Can hacktivists influence foreign policy?

The rise of social unrest and violent conflicts across the world has sparked a surge of volunteer hackers, or hacktivists, battling on the digital frontline and using technology to move forward political and social movements, draw attention and support to their cause or the unethical conduct of their opponents, and express solidarity with a group of people or organisations. But beyond the immediate psychological impact of these highly publicised and targeted attacks, can hacktivists truly influence foreign policy and help accelerate peace processes? Are there any dangers to the activity of hacktivists? If so, what are the collateral damages?

What we see today as hacktivism isn’t new. Today’s politically or socially motivated DDoS attacks are simply sophisticated versions of an activity that is as old as war itself: sabotage. But socially charged conflicts such as the Ukraine-Russia war or the women-led anti-regime protests in Iran have unleashed a mobilisation of patriotic hacktivists at the international level united by a sense of mission. Hacktivist groups like Anonymous, the pro-Russian Killnet group, the Belarusian Cyber Partisans, and Arvin Club, a ransomware outfit with a popular Telegram channel that often shares information related to data leaks, have all taken sides in the conflict. Cyber Partisans made the first move when Russia began moving tens of thousands of troops, tanks and armoured vehicles to the Ukrainian border and Belarus. They targeted the country’s railway network and encrypted its servers, databases, and workstations to prevent the movement of Russian forces inside the country. Weeks after the war started, Anonymous activists hacked into the network of Roskomnadzor, Russia’s federal service for supervision of communications, information technology, and mass media, aiming to expose the agency’s attempts to control the war narrative and disseminate fake information to Russian citizens. The activists reportedly stole 360,000 emails and files from the agency’s network and later doxed them online. Since then, other groups such as Squad303 have carried out several cyberattacks against Russian targets. In Iran, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini while in morality police custody in September has led to the largest wave of protests against the regime in its 43-year history and the brutal torture, murder and arrest of tens of protesters. On 8 October, digital activists supporting protesters hacked a state television live news broadcast, superimposing crosshairs and flames on the face of supreme leader Ali Khamenei with the message “the blood of our youths is on your hands”. The hack interrupted footage of Khamenei meeting state officials was claimed by the Edalat-e Ali (Ali’s Justice) hacktivist group, which added a slogan on the top right-hand corner of the screen: “Join us and rise up.”

In an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, hacktivism has been praised as a force for good, a driver of change and even as helping accelerate peace processes. But just how much impact can hacktivists have on policy and military decision during conflict.

Hacktivists and those battling on the digital frontline are undoubtedly having a part in the political discourse taking place by pilling pressure on Western governments to review their foreign policy decisions towards Iran

Eighty years ago, the modern equivalent to a hacking attack changed the fate of Europe. During the Second World War in Europe, the Lorenz decrypts provided information that changed the course of the war and saved lives at critical junctures like the D-Day landings. After the war, General Eisenhower said that Bletchley Park’s attack on Lorenz had shortened the fighting by at least two years. Today, hacking continues to change the course of wars. In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the move by Cyber Partisans reflects how a hacktivist group acted with the aim of interfering in real-time military manoeuvres and disrupting troop movement. In Iran, hacktivists and those battling on the digital frontline are undoubtedly having a part in the political discourse taking place by pilling pressure on Western governments to review their foreign policy decisions towards Iran. For forty years, the Iranian regime has been allowed to survive thanks to a ‘mutual understanding’ with the West that reached a pinnacle when the Obama administration effectively legitimized the Iranian regime. But winds of change are blowing and even the Biden administration has now started to distance itself from talks of how to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. In the early days of the protests, pressure by hacktivists led to the US adjusting its sanctions over the supply of communications technology to Iran to help Iranians evade online surveillance and support the free flow of information to people inside Iran. As protests gained momentum and demonstrators were violently quashed by the security forces, hacktivists took on the role of exposing the Iranian regime’s brutality, therefore gathering public support for protesters, and making it increasingly difficult for the regime to be rehabilitated within international institutions. Meanwhile, widespread DDoS attacks have continued to take down the websites of the Central Bank of Iran and several other banks, often exposing the extent of corruption by government officials and their families. Therefore, there is no doubt that hacktivists are playing a key role in this change of mood in the West.

The risks of playing a digital warfare

But hacktivism doesn’t come without its fair share of risks and potential collateral damages. Indeed, in an increasingly fragmented and multi-polar world order, we risk seeing a growing desperation among hacktivist groups and cybercriminals to play a major role in ensuring their side wins the information war. If we add the fact that many of the hacktivist groups are more focused on building self-reputation and receiving credit for supporting one side of the conflict, than to cause real damage to the other side of the conflict, we face a high risk of unintended consequences of lone-wolf cyber activity. For example, what happens if Anonymouss attacks accidentally damages critical infrastructure such as a hospital? Or what happens if IT Army of Ukraine – another pro-Ukrainian hacktivist group – attacks accidentally damages an airport? Furthermore, the fact that hacktivists tend to work as a decentralised network, many of whom have not received any formal training in cyber warfare, leads to an increased risk of significant unexpected collateral damage. In other words, hacktivism could be counterproductive and has the potential to do harm. UK authorities have already warned amateur hackers not to join the digital warfare in Ukraine amid fears that activists could be breaking the law or launch attacks that might spiral out of control. For example, there is a risk of escalation if regimes such as Russia’s or Iran’s use a hacktivist attack as an excuse and claim that it is proof of the West’s involvement in the conflict.