- A new front in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been
opened in the United States. This has not been done by Islamic fundamentalists,
or radical Palestinians. It has been done by American and Israeli computer
hackers. Action on this new front has taken the form of identity theft,
harassment, incitement to harassment, defamation of character, and malicious
misrepresentation through the misuse and misappropriation of computer e-mail
facilities and lists. In the process, the reliability of the web based
system of communication has been undercut, the integrity of some very prestigious
universities have been called into question, and the judgment of law enforcement
authorities made to look tainted with bias. Let me give a number of examples.
-
- In early July a recent graduate of the University of
Pennsylvania by the name of Marc Dworkin, using a university e-mail account,
sent a message to recipients of his e-mail lists directing them to harass
Professor Mona Baker at England's University of Manchester Institute for
Science and Technology. His exact words, after giving Professor Baker's
e-mail address and telephone number, were "harrass (sic) the motherfucker."
This was Mr. Dworkin's way of expressing his disagreement with Professor
Baker over her support of the boycott of Israel. Soon Professor Baker was
receiving hundreds of obscene and threatening communications. When the
University of Pennsylvania's Vice President for Information Systems and
Computing, Ms Robin Beck, was informed of this incident her reply to Baker
was that a "careful assessment based on what we currently know, does
not reveal either a violation of University policy, nor a violation of
law." When it was pointed out to University of Pennsylvania officials
that Dworkin's actions had indeed violated Penn's policies on "Acceptable
Use of Electronic Resources" and "Guidelines on Open Expression"
(his behavior is also a possible violation of the Pennsylvania law on "harassment
and stalking by communication or address") they still refused to take
any action. Why should the University of Pennsylvania refuse to move against
someone using their e-mail accounts in a fashion that undermines its educational
purpose, violates its own policies, and possibly constitutes criminal behavior?
-
- In late August Professor Shahid Alam at Northeastern
University in Boston, Massachusetts wrote a piece in CounterPunch, later
reprinted at Al-Ahram Weekly On Line, in which he made a case for the boycott
of Israeli academia as one example of a non-violent alternative to the
increasingly desperate violent resistance of the Palestinians. In the process
he explained the conditions of Israeli occupation that had resulted in
the various forms of violent Palestinian struggle, including suicide bombings.
The piece was reconstructed and misrepresented in the Jerusalem Post to
make it appear that Alam "justified terror attacks against Israelis."
On September 4th the Boston Herald, apparently not checking the accuracy
of the Jerusalem Post report, announced "Professor Shocks Northeastern
with Defense of Suicide Bombers." Almost immediately Professor Alam
began receiving a large number of harassing e-mails. In addition, in an
act of identity theft, e-mails misrepresenting his position were forged
and sent out under Alam's name. Northeastern University's response to the
Boston Herald report was to "distance" itself from Alam. The
professor's remarks were his alone and the University did not "condone
or officially recognize them." The impression was left that Northeastern
assumed the Herald piece accurate. Why should Northeastern University react
in such a timid fashion to an incorrect report that threatened the reputation
of one of their own faculty members?
-
- Throughout July and August, numerous organizations and
individuals who support the Palestinian cause, oppose war in the Middle
East, support human rights, and are just generally critical of Israel,
were harassed and interfered with. Among the victims was Monica Terazi,
Director of the New York office of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee (ADC). She was harassed and her identity stolen by hackers with
the result that, for a time, Yahoo Groups took her account off line. When
she reported this assault to the FBI, their response was that no law had
been broken: no money stolen, no computers physically damaged, public safety
had not been endangered. The entire hacker operation, according to the
FBI, was simply an exercise protected by the First Amendment. Why should
the FBI take such a dismissive position on activities which, in many states
of the Union, are now recognized as a form of, to quote the Pennsylvania
statute, "harassment and stalking by communication?"
-
- Ultimately, it was not the law enforcement agencies or
university administrators that investigated the hackers who had harassed,
abused, and misrepresented so many people over the summer months. It was
private individuals such as Professor Bassam Shehadeh of Iowa State University.
He managed to track down some of the sources of abuse to sites in Israel
and its West Bank colonies. The Israelis had committed their acts of harassment
by accessing an ISP called Palnet.com on the West Bank. When the Israeli
army went about systematically destroying the electronic communications
facilities on the West Bank they spared Palnet. To what end? Well, the
result has been its misappropriation in the manner described here.
-
- This form of harassment via electronic communications
is on-going. It is being used to intimidate and emotionally punish American
and British academics, as well as many others, who are critical of Israel
and its policies. Yet nothing of significance is being done about it by
authorities capable of curbing such behavior. For all intents and purposes,
the inaction of academic and law enforcement authorities has created legal
space for what are ordinarily illegal acts: harassment, incitement to harassment,
identity theft, and malicious misrepresentation. At least this seems to
be so when these assaults are directed against those critical of positions
favored by influential and powerful interest groups. One can ask the question--would
the FBI or the administrators at the University of Pennsylvania or Northeastern
University have taken the positions they now do, if such organized and
extensive harassment and identity theft had been directed against American
Zionists by supporters of the Palestinians?
-
- The implications of this episode of "web warfare"
goes beyond the present situation. The hands off position taken by the
FBI and university authorities sets a precedent for the future. While critics
of Israel are now the main targets of web based harassment and misrepresentation,
there is no reason why the circle of victims cannot become much larger.
After all it is a "virtual world" now and thus it is impossible
to keep such behavior "local." It seems we have found a new technological
way of assaulting each other on a worldwide basis. It was Ortega Y Gasset
who once observed that "hatred is a feeling which leads to the extinction
of values." The present campaign of intimidation is certainly hate
filled and it is likely that others who hate will learn of these techniques
and use them. Those who can stop this behavior now, but have chosen not
to, ought to think again before the future of communications becomes "extinct
of values."
-
- ---
-
- Lawrence Davidson is a professor of history at West Chester
University in Pennsylvania.
-
- http://www.counterpunch.org/davidson0922.html
|