive of past literature (Holt et al, 2017b; PytlikZillig et al, 2015), believing hacktivists have utilitarian motives was associated with increased support for hacktivist actions.…”