As I looked at it closer, I had deep respect for the individual involved. I also recognize first amendment fears. Is this an example of good vigilantes? Is this behavior related in anyway to the Minutemen patrolling the border? At what point is vigilantes justified?
I kinda want to explore what other hatrackers think of this. One thing is for sure, Weisburd has some guts!
quote:Part vigilantes, part informants, part nosy neighbors, they search the Web for sites that they say deal in theft, fraud and violence.
Weisburd said he and his supporters are responsible for dismantling at least 650 and as many as 1,000 sites he regards as threatening, especially Islamic radical sites.
quote: A posting on his site explains that in fighting crime he does not think it proper to commit one, but he admits he cannot always control the actions of those who help him.
quote:Government agencies and others are not sure what to make of him. Some law enforcement officials praise his efforts. Kenneth Nix, a police detective from Missouri who is on the Internet Crimes Task Force, said Weisburd often provides information that "we didn't have before."
But others say that he is making more trouble than he is doing good. Some U.S. officials think that they can learn more about terrorist operations by monitoring suspicious sites as they operate. Weisburd said an analyst from a federal agency recently wrote him a scathing letter calling him a "grave threat to national security" because his work was interfering with its investigations.
quote: "When we all become 'law enforcement officers' justice becomes very blurry,"
quote: He said he has received thousands of dollars in donations, as well as some ominous death threats. One warning came in a handwritten letter mailed to Weisburd's house. Another letter on a Web site declared that he should be beheaded and it listed his address.
quote:Some Web hosting providers who have dealt with Weisburd and his supporters said such groups place them in an awkward position. If they keep the sites up, they are in danger of being labeled as supporting terrorism. If they take down the sites, they could become targets of free speech advocates, and lose paying customers.
posted
This is bad for the simple reason that there's no set standard for 'terrorist websites'. I know people who would call anything slightly left of center 'terrorist'.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another problem is the national security issue -- the government gets more information from allowing some of these sites to operate than it does from shutting them down.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, what does he do to get the site removed?
I found four methods in the article that Weisburd used to take down sites.
1: He informed the company that hosted the site and they took it down of their own free will.
2: He lists his disocovery on his daily blog and his supporters did what hackers do to get the hoster to experience an unusual surge in activity-forcing them to remove the site.
3: He traced the origins of posts on a yahoo bulletin board and forwarded them to law enforcement.
4: After a hosting company did not respond to take down a website, Weisburd's followers figured out which church the provider went to and what his cell-phoone number was, and they "began lobbying him non-stop until he took down the site."
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's strange, because I know people who would call anything slightly right of center 'fascist'.
What's your point? I wasn't trying to disparage conservatives by stating that. I was just saying that for all we know this guy is trying to dos websites based on his opinion in the name of justice, or freedom or hotdogs or something.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
what do you think about these tactics of citizens enforcing the law. Do projects like this and the minuteman undermine democracy?
I think citizens do need to be involved in preventing crime/terrorism. At what point is it too extreme?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the actions 1 through 3 sound legal, if not totally honorable. If the site were posted on an ISP that enforced an explicit terms of use agreement, and it violated that agreement, then #1 seems perfectly OK.
Number 2 is more problematic but essentially unregulatable, assuming he has no other connection with the hackers (big assumption, I know). It's a free speech issue.
Number 3 seems perfectly OK, as long as the posts threaten or show strong support for violence in some way.
Number 4 sounds like it violates cell phone solicitation laws. It's also totally punk. I think boycotts are OK, even when I disagree with them, as are attempts to sway public opinion about a company, but harassment is wrong.
I want these nutjobs posting. I don't want their sites taken down. I want people to be able to hear what they're saying. It's why I'm against attempts to take down racist and white supremecists sites: people need to be reminded exactly what we're up against.
posted
Since this website cleary has both rampaging liberal terrorists, and frothing conservative fascists, and worse, people who disagree with the vigilante, I am reporting us all to him now.
Expect this site to be obliterated any second now.
posted
This calls to mind the whole Minutemen thing. For better or worse (guess which side I take), the War on Terror seems to be triggering an increase in vigilantism. People have been convinced that their enemies are everywhere. None of this is illegal, nor should it be, but much of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I thought it said a hatracker attack.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
@ Rakeesh
