Abstract
This first, introductory Chapter, aims to draw a technological and cultural link between the activities of the early hackers and the actions of digital dissidents in modern times that are taking place in different parts of the world. An initial analysis is devoted to the origins of the hacker tradition; is then described, in a general sense, the current landscape of digital resistance and liberation technologies. The themes that are covered are the importance of technology in episodes of the current political rebellion, the controversy over the role of Facebook and Twitter during recent political events (the so-called Twitter Revolutions), the problem of the digital divide and of different technological conditions in the world and, finally, the use of computer technologies for the well-being of society and for the creation of a new public sphere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this book I will use the term “hacker” exclusively to indicate subjects with great computer skills, or dedicated to a creative use of technology, without criminal intentions. To indicate criminal activities carried out with the help of the computer, or against a computer system, I will use the expression “computer criminals”. For a preliminary historical overview of hacking and the first Internet projects see, inter alia, Rosenzweig’s essay concerning “wizards, bureaucrats, warriors and hackers” (Rosenzweig 1998). The author outlines how the profound and complex development of the Internet cannot be divorced from the idiosyncratic and personal visions of those scientists and bureaucrats whose sweat and dedication launched the project, and made it real. He identifies those hackers as originating from three different frameworks: (i) from the social history of the field of computer science, (ii) from the Cold War scientific and technical apparatus, which took advantage of massive government funding for computers and networking as tools for fighting nuclear and conventional wars, and (iii) from the countercultural radicalism that sought to redirect technology toward a more decentralized, and non-hierarchical, vision of society (Rosenzweig 1998: 1552).
- 2.
Among the many sources, including books, academic essays, documentaries and movies that describe the activities of the hackers in California in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the reader might like to consider the following: Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires (1996), an influential documentary written and directed by Robert X. Cringely; the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999), directed by Martyn Burke, based on an accurate Freiberger and Swaine book (Freiberger and Swaine 2000), the documentary In Search of the Valley, profiling many of the founders of the so-called Silicon Valley, and the book by Livingston on the “founding fathers” of the information technology world (Livingston 2007). See also the interesting Pfaffenberger’s critical approach regarding the non revolution of personal computer revolution (Pfaffenberger 1988): the scholar remarks that for the phone phreakers, hackers, and (later) early personal computer users “the goal was not to overthrow the System, but rather the more conservative aim of gaining entry to the System, helping to improve it, and ultimately gaining prestige and self-esteem by winning its approval” (Pfaffenberger 1988: 41). The author’s conclusions are clear: personal computing has become impersonal computing, in which the machine, that was supposed to foster autonomy and individual creativity, is reduced to serving as a mere mainframe terminal (Pfaffenberger 1988: 47).
- 3.
See Searle’s studies regarding campus wars (Searle 1971), the movie Berkeley in the Sixties (1990) and the article by Hauben on participatory democracy and online activities (Hauben 1996). As Turner notes, both the New Left and the counterculture hoped to transform the technocratic bureaucracies that, in their view, had brought Americans the Cold War and the conflict in Vietnam (Turner 2005: 493).
- 4.
See Sect. 3.7.
- 5.
See the study by Warf and Grimes regarding counterhegemonic discourses and the Internet (Warf and Grimes 1997): the authors identify the Internet as a terrain of contested philosophies and politics and of confrontation, and a place that can also sustain counterhegemonic discourses, challenging established systems of domination, legitimating and publicizing political claims by the powerless and marginalized. Increasingly easy access to the e-mail and the web allows many politically disenfranchised groups to reach three important targets: (i) communicate with like-minded, or sympathetic, audiences, (ii) publicize causes often overlooked by the mainstream media, and (iii) offer perspectives frequently stifled by the conservative corporate ownership of newspapers, television, and other media outlets (Warf and Grimes 1997: 260).
- 6.
