Introduction
Today’s generation is in the middle of a technological revolution. With the development in telecommunication and computers, most organizations and individuals are turning to using these infrastructures in communication and conducting day-to-day activities. By 1996, more than thirteen million people owning computers were already accessing the Internet.
Today, this number has exceeded two hundred million, and it is expected to increase as time goes (Agnew, 2005, pp.363-375). The move to embrace the novel technology has led to the emergence of a new form of crime and behavior referred to as “hacking”.
Hacking is an illegal activity that is directed to the dependence on networks such internet and computers. Hackers are the people that carry out this criminal activity. For many years, the term hacker has had numerous connotations. Initially, the term stood for radical and exceptional programmers in the field of computer science. Today, the term is used to refer to individuals engaged in the criminal activity of hacking (Agnew, 2005, pp.378-381).
Hacking stands for both fruitful and fruitless attempts to acquire unauthorized access or unauthorized use of a computer system. This crime is becoming more prevalent in many countries as it is hard to identify hackers. No empirical research has been conducted to identify the factors that lead to this criminal activity (Agnew, 2005, pp.383-388).
To understand hacking as a crime, it is imperative to look at various psychological theories that tackle criminal behavior and use them in developing an understanding of hacking as criminal behavior. To understand hacking, this paper will use psychoanalytic theory and social learning theory.
Psychoanalytic theory
Freud developed psychoanalytic theory, and it “takes a relatively indirect approach in understanding and explaining criminal behaviours” (Akers, 2009, p.81). It focuses on the pathological process through which criminal activities are noticeable. According to Freud, an internal moral agency (which he refers to as superego) controls one conduct.
Development of this agency depends mainly on gratifying parent-child interactions. Insufficient superego development and functions contributes to criminal behaviour. Hence, behaviour relies on the steadiness of the intuitive energy system. Interference in this system or any constituent structure leads to maladaptive development.
In trying to understand criminal behaviour using psychoanalytic theory, Aichhorn posited that there is a fundamental disposition known as “latent delinquency”, which leads to a child turning out to be a criminal at a later age (Chandler, 2001, pp.229-236). Aichhorn believed that every child is naturally asocial in its initial encounters with the world.
Failure in psychological growth led to the asocial propensity intensifying thus overriding behaviour and leading to one engaging in criminal activities. Other psychoanalytic theorists have claimed that, individuals engage in criminal behaviour for they are unable to postpone immediate satisfaction (Chandler, 2001, pp.239-248). The dire need to satisfy their immediate needs leads them to engaging in criminal activities, as they look for avenues to attain gratification. Sublimation is another factor that psychoanalytic theorists have claimed to lead individuals into engaging in criminal behaviour.
Psychoanalytic theory of crime “emphasizes on the role the conflict and inner processes play on the predictors of behaviour exhibited by individuals” (Duff, & Gardiner, 2006, p.225). Normally, the theory subscribes to three claims, which include the claim, that weak parent-child interactions contributes to the child engaging in criminal behaviour in its later life, socialization rely on adoption of society’s norms during childhood. The theory also agrees with the claim that unconscious squabbles, which arise from distressed family association at varied stages of development, leads to an individual turning to criminal acts (Duff, & Gardiner, 2006, pp.227-228).
Learning theory
Learning theory explains criminal behaviour based on the premise that “modern society comprise of contradicting structures of behaviours and norms” (Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1999, p.1025). Besides, the theory assumes that the society holds inconsistent definitions of fitting behaviour that lead to crime.
Normative clash at the personal level is transformed into individual acts of criminal behaviour by differential association acquired through communication normally in intimate groups. In short peer influence and peer attitudes affect one’s behaviour. Associating with individuals who are suitably inclined to crimes leads to an individual engaging in the same. The theory does not imply that the people being associated with must be criminals, they only need to show that they like crimes (Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1999, pp.1026-1028).
Skinner and Fream (2004, pp. 495-505) posit that, behaviour is influenced by the environmental cost it creates for the person involved. Individuals normally repeat behaviour that yields desirable results. The behaviour is regarded as reinforcing. On the other hand, individuals tend to do away with behaviour that yields severe results.
The behaviour is regarded as punishing. Hence, behaviour works on the environment to yield outcomes, which are either punishing or supportive. If the effects of an individual partaking in criminal activities are rewarding, such a person is likely to continue partaking in the activities (Skinner, & Fream, 2004, pp.509-518). Otherwise, if the effects are punishing, the individual is likely to look for ways to avoid partaking in them.
