Article content continued

The irony of launching a cyber-attack to protest an anti-terrorism law was surely lost on this gaggle of virtual legionnaires. This attack — which took the form of a distributed-denial-of-service, or DDoS, attack — is not particularly sophisticated in nature and acts as more of a nuisance than a real security breach. Essentially, “attackers” flood the server with requests at such an overwhelming volume that it forces them to crash.

But for those with, say, an interest in promoting the necessity of far-reaching anti-terror legislation, it is perfect fodder for continuing claims that Canada is increasingly susceptible to attack — online or otherwise.

That is not to suggest that Anonymous is wrong in its objection to Bill C-51. Indeed, as countless security and privacy experts have already pointed out, the anti-terrorism legislation, as it is currently written, is overly vague, conspicuously intrusive and dangerously far-reaching. That says nothing of the fact that the government has yet, still, to make a coherent case for why such measures are necessary, and why they are necessary now — although Anonymous may have just given it one new anecdote to add to its roster of evidence.

For that, we offer Anonymous the heartiest of slow claps, and suggest that, in future, they dedicate their energies to forms of protest that do not reinforce the utility of laws they seek to eliminate. Whatever C-51’s flaws and excesses, this is not the way to take it down.

National Post