It might be one thing to go after a member of Anonymous had they
hacked a government server and used it to post salacious material about
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews via a web video narrated by the demonic
cousin of a Hooked on Phonics audio lesson. It is completely another
for the government to attempt an honest investigation via parliamentary
committee into that same situation when the video has been uploaded to
YouTube, with its author likely lost to the ether of the web, hidden
behind the smiling face of a plastic Halloween mask and deep within a
Tor connection.
And while Canada’s politicians furrow their brows at the dangers of “cyberspace”, it’s clear they have hit an end point of sorts.
It seems improbable that the Procedure and House Affairs committee will have any serious insight into Anonymous apart from what has already been reiterated in the House before Speaker Scheer’s ruling on Tuesday — that it’s a phantom organization of relatively unknown size, origin, or scope that has been held responsible for a number of particular hacking and protest events around the world. Because even if they conclude that in this instance Anonymous (or whoever claimed the title this time) has behaved nefariously, they can’t really even attribute or link that same potential culpability or even criminality necessarily to any other event that is rumoured to have been committed by Anonymous, apart from those for which someone has actually been arrested, tried, and convicted. Which, at this point, isn’t many.
In his ruling Tuesday, the Speaker noted precedent, a ruling by Speaker Lamoureux where he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of this House free of threats or attempts at intimidation.” It was from 1973, when ideas of what could come from a truly global village were still only beginning to stretch past the pages of Marshall McLuhan. Insomuch, it was sadly quaint, rather than authoritative. Fundamentally, Scheer was right to note that Toews had come under threat, and was equally justified in doing something — anything — about it, given his position. But what a farce that something will ultimately be, especially if for some reason, Anonymous decides to show up. A sea of Guy Fawkes grins packed into a committee room would make for good pictures but likely no substantive conclusions on anything.
Most likely, the committee’s investigation will be an exercise in, for lack of a better term, digital cognitive dissonance, where the belief in an analog system of rights and values exercised by elected officials is held up simultaneously with the growing acceptance of the burgeoning hegemonic power of the internet as our one and true post-political overlord.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: --
And while Canada’s politicians furrow their brows at the dangers of “cyberspace”, it’s clear they have hit an end point of sorts.
It seems improbable that the Procedure and House Affairs committee will have any serious insight into Anonymous apart from what has already been reiterated in the House before Speaker Scheer’s ruling on Tuesday — that it’s a phantom organization of relatively unknown size, origin, or scope that has been held responsible for a number of particular hacking and protest events around the world. Because even if they conclude that in this instance Anonymous (or whoever claimed the title this time) has behaved nefariously, they can’t really even attribute or link that same potential culpability or even criminality necessarily to any other event that is rumoured to have been committed by Anonymous, apart from those for which someone has actually been arrested, tried, and convicted. Which, at this point, isn’t many.
In his ruling Tuesday, the Speaker noted precedent, a ruling by Speaker Lamoureux where he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of this House free of threats or attempts at intimidation.” It was from 1973, when ideas of what could come from a truly global village were still only beginning to stretch past the pages of Marshall McLuhan. Insomuch, it was sadly quaint, rather than authoritative. Fundamentally, Scheer was right to note that Toews had come under threat, and was equally justified in doing something — anything — about it, given his position. But what a farce that something will ultimately be, especially if for some reason, Anonymous decides to show up. A sea of Guy Fawkes grins packed into a committee room would make for good pictures but likely no substantive conclusions on anything.
Most likely, the committee’s investigation will be an exercise in, for lack of a better term, digital cognitive dissonance, where the belief in an analog system of rights and values exercised by elected officials is held up simultaneously with the growing acceptance of the burgeoning hegemonic power of the internet as our one and true post-political overlord.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: --
No comments:
Post a Comment