Albert Bandura, in his study on imitation and modelling, posited that, people learn about certain behaviours at the cognitive stage, by studying other people’s dealings. Albert argued that, people visualize themselves in such situations, and thus manages to attain similar results. Hence, they end up trying the behaviour by themselves through emulating those they observed. After one learns a certain behaviour, s/he may uphold or abandon it based on the outcomes it brings to him or her (Fitzpatrick, 2005, p.67).
According to learning theory, individuals develop criminal tendencies by observing what other people do, hence learn from the same. The learning process occurs in three ways, the social environment, family, and dominating subculture. The promotion of criminal behaviour originates from both internal and external foundations. Individuals may opt to uphold a criminal act due to the tangible rewards it gives them (Fitzpatrick, 2005, pp.68-72).
Moreover, they may continue with criminal acts due to the support they get from their peers. According to the theory, if criminal behaviour gained support in the past, the likelihood of the behaviour gaining support in the future is high. In most cases, “learning theory is used to explain aggressive behaviour or violent criminal acts like robbery and assault” (Higgins, & Makin, 2004, p7).
Theories and hacking
There is no single theory that clearly accounts for all forms of the most prevalent criminal activities. This challenge is even more serious when addressing unusual criminal activities like hacking. The word hacker does not stand for a singe uniform group (Fitzpatrick, 2005, p.73).
The limited experimental research into this activity implies that, there are numerous sub-groups under the same term. The subgroups can be listed beginning with amateurs and ending with proficient criminals. An individual fall under a specific sub-group based on the motives and factors that led to one engaging in the criminal behaviour (Fitzpatrick, 2005, pp.75-78).
Hence, it is hard to use the available theories in analyzing all subgroups of hackers. Rather, the available theories can only help in understanding a small group of the theorized hackers. In explaining hacking as a criminal activity, psychoanalytic theory focuses largely on unconscious aspects as well as the child-parent relationship (Schoenfeld, 2001, pp.469-472).
In spite of most of the prominent hackers hailing from dysfunctional families, this is not adequate to elucidate their choice of specific criminal activity from others. Psychoanalytic theory is normally weak in explaining premeditated criminal behaviours. Hacking is one of such behaviours.
It requires individuals to have certain skills, be conversant with computers, networks, and have knowledge in advanced technology. To successful hack into a network or a computer, a person has to come up with a clear plan on how he or she will execute the attack (Schoenfeld, 2001, pp.473-477). Hence, hacking is deliberate, and the targeted hosts or networks are identified in advanced and not picked randomly.
In explaining hacking as a criminal behaviour, the theory assumes that an individual engages in the crime due to desire to satisfy some innate needs that were not met during their childhood (Schoenfeld, 2001, p.177). The theory assumes that individuals engage in hacking as an alternative to addressing their challenges such as dealing with their underdeveloped ego. Most of the hackers are self-proclaimed loners.
They normally carryout their activities in the confines of their rooms and tend to have no friends or exposure to the external environment. Based on psychoanalytic theory, such people suffer from poor upbringing. Such people are unable to interact with others in the society. Consequently, they turn to computers for consolation. As they seek to satisfy their ego using computers, the engage in playing games and trying to access other systems (West, 2001, p.77). Eventually, this transforms into a hobby and later they become hackers.
The claim that, unconscious squabbles that arise from distressed family association at various levels of development leads to an individual turning to criminal acts in a later age, may also explain hacking as a criminal behaviour. According to the claim, the quarrels act as a hindrance to adoption of right morals by a child. Instability, in the family, makes it hard for parents to have time with their children where they can teach them morals (West, 2001, pp.78-84).
The fact that children are inclined to latent delinquency, a child living in a family that experience regular disagreements ends up turning into criminal activities due to lack of moral support from the parents. The mind of such children develops inclined towards unethical behaviours. Eventually, such individuals become fascinated by activities that are not conventionally accepted.
The ability of one living a social life and engaging in ethical acts depends on an individual’s background. If a person is brought up in an environment where social norms are not valued, such a person is likely to engage in criminal activities, in his or her future life. Psychoanalytic theory posits that socialization rely on adoption of society’s norms during childhood.
Hence, in explaining hacking, the theory may look at the background of the culprit and identify if the environment under which the person grew promoted social norms (West, 2001, pp.86-92). According to the theory, individuals who are not taught about ethical social behaviour, in their early life, tend to engage in criminal behaviours later in life.
