Up
to this point, the bulk of the Snowden leaks have been about spying.
Representatives of our government's executive branch, it would seem--mostly via
the NSA--have been sticking their ever elongating, Pinocchio-like noses in
places where they shouldn't be. Increasingly, their favorite target, in direct
violation of the Fourth Amendment, is the private communications of American
citizens.
This
latest gem, however, courtesy of Britain's GCHQ (the U.K. equivalent of the
NSA), gives all that previously reported criminal behavior a run for its money.
Apparently, in the world of covert actions against its citizenry, GCHQ has a
Sterling reputation for ruthlessness which far outdoes anything the American
Intelligence Community is capable of.
The
Brits, as we observe in this Wired
article decided to do away with due process all together and launch a DDoS
(distributed denial of service) cyber attack against the IRC (internet relay
chat) rooms allegedly used by the civil disobedience collective known as Anonymous.
These
DDoS attacks effectively shut down their target's ability to function for an
indefinite amount of time. The problem is that whereas a larger, more
sophisticated and secure system like those maintained by the government usually
suffer only short interruptions with little or no damage; smaller, private end
users systems are not robust enough to withstand the attack, and often suffer
real and lasting damage. The tactic, therefore is an asymmetric response to Anonymous's protests.
In
GCHQ's defense, it's not like Anonymous
hasn't allegedly been launching similar types attacks against various British
governmental websites....
Ok,
wait, back up on that last part. There was a key word that should have stood
out, now let me see, where was it? Oh, right, there it is: allegedly, as in suspected, but not confirmed. Allegedly, as in innocent
until proven guilty.
I
guess GCHQ is practicing vigilante, tit-for-tat justice by the chat room now. It's
unlikely it will be called on its illegal behavior, but if it was, what defense
would it mount on its behalf? It appears, by its current behavior that it would
probably point across the courtroom at whomever stands accused on Anonymous's behalf and shout, "He
started it!"
No comments:
Post a Comment