Fengel 1

Trenton Fengel
October 17, 2020
CST 300 Paper 2
The Ethical Issue of Cyber-Vigilantism

Introduction and Explanation of the Issue

Within the past couple of decades, the internet has created many opportunities for people

to improve their quality of life. The internet has allowed people to access massive amounts of

educational information, to make a living, to stay in touch with their loved ones, to find

entertainment, and to do much more. Although the internet has in many ways made life easier

and more enjoyable, the downside of the internet is that it has also resulted in a massive increase

in cybercrime. Examples of cybercrimes include online harassment, cyberstalking, identity fraud,

cyber espionage, theft of financial data, theft of corporate data, ransomware attacks, and the

selling of illegal goods and services online. Cybercrimes such as ransomware attacks can be

devastating; ransomware attacks involve holding a computer user’s personal data ransom for an

amount of cryptocurrency. This increase in criminal activity has created the need for an opposing

force to step in and attempt to make the internet a safer environment for the massive amounts of

people that use it everyday. This need for enforcement online has led “cyber-vigilantes” to take

justice into their own hands. Cyber vigilantism takes varying forms: hacktivism, scam baiting,

crowdsourcing, and citizen-led intervention are examples of how vigilantism is transmuting (E

Silva, 2017, pg. 24). The term hacktivism is the act of employing computer hacking as a means

for bringing about political or social change. While there may not seem to be any problems with

allowing cyber-vigilantes to fight against cybercrime, this is certainly a complex issue that

deserves more analysis.

Stakeholders
 Fengel 2

One of the stakeholders that will be discussed are cyber-vigilantes. Cyber-vigilantism is

the act of conducting vigilante activities through the medium of the internet. Many cyber-

vigilantes operate in groups; one of the most well-known groups goes by the name of

Anonymous. Anonymous are a group of masked individuals who are known for their cyber-

attacks against governments, corporations, and the Church of Scientology. Anonymous has

oftentimes been involved in United States politics. Recently, Anonymous took down the

Minneapolis Police Department website after George Floyd (an unarmed American citizen) was

killed by a police officer (Tidy & Molloy, 2020). Additionally, the vigilante group turned a

minor United Nations agency website into a memorial for Floyd. Despite Anonymous’ intentions

to do good, the group has received criticism and have been labeled as “cyber-terrorists” by some

(Rawlinson & Peachey, 2012). Moreover, there are no clear leaders of the group, so it’s difficult

to pin down any collective goals the group may have.

Cyber-vigilantes often communicate and coordinate their activities on online forums. On

a popular cyber-vigilante forum, individual vigilantes cited their motives for participating in

online civilian policing (Huey et al., 2013, pg. 86-87). Television shows such as To Catch a

Predator have inspired a large number of civilians who possess technical skills to use their

abilities to expose child predators lurking online. To Catch a Predator is a reality television

show hosted by Chris Hansen which features civilians acting as decoys by posing as potential

child victims. These civilians then coordinate a meeting location with the predators where they

then get exposed. As a further matter, cyber-vigilantes have also been known to eliminate

websites that distribute illegal products and services.

The other stakeholder that will be discussed is the United States law enforcement, and

more specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation (aka the FBI). The FBI is a national
 Fengel 3

security organization that protects the United States from major criminal threats. Regarding the

FBI’s involvement with cybercrime, the official FBI website states “The FBI’s goal is to change

the behavior of criminals and nation-states who believe they can compromise U.S. networks,

steal financial and intellectual property, and put critical infrastructure at risk without facing risk

themselves” (2016). The FBI has a responsibility to maintain law and order on both the internet

and in the real-world. On July 15th, 2020, three cyber-criminals hacked into the Twitter accounts

of numerous high-profile celebrities, politicians, and musicians (2020). The hackers created a

bitcoin scam where they posed as the celebrities and asked for bitcoin with the false promise that

they would double whatever was sent to them. Allegedly, the criminals received over 400

transfers which collectively amounted to over $100,000. Ultimately, it was the efforts of the FBI

which led to these criminals to be held accountable for their crimes.

