The
blunt instrument the spy unit used to target hackers, however, also
interrupted the web communications of political dissidents who did not
engage in any illegal hacking. It may also have shut down websites with
no connection to Anonymous.
“While
there must of course be limitations,” said Michael Leiter, the former
head of the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center and now
an NBC News analyst, “law enforcement and intelligence officials must be
able to pursue individuals who are going far beyond speech and into the
realm of breaking the law: defacing and stealing private property that
happens to be online.”
“No one should be
targeted for speech or thoughts, but there is no reason law enforcement
officials should unilaterally declare law breakers safe in the online
environment,” said Leiter.
But
critics charge the British government with overkill, noting that many of
the individuals targeted were teenagers, and that the agency’s assault
on communications among hacktivists means the agency infringed the free
speech of people never charged with any crime.
“Targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for
expressing their political beliefs,” said Gabriella Coleman, an
anthropology professor at McGill University and author of an upcoming book about Anonymous.
“Some have rallied around the name to engage in digital civil
disobedience, but nothing remotely resembling terrorism. The majority of
those embrace the idea primarily for ordinary political expression.”
Coleman estimated that the number of “Anons” engaged in illegal activity
was in the dozens, out of a community of thousands.
No comments:
Post a Comment
No Trolling