Learning theory has the best chance of interpreting hacking as a criminal activity. The idea of differential reinforcement, sustenance of criminal behaviour through reinforcement and influence from peer groups seem to be in line with hacking (Higgins, & Makin, 2004, pp.1-9). According to Chandler (2001), in spite of hackers being “self-proclaimed loners and portraying underdeveloped custom social skills, there seem to be a superior desire for association and quest for peers, among them” (231).
In most cases, hackers like being associated with their colleagues who engage in similar criminal behaviours. The association may be purely electronic, where people chat and share ideas online, or more closely by subscribing into a hacking club (Higgins, & Makin, 2004, pp.11-18). There are numerous hacking clubs in operation today, which include Legion of Doom, Cult of the Dead Cow among others. Hackers even organize for conventions where they meet and share ideas, intelligence information, and hacking techniques.
Through these clubs, upcoming hackers gain experience on how to hack thus introducing them into the activity. Availability of mentorship through such clubs is one of the factors that are contributing to the emergence of new hackers (Higgins, & Makin, 2004, pp.19-22). Individuals with limited or no knowledge in hacking but are interested in the activity can readily acquire knowledge on how to hack through the help of others. They only require subscribing into these clubs.
It is also clear that the hackers are acquiring their criminal behaviour not only by associating with individuals who engage in the same vice but also by associating with people who perceive the act of hacking positively (Jeffery, 2003, pp.433-439). In spite of some people not having any experience in hacking, they narrate about how the act is thrilling and fascinating. This makes individuals who are fascinated by thrilling incidences wish to be hackers.
Hence, they engage, in the illegal activity, in a bid to experience how other hackers feel. Some hackers engage into the criminal activity due to curiosity they get after listening to stories about hacking from their friends (Jeffery, 2003, pp.441-448). Giving captivating stories about hacking makes individuals feel tempted to engage in it despite knowing that the behaviour is illegal.
According to learning theory, the persistence of hacking may be because of a number of reinforcing factors. The reinforcement obtained from hacking may be in the form of increase in experience, reputation among the hacking society or the triumphant conclusion of a brainteaser (Jeffery, 2003, pp.449-452).
Some hackers claim that to them attacking a network, or a computer is a form of game. Whenever they manage to hack into a system, they are tempted to continue hacking into others. In rare cases, Influential Corporations have recruited hackers who have hacked into their systems. In return, it has led to the perception that hackers can acquire first-class jobs in computer security industry. Hence, many people opt to train as hackers in an attempt to salvage these jobs (Stein, 2007, p.134).
Instead of criminalizing the cat of hacking, some organizations have used it as a way of improving the security of their systems or networks. Employing hackers as security managers, in organizations, acts as a motivating factor to the individuals partaking in the vice. The fact that they can acquire prestigious jobs after hacking makes them work on improving their hacking capabilities for organizations to notice them.
Other reinforcing aspects that promote hacking include the praise given to hackers by media. Typically, media is charmed with a passionate view of hackers making them appear as heroes. For instance, when an Israeli youth hacked into the United States military network, one of the European computer manufacturing companies accorded him a profitable promotional contract (Stein, 2007, pp.136-138). Besides, Israeli prime minister praised the youth for his inventiveness.
Hence, rather than punishing him for his criminal behaviour, the youth turns out to be a hero. Such a move is one that leads to more hackers cropping up as they seek to be acknowledged. Hacking is a criminal behaviour and compromises the security of organizations and even states.
It is with this respect that states ought to punish hackers harshly to discourage others from participating in the same. Praising hackers, for their creativity, is a symbol of decriminalizing the act. It makes hackers consider themselves famous and heroes in the society. With such reinforcement, many people wish to engage in the criminal activity, in pursuit of fame accorded to hackers by the media.
The available punishing aspects of hacking are not severe enough to discourage the behaviour. Despite hackers being arrested, no stiff sentences are imposed on them to discourage others from participating in the criminal behaviour. For instance, in Canada, the punishment meted on a youth found guilty of using a computer without permission is alternative measures while adults are given a conditional discharge (Stein, 2007, p.139).
Normally, individuals shun away from an activity if they know that engaging in the activity may lead to their suffering. Failing to impose stiff punishments on hackers is one of the factors that contribute to countries reporting hacking cases regularly. There are limited punishing aspects thus encouraging hackers to continue with their activities. According to learning theory, an individual is likely to shun from a given behaviour if it has severe punishing factors (Winfree, Backstrom, & Mays, 2000, pp.147-149).