While cyber-vigilantes and the FBI may have some goals in common the purpose of the

FBI is to enforce the laws, and cyber-vigilantes are no exception to the law. The FBI treats all

vigilantes as criminals regardless of their intentions. Some may see the FBI as being consistent

with who they hold accountable, but others may believe that they are making a hasty

generalization by assuming vigilantes have bad intentions and are comparable to the criminals

that the vigilantes themselves are trying to expose. One might also argue that cyber-vigilantes are

hypocritical because they oppose those who conduct illegal activity online, but their means of

serving justice is illegal.

The ongoing issue of cyber-vigilantism in the United States raises many questions. Are

cyber-vigilantes truly concerned about illegal activity online? Or are they purely acting in self-

interest by participating in an activity that they find exciting? Moreover, if the FBI allowed

cyber-vigilantism, is it possible that they could potentially set a bad precedent by only allowing
 Fengel 4

cyber-vigilantes to break the law? Ideally, US law enforcement should hold every American

citizen to the same set of rules and standards. What would happen in the absence of cyber-

vigilantes? Would there be a massive increase in cybercrime activity? Are cyber-vigilantes

heroes who make the internet a better place? Or are they criminals under the guise of heroes?

Stakeholder Positions and Ethical Frameworks

An ethical framework that could be applied to argue in favor of cyber-vigilantes is Act

Utilitarianism. This ethical theory states that an action is morally right if it results in the best

possible outcome. Although vigilantism is illegal, the efforts of cyber-vigilantes often result in

criminals being held accountable for their actions which one could argue is the best possible

outcome. One might wonder if cyber-vigilantism has a purpose when it is the responsibility of

law enforcement to oppose cyber-criminals. However, cyber-vigilantism may exist as a response

to the ineffectiveness of the current law enforcement at thwarting cybercrime. When cybercrimes

are reported, the law enforcement agency that investigates the crime is oftentimes unprepared

due to the lack of training, available tools, and jurisdictional barriers (Alldredge, 2019, pg. 2). Is

it possible that cyber-vigilantes are a necessary force that aid law enforcement in their efforts to

make the internet safe for everyone? And is it possible that we take the existence of online

vigilantes for granted? Maybe there’s a possibility that the internet would descend into chaos in

the absence of cyber-vigilantism. A number of vigilantes communicating on online forums have

expressed a belief that law enforcement has been inadequate at dealing with the amount of sexual

predators commiting crime online (Huey et al., 2013, pg. 87). Individuals such as Stinson Hunter

have made an effort to reveal the identities of pedophiles lurking online (Button, 2020, pg. 15-

16). One might argue that although these vigilantes are not following the law, their actions
 Fengel 5

produce the best possible outcome which is pedophiles and thieves being held accountable for

their crimes.

An ethical framework that could be applied to argue in favor of law enforcement is

Deontology. This theory of ethics states that whether an action is right or wrong is dictated by a

set of rules. The set of rules that the FBI upholds are the laws of the United States, and

vigilantism is against the law in the United States. There are many benefits to allowing law

enforcement to handle cybercrime. For instance, the laws being enforced are enacted by officials

who are elected by US citizens. This guarantees that the laws being enforced are generally

aligned with the will of the general public. Another reason cybercrime should be handled by law

enforcement is they are better trained to investigate crimes. Police chiefs have warned pedophile

hunters that their activities can jeopardize investigations and obstruct justice (Perraudin, 2017).

Another benefit is that any arrested suspects have a right to a fair trial and any attempts to serve

justice is done in a humane manner. When US law enforcement arrests a suspect, the suspect has

the right to a lawyer and they are given the opportunity to prove their innocence. On the other

hand, cyber-vigilantes act according to their own moral principles, and their actions can often

have negative real-world consequences. For example, if they don’t conduct an adequate

investigation, an innocent person could be framed and sentenced for a crime that they didn’t

commit.