An interesting introductory study regarding the use of mobile phones for the purpose of resistance in Belarus and Serbia was written, inter alia, by Miard (2009). For a global overview see, also, the work by Heinzelman, Brown and Meier concerning the use of mobile technology in crowdsourcing and peace mapping contexts (Heinzelman et al. 2011), Salazar and Soto on the Mexican experience of monitoring elections and crowdsourcing (Salazar and Soto 2011) as well as the research by Korenblum and Andemariam related to cellular phones use in conflict zones (Korenblum and Andemariam 2011).
- 7.
See, inter alia, an essay by Whitty regarding soldier photography of detainee abuse in Iraq (Whitty 2010). See Sect. 2.3.2.4.
- 8.
A striking Egyptian case involved Khaled Said, a young boy killed by Egyptian police in 2010. The scene was captured with a mobile phone; the resulting photos, once they were circulated, raised vocal protests worldwide that led to the arrest of the perpetrators of the brutal police action (Etling et al. 2010: 3).
- 9.
See the Critical Art Ensemble definition of the term digital resistance (Critical Art Ensemble 2001, 2000), the studies by Hands concerning dissent, resistance and rebellion in a digital culture (Hands 2001) and by Russell exploring digital resistance issues (Russell 2005). See, also, Sect. 2.3.2.3.
- 10.
See the Critical Art Ensemble definition of the concept of electronic civil disobedience (Critical Art Ensemble 1995), the studies by Wray on the some topic (Wray 1998) and by Klang on online digital disobedience (Klang 2004). Klang outlines, in his study, several criminal activities which are used as active forms of Internet based protest. The author describes actions such as unsolicited e-mail (and whether a political protest message can fall under the definition of communication for the purposes of direct marketing), e-mail bombing (and the possibility of limiting the legitimate user’s access to or use of a computer system, with criminal consequences), hacking, web page defacement and denial of service attacks (Klang 2004: 75, 76, 77).
- 11.
See the interesting definition of liberation technology by Diamond: a tool that enables citizens to report news, expose wrongdoing, express opinions, mobilize protest, monitor elections, scrutinize government, deepen participation, and expand the horizons of freedom (Diamond 2010: 70).
- 12.
Purely as an example, see the two main provisions of a censorial draft law proposed in Italy in 2009, and fortunately dismissed, although the same ratio is recognizable in many other proposals, by an Italian Deputy, On. Gabriella Carlucci, aiming to make Internet the “land of freedom, rights and duties”. The text of the bill is: “It is forbidden to publish online or to facilitate the transmission over the Internet of content in any form (text, sound, audiovisual and information technology, including databases) anonymously” (Article 1), and “With regard to the offenses of defamation, all rules relating to the press apply, without exception” (Article 2). Italian Draft Law Proposal n. 2195. http://www.camera.it/126?Pdl=2195. Accessed 18 October 2011 (translation by the author).
- 13.
- 14.
See, inter alia, Peckham’s interesting study concerning the conflict between Scientology, the secret of publications and its Internet critics (Peckham 1998). The author correctly notes that the radical democracy of the Internet places more importance on popular opinion and attempts to sway disinterested bystanders. Peckham observes that, since the real authority of the Internet lies in the strength of numbers and popular appeals, the struggle for popular legitimacy is more important for on-line movement/countermovement conflict than lobbying a government for legislation. If a movement is to meet its goals on the Internet, the scholar writes, then it must appeal to the only real authority that exists: Internet users (Peckham 1998: 321).
- 15.
Consider, for example, the global surveillance controversy generated by the Echelon project (Radden Keefe 2005). See, also, the European Parliament report on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications at the address http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed 6 November 2011.
- 16.
As stated by Reporters Sans Frontières, http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Internet_enemies.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2011.
- 17.