Hence, most people engage in hacking due to the absence of severe punishing aspects. Giving a youth an alternative measure, as a punishment for hacking, cannot deter him or her from engaging in the activity, in the future. Moreover, it cannot discourage others from partaking in the activity since they know the consequences are not severe.
Bandura’s approach of learning theory is of paramount importance in understanding hacking as criminal behaviour. Bandura asserts that individuals acquire criminal behaviour by observing others. As stated earlier, “hacking is a criminal behaviour in which modelling and imitation appear to play a vital role” (Winfree, Backstrom, & Mays, 2000, pp.150-156).
The hacking underground equates to a subculture that supports adherence to its moral norms. Some of the norms include distribution of information acquired after hacking, training, and mentoring upcoming hackers. Since hackers share information they acquire after hacking, every hacker wishes to be part of the group, by contributing in sharing information s/he has acquired. Hence, everyone goes an extra mile to ensure that he or she upholds the moral norms.
Individuals that are weak in making ethical decisions are likely to become hackers if they associate with hackers. The hacking process requires one to be an expert in computer technology. Hence, by observing a hacker executing his or her commands, one may be fascinated and wish to acquire such experience (Winfree, Backstrom, & Mays, 2000, pp.157-158). For a weak person, he or she may not have time to consider the behaviour unethical thus falling into the trap of engaging in the criminal activity.
Conclusion
Lack of discrete theories that specifically address the issue of hacking may be attributed to the comparative novelty of this behaviour. Hacking is a criminal behaviour that is to some extent exceptional and reliant on the quite recent growth of computer and network machinery, together with the internet. Most of the traditional psychological theories of crime are not capable of explaining hacking as a criminal behaviour.
However, psychoanalytic and learning theories are capable of explaining the crime. In spite of psychoanalytic theory explaining the crime shallowly, one can use it to understand how the behaviour is acquired and maintained. The theory posits that individuals turn into hacking as a way of satisfying their ego. In addition, others turn to the activity due to lack of moral support during their childhood.
Learning theory claims that individuals become hackers through learning from their friends. Hackers have established clubs through which they share ideas and help upcoming hackers to improve on their expertise. This offers a favourable ground for many people to acquire hacking skills. Moreover, the theory claims that the presence of reinforcement is another factor that contributes to hacking. Some companies offer hackers lucrative contracts.
In return, other people get attracted to the behaviour in an attempt to get similar contracts. Besides, media portray hackers as heroes in the public. Hence, the media makes the activity appear legal in the eyes of many thus luring others into the vice. There are no stiff punishments for hackers. Therefore, it is hard to discourage those who wish to engage in the activity.
Reference List
Agnew, R. (2005). Testing the Leading Crime Theories: An Alternative Strategy Focusing on Motivational Processes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 363-388.
Akers, R. L. (2009). Social Learning and Social Structure a General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Chandler, A. (2001). The Changing Definition and Image of Hackers in Popular Discourse. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 24(6), 229-248.
Duff, L., & Gardiner, S. (2006). Computer Crime in the Global Village: Strategies for Control and Regulation- In Defence of the Hacker. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 24(8), 221-228.
Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. (1999). Personality Differences between Prisoners and Controls. Psychological Reports, 40, 1023-1028.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2005). Psychoanalysis and Crime: A Critical Survey of Salient Trends in the Literature. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 433, 67-78.
Higgins, G. E., & Makin, D. A. (2004). Does Social Learning Theory Condition the Effects of Low Self-Control on College Students’ Software Piracy? Journal of Economic Crime Management, 2(2), 1-22.
Jeffery, C. R. (2003). An Integrated Theory of Crime and Criminal Behaviour. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 56(8), 433-452.
Schoenfeld, C. G. (2001). A Psychoanalytic Theory of Juvenile Delinquency. Crime And Delinquency, 23(4), 469-477.
Skinner, W. F., & Fream, A. M. (2004). A Social Learning Theory Analysis of Computer Crime among College Students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(4), 495-518.
Stein, A. (2007). Prologue to Violence: Child Abuse, Dissociation, and Crime. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
West, D. (2001). Psychological Contributions to Criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 28(14), 77-92.
Winfree, T. L., Backstrom, T. V., & Mays, G. L. (2000). Social Learning Theory, Self-Reported Delinquency and Youth Gangs a New Twist and a General Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Youth Society, 26(2), 147-158.