My position

I believe that while cyber-vigilantes often have good intentions, it is important that they

adhere to the rules and regulations of the United States. The regulations that law enforcement

must adhere to exists for the purpose of protecting the legal rights of both the suspects and

victims. More specifically, the rights that are intended to be protected are the right to a fair trial
 Fengel 6

and the right to privacy. It is usually difficult to determine the true motives of an online vigilante.

While many vigilantes wish to expose pedophiles and thieves, some may not have the best of

intentions. Online vigilantes may serve justice in an inhumane manner such as spreading smear

campaigns against innocent individuals they hold a grudge against, or stalking and threatening

victims that they perceive to be corrupt. An organization such as the FBI has the adequate

manpower to conduct a thorough investigation of a suspect; on the other hand, an individual

vigilante or a small group of vigilantes may conduct a very limited investigation and their biases

may result in an eagerness to carry out punishment. Ultimately, what a vigilante might deem

ethical may conflict with what the general public deems ethical. Additionally, cyber-vigilantes

may inflict punishment that is disproportionate to the punishment a court of law would consider

appropriate. Lastly, a reason online crime fighting should be the responsibility of the FBI is that

cyber-vigilantism could be used as an excuse to commit a crime. For example, an individual

might think that they are serving justice by threatening and stalking a person online who they

feel animosity towards, but in reality they are simply commiting a crime.

Suggestions

If the existence of cyber-vigilantism is inevitable, the US law enforcement could possibly

collaborate with cyber-vigilante groups to work towards common goals (Kosseff, 2016, pg. 646-

648). One way cyber-vigilantes could possibly help is by sending the names of suspected

criminals that they’ve investigated to the FBI, and the FBI could conduct a more thorough

investigation of those individuals. To those who believe law enforcement is inadequate at dealing

with cybercrime, I would suggest that they consider working for the FBI. If they made the choice

to work for the FBI, they would receive proper education and training, and they would have

more power to create the change that they desire. Another suggestion I would make is to push
 Fengel 7

officials to enact laws that reduce cybercrime. Laws that improve the standard by which

companies (such as Google and Facebook which collect a large amount of user data) protect user

data could possibly reduce cybercrime. Additionally, laws that require companies such as

Microsoft and Apple to increase the effectiveness of their antivirus software could help prevent

cybercrime.
 Fengel 8

References

Alldredge, J. W. (2019). Law enforcement and their ability to counter, track, and attribute

cybercrime operations. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and

Social Sciences Collection. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.library2.csumb.edu:2248/docview/2328358014?accountid=10355

Button, M. (2020). The “New” Private Security Industry, the Private Policing of Cyberspace and

the Regulatory Questions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(1), 39–55.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219890194

Cyber Crime. (2016, May 03). Retrieved October 12, 2020, from

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

E Silva, K. (2017). Vigilantism and cooperative criminal justice: Is there a place for

cybersecurity vigilantes in cybercrime fighting. International Review of Law, Computers

& Technology, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2018.1418142

Huey, L., Nhan, J., & Broll, R. (2013). Uppity civilians and cyber-vigilantes: The role of the

general public in policing cyber-crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 13(1), 81-97.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895812448086

Kosseff J. (2016). The hazards of cyber-vigilantism. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(4),

642-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2016.05.008.

Perraudin, F. (2017, April 24). Paedophile hunters jeopardising police work, says senior officer.

Retrieved October 18, 2020, from

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/24/paedophile-hunters-jeopardising-

police-work-child-protection
 Fengel 9

Rawlinson, K., & Peachey, P. (2012, April 13). Hackers step up war on security services.

Retrieved October 18, 2020, from

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hackers-step-war-security-services-

7640780.html

Three Individuals Charged For Alleged Roles In Twitter Hack. (2020, July 31). Retrieved

October 12, 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-individuals-charged-

alleged-roles-twitter-hack

Tidy, J., & Molloy, D. (2020, June 01). George Floyd: Anonymous hackers re-emerge amid US

unrest. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-

52879000