For a preliminary definition, and an illuminating introduction, on key issues related to the digital divide, see the study by Guillén and Suárez concerning the economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national Internet use (Guillén and Suárez 2005). They provide a brief explanation of the causes of digital divide: differences in Internet use across countries are fundamentally related to economic variables, such as pro capita income and the cost of access (Guillén and Suárez 2005: 682). Interesting, also, is Wallsten’s analysis of regulation and Internet use in developing countries and the gap between rich and poor countries in the diffusion of information technology, especially Internet access (Wallsten 2005). The section concerning Internet Service Providers (ISPs) regulation is quite topical: the author remarks that countries that require ISPs to get formal approval before beginning operations, have fewer Internet users and Internet hosts (Wallsten 2005: 519). See also Hatem Ali’s study on the power of social media in developing nations (Hatem Ali 2011), Graham’s considerations regarding the spatialities of the digital divide (Graham 2011) and Warschauer’s remarks on digital divide in Egypt (Warschauser 2003). The study by Coeur De Roy concerning the African challenge (Coeur De Roy 1997) highlights the importance of electronic communication networks in encouraging the development processes in Africa. For a more focused overview on typical digital divide issues, see Attewell’s study concerning the first and second digital divide (Attewell 2001), Natriello’s essay regarding the contribution of the sociology of education in bridging the second digital divide (Natriello 2001), the Wagner, Bundorf, Singer and Baker study concerning free Internet access, digital divide and health information (Wagner et al. 2005), Hyde-Clarke’s significant research concerning the urban digital divide, which includes a comparative analysis of Internet cafés in Johannesburg (Hyde-Clarke 2006), Prem Subramony’s innovative study regarding the digital divide in the Alaskan Arctic (Prem Subramony 2007) and the essay by Martin and Robinson regarding the main social aspects of the digital divide (Martin and Robinson 2007).
- 18.
BBC News announced, in June 2012, that remote rural communities of Congo may soon have mobile coverage thanks to an International collaboration between Pan-African telecom provider RascomStar-QAF, Viasat and UK-based ip.access plan. The aim is to use small cells (called “picocells”) to ensure coverage in the Congo’s rainforest and to install 50 mini base stations around Congo. Each cell will then create a private wireless network in a particular area. (BBC 2012).
- 19.
See Sect. 6.2.2.
- 20.
An interesting essay by Fitzgerald explains the history of the United States trade policy on blacklisting and boycotts and the extraterritorial application of United States economic sanctions and trade controls, especially focusing on Cuba (Fitzgerald 1998).
- 21.
See Sect. 6.2.7.
- 22.
See Sect. 6.3.1.
- 23.
See Sect. 6.3.2.
- 24.
In Internet at the address http://opennet.net/. Accessed 10 October 2011.
- 25.
See the complete text of the cablegram at the address http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=08HAVANA660&hl=farrar+net+havana. Accessed 10 October 2011. See, also, 6.2.2.
- 26.
We refer in particular to: the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; the 1982 Declaration on the Freedom of Expression and Information of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe; the 1999 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the 2007 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
- 27.
See, inter alia, Uzbekistan’s 2007 Media Law, amended in 2010 to oblige web sites to register and to provide information on their employees and copies of their articles to the government (see Sect. 6.2.9.2). See, also, the similar legal framework in Iran, with the Press Law of 1996 (see Sect. 6.2.6).
- 28.
On the topic of self-censorship see, inter alia, the enlightening study by Hayes, Scheufele and Huge on non participation as self-censorship in a different political framework (Hayes et al. 2006) and on the concern that, in a polarized opinion climate, people may refrain from participating in publicly observable political activities that make them vulnerable to scrutiny and criticism by others who hold opinions that differ from their own (Hayes et al. 2006: 259). The authors explained also that in a polarized, hostile political climate, some people decide not to participate in public forms of opinion expression because there may be negative social ramifications of doing so: “when we let other people know what we think, we set ourselves up for scrutiny, criticism, and perhaps even social ostracism” (Hayes et al. 2006: 263–264).
- 29.
