Net Warfare Comes To America

Lawrence Davidson, CounterPunch, 9.24.2002

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.