Reading questions for:
Manion and Goodrum, Terrorism or Civil Disobedience: Toward a Hacktivist Ethic.
CS-80--Senior Seminar
Fall '01

Trevor Moss (with help filling in the form)

October 22, 2001

  1. Describe Manion and Goodrum's (for now on called M&G) definition of a "hacktivist" or electronic political activist. How is this a form of civil disobedience?

  2. According to M&G what to hacktivist aim to confront?

  3. What, according to M&G, is the difference between symbolic and direct acts of civil disobedience?

  4. Describe how hacktivism can be described as a legitimate form of civil disobedience.

  5. Why might hacktivism, if a legitimate form of civil disobedience, hold harsh penalties as opposed to non-electronic forms of civil disobedience?

  6. Why might companies who try to privatize the internet be intimidated by hacktivism?

  7. What is the difference between a hacktivist and a cyberterrorist? How can one differentiate the two?

  8. Should the laws regarding hacktivism be loosened? Explain your answer.

  9. How does M&G's notion of hacktivism fare under the various ethical frameworks we studied in Chapter 1, in particular: Johnson's ``three rules'' (Ethics On-Line), Moor's ``reason within relative frameworks'' (Reason, Relativity and Responsibility...), his Just Consequentialism..., Brey's Disclosive Computer Ethics, and Adam's ``feminist ethics'' (Gender and...) ?

About this document ...


Reading questions for:
Manion and Goodrum, Terrorism or Civil Disobedience: Toward a Hacktivist Ethic.
CS-80--Senior Seminar
Fall '01

This document was generated using the LaTeX2HTML translator Version 2K.1beta (1.47)

Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, Nikos Drakos, Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
Copyright © 1997, 1998, 1999, Ross Moore, Mathematics Department, Macquarie University, Sydney.

The command line arguments were:
latex2html hacktivist

The translation was initiated by Jim Rogers on 2001-10-22


Jim Rogers 2001-10-22