For example, the Internet shut-down in Burma during the widely followed protests led by Buddhist monks in 2007 (see Sect. 6.2.1), and, prior to that, the martial law declared by the King in Nepal in 2005 with the shut-down of Internet connections and mobile phones lines. See, also, the Internet shut-down in Egypt in 2011 (see Sect 6.3.1). Goldstein and Rotich also cite an episode of tentative SMS shut-down in Kenya: as messages of hate extended their reach into the Kenyan population, Michael Joseph, the CEO of Safaricom, Kenya’s largest mobile phone provider, was approached, the scholars write, by a government official who was considering shutting down the SMS system. Goldstein and Rotich write that Joseph convinced the government not to shut down the SMS system, and instead to allow SMS providers to send out messages of peace and calm, which Safaricom did to all nine million of its customers (Goldstein and Rotich 2008: 5).
- 30.
See Chap. 5.
- 31.
See Chap. 4.
- 32.
For a general introduction to the regulatory framework of cyberspace law in Italy, see Ziccardi 2011.
- 33.
- 34.
For a first, qualified idea of this debate, see, inter alia, the studies of Beutz Land on networked activism (Beutz Land 2009), of Morozov on the revolution in Iran (Morozov 2009), of Comninos on cyber crackdowns (Comninos 2011), of Liste Muñoz and de Soysa on political repression in the digital era (Liste Muñoz and de Soysa 2011), of Hatem Ali on the power of social media in critical contexts (Hatem Ali 2011) and of Hashemi-Najafabadi on information revolution in Muslim societies (Hashemi-Najafabadi 2010).
- 35.
See Sect. 6.3.2.
- 36.
For the concept of public sphere see the studies by Habermas (Habermas 1964). The public sphere is “[…] first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body. […] Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions about matters of general interest” (Habermas 1964: 49). See, also, Sect. 2.1.3.
- 37.
In Internet at the address http://nawaat.org/portail/. Accessed 15 November 2011.
- 38.
See the EFF press release regarding the Pioneer Award at the address https://www.eff.org/press/releases/us-senator-encryption-innovator-and-tunisian-blogging-group-win-eff-pioneer-awards. Accessed 23 November 2011.
References
Aron, Jacob. 2010. WikiLeaks wars: Digital conflict spills into real life. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827913.400-wikileaks-wars-digital-conflict-spills-into-real-life.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2011.
Attewell, Paul. 2001. The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education 74(3): 252–259.
Bannister, Frank, and Regina Connolly. 2010. The trouble with transparency: A critical view of openness in e-government. http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/ipp2010/system/files/IPP2010_Bannister_Connolly_Paper.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2011.
BBC. 2012. Remote parts of Congo may soon get mobile coverage. 5 June 2012. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18333727. Accessed 11 June 2012.
Beutz Land, Molly. 2009. Networked activism. Harvard Human Rights Journal 22: 205–243. http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/land.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2011.
Comninos, Alex. 2011.Twitter revolutions and cyber crackdowns – User-generated content and social networking in the Arab spring and beyond. http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/AlexComninos_MobileInternet.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2011.
De Roy Olivier, Coeur. 1997. The African challenge: Internet, networking and connectivity activities in a developing environment. Third World Quarterly 18(5): 883–898.
Diamond, Larry. 2010. Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy 21: 69–83.
Ensemble, Critical Art. 1995. Electronic civil disobedience: And other unpopular ideas. New York: Autonomedia.
Ensemble, Critical Art. 2000. Recombinant theatre and digital resistance. TDR 44(4): 151–166.
Ensemble, Critical Art. 2001. Digital resistance: Explorations in tactical media. New York: Autonomedia.
Etling, Bruce, Robert Faris, and John Palfrey. 2010. Political change in the digital age: The fragility and promise of online organizing. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4609956. Accessed 14 Nov 2011.
Fitzgerald, Peter L. 1998. Pierre goes online. Blacklisting and secondary Boycotts in U.S. Trade policy. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 31: 1–96.
Freiberger, Paul, and Michael Swaine. 2000. Fire in the valley: The making of the personal computer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goldstein, Joshua, and Juliana Rotich. 2008. Digitally networked technology in Kenya’s 2007–2008 post-election crisis. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Goldstein&Rotich_Digitally_Networked_Technology_Kenyas_Crisis.pdf.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2011.
