Vic Toews, you were warned!:
(Text pasted here.)
Oh wow. I didn’t know the mistress was snorting and scarfing at the Public Trough right alongside her Viagra-starched paramour, but am I surprised? Are you?
The Toewster’s squeals and bleats about McCarthyesque investigations notwithstanding, my sense is that Anonymous might be difficult to investigate since it’s not an “organization” as such, but in commenter fhg’s words, “a loose ad-hoc collection of script kiddies with perhaps a handful of talented hackers who help them out sometimes”. I suppose anyone can be outed eventually — that is, after all, the purpose of the kind of heavy-handed anti-privacy legislation that Toews champions — but not before the weather in Toews’ neck of the woods gets so uncomfortably warm that he starts drowning in his own swinish sweat.
But this assumes that Toews is a Normal Human Being who might be shamed by the ugly skeletons that boogie out of his closet and dance around him in a salacious conga line of lewdness and lechery, and the jury’s still out on that one.
In that context, commenter bleatmop pointed out another distressing possibility: that the gang of brainless authoritarian thugs on Parliament Hill might use this episode of internet pushback as proof that the Nets are Totally Out Of Control and need to be put on a leash even more robust than Bill C-30. Alarmingly, as I took my Morning Scroll through Twitter today, I saw a few comments to the effect that internet users should be mandated to post under their real names, which would obviously prevent much of the kind of activism we see with Anonymous. (Oh yeah, and so much for that “Arab Spring” thing.) It’s more than a distinct possibility that this would be their response: if they bite, can we bite back?