Graham, Mark. 2011. Time machines and virtual portals. The spatialities of the digital divide. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 211–227.
Guillén, Mauro F., and Sandra L. Suárez. 2005. Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces 84(2): 681–708.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1964. The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique 3: 49–55.
Hands, Joss. 2001. @ is for activism: Dissent, resistance and rebellion in a digital culture. London: Pluto Press.
Hashemi-Najafabadi, S.Adel. 2010. Has the information revolution in Muslim societies created new publics? Muslim World Journal of Human Rights 7(1). doi:doi:10.2202/1554-4419.1187.
Hatem Ali, Amir. 2011. The power of social media in developing nations: New tools for closing the global digital divide and beyond. Harvard Human Rights Journal 24: 185–219. http://www.mobileactive.org/files/file_uploads/185-220.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2011.
Hauben, Michael. 1996. Participatory democracy from the 1960s and SDS into the future on-line. http://opencollector.org/history/homebrew/netdemocracy-60s.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2011.
Hayes, Andrew F., Dietram A. Scheufele, and Michael E. Huge. 2006. Nonparticipation as self-censorship: Publicly observable political activity in a polarized opinion climate. Political Behavior 28(3): 259–283.
Heinzelman, J., R. Brown, and P. Meier. 2011. Mobile technology, crowdsourcing and peace mapping: New theory and applications for conflict management. In Mobile technologies for conflict management. Online dispute resolution, governance, participation, ed. Marta Poblet, 39–53. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
Hyde-Clarke, N. 2006. The urban digital divide: A comparative analysis of internet cafés in Johannesburg, South Africa. Review of African Political Economy 33(107): 150–156.
Khoury, Doreen. 2011. Social media and the revolutions: How the internet revived the Arab public sphere and digitalized activism. In people’s power – the Arab world in revolt. Perspectives special issue 80–85. http://www.lb.boell.org/downloads/02_Perspectives_ME_2011_The_Arab_World_in_Revolt.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2011.
Klang, Mathias. 2004. Civil disobedience online. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 2: 75–83.
Korenblum, J., and B. Andemariam. 2011. Cell phones and conflict zones: How souktel uses SMS technology to empower and aid in conflict-affected communities. In Mobile technologies for conflict management. Online dispute resolution, governance, participation, ed. Marta Poblet, 67–78. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
Lash, Bob. 2006. Memoir of a homebrew computer club member. http://www.bambi.net/bob/homebrew.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2011.
Lessig, Lawrence. 2009. Against transparency. The perils of openness in government. http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency. Accessed 6 Nov 2011.
Levy, Steven. 1984. Hackers – Heroes of the computer revolution. New York: Delta Book.
Liste Muñoz, Lucia, and Indra de Soysa. 2011. The blog versus big brother: New and old information technology and political repression, 1980–2006. The International Journal of Human Rights 8: 1315–1330.
Livingston, Jessica. 2007. Founders at work: Stories of startups’ early days. New York: Apress.
Martin, Steven P., and John P. Robinson. 2007. The income digital divide: Trends and predictions for levels of internet. Social Problems 54(1): 1–22.
Miard, Fabien. 2009. Mobile phones as a tool for civil resistance. Case studies from Serbia and Belarus. http://www.digiactive.org/wp-content/uploads/research3_miard.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2011.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2009. Iran: Downside to the “Twitter Revolution”. Dissent 56(4): 10–14.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2011. The net delusion: The dark side of internet freedom. New York: PublicAffairs.
Natriello, Gary. 2001. Bridging the second digital divide: What can sociologists of education contribute? Sociology of Education 74(3): 260–265.
Papandrea, Mary-Rose. 2011. The publication of national security information in the digital age. Journal of National Security Law & Policy 5: 119–130. http://www.jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/03_Papandrea.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov 2011.
Pattaro, Enrico, and Giovanni Sartor. 2002. Norms, laws and the internet. http://www.ieid.org/congreso/ponencias/sartorpattaro.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2011.
Peckham, Michael. 1998. New dimensions of social movement/countermovement interaction: The case of scientology and its internet critics. The Canadian Journal of Sociology 23(4): 317–347.
Pfaffenberger, Bryan. 1988. The social meaning of the personal computer: Or, why the personal computer revolution was no revolution. Anthropological Quarterly 61(1): 39–47.
Prem Subramony, Deepak. 2007. Understanding the complex dimensions of the digital divide: Lessons learned in the Alaskan Arctic. The Journal of Negro Education 76(1): 57–67.
Radden Keefe, Patrick. 2005. Chatter. Dispatches from the secret world of global eavesdropping. New York: Random House.
Rosenzweig, Roy. 1998. Wizards, bureaucrats, warriors, and hackers: Writing the history of the internet. The American Historical Review 103(5): 1530–1552.
Russell, Adrienne. 2005. Editorial: Exploring digital resistance. New Media & Society 7: 513–515.
Salazar, O., and J. Soto. 2011. How to crowdsource election monitoring in 30 days: The Mexican experience. In Mobile technologies for conflict management. Online dispute resolution, governance, participation, ed. Marta Poblet, 55–66. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
Searle, John R. 1971. The campus war: A sympathetic look at the University in Agony. New York: World Pub. Co.
Sterling, Bruce. 1992. The Hacker Crackdown – Law and disorder on the electronic frontier. New York: Bantam.
Turner, Fred. 2005. Where the counterculture met the new economy. The WELL and the origins of virtual community. Technology and Culture 46(3): 485–512. http://www.stanford.edu/∼fturner/Turner%20Tech%20&%20Culture%2046%203.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2011.
Turner, Fred. 2006. From counterculture to cyberculture. Stewart Brand, the whole earth network, and the rise of digital utopianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wagner, Todd H., M.Kate Bundorf, Sara J. Singer, and Laurence C. Baker. 2005. Free internet access, the digital divide, and health information. Medical Care 43(4): 415–420.
Wallsten, Scott. 2005. Regulation and internet use in developing countries. Economic Development and Cultural Change 53(2): 501–523.
Warf, Barney, and John Grimes. 1997. Counterhegemonic discourses and the internet. Geographical Review 87(2): 259–274.
Warschauer, Mark. 2003. Dissecting the “Digital Divide”: A case study in Egypt. The Information Society 19(4): 297–304.
Wheeler, Deborah L. 2006. Empowering publics: Information technology and democratization in the Arab world – lessons from internet cafés and beyond. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1308527. Accessed 28 Oct 2011.
Whitty, Noel. 2010. Soldier photography of detainee abuse in Iraq: Digital technology, human rights and the death of Baha Mousa. Human Rights Law Review 10(4): 689–714.
Wozniak, Steve. 1984. Homebrew and how the apple came to be. http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/homebrew_and_how_the_apple.php. Accessed 8 Oct 2011.
Wray, Stefan. 1998. On electronic civil disobedience. http://www.thing.net/∼rdom/ecd/oecd.html. Accessed 21 Oct 2011.
Zhuo, Xiaolin, Barry Wellman, and Justine Yu. 2011. Egypt: The first internet revolt? International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 8(1): 24–41. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/∼wellman/publications/egypt/PMag-1107-Egypt-offprint.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2011.
Ziccardi, Giovanni. 2011. Cyber law in Italy. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Zuckerman, Ethan. 2011. The first twitter revolution? Not so fast. The internet can take some credit for toppling Tunisia’s government, but not all of it. Foreign Policy January 14, 2001. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/14/the_first_twitter_revolution. Accessed 4 Oct 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ziccardi, G. (2013). Opening Remarks: Hacking and Digital Dissidence. In: Resistance, Liberation Technology and Human Rights in the Digital Age. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5276-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5276-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5275-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5276-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)