I find the concept of cyber-vigilantism intriguing because I cannot decide how I feel about it. I go back and forth because I see both the positives and negatives and I struggle to decide which is the stronger argument. Truthfully, I am beginning to think that there is no correct answer because there are consequences to being for and against. Some of the obvious pros of cyber-vigilantism have been well documented. For example, there is a CBC news clip explaining the experience of how Shaun Ironside was reunited with his stolen car after a post online caused people across the globe to begin helping him to search for it. In this case, it worked out that the police were able to handle the situation after the car had been found. Unfortunately, these stories do not always lead to a happy ending, these cases are not as well document which sways people to believe in the benefits of cyber-vigilantism. An article written by Jeff Kosseff in Computer Law and Security Review volume 32, issue 4 in 2016 makes some very interesting points against the use of cyber-vigilantism. Kosseff mentions that it is not easy to find information for cybercrime investigations and as a result it is not easy for the public to determine whether their information is correct which can lead to the punishment of innocent people. Kosseff also states that when cyber-vigilantes release information that is correct about guilty parties it can lead to the public taking punishment into their own hands and create unnecessary fear of and harm to the guilty party. Another point the Kosseff makes that I found interesting was that while cyber-vigilantes feel that they are doing the right thing and that they are helping law enforcement it can actually have the opposite impact as they may be interfering with an ongoing investigation. He discusses that their actions can make the investigation known to the suspect giving them the opportunity to protect themselves. This information only supported ideas that I had previously thought about the topic of cyber-vigilantism. I kept thinking about the idea that whole court cases have been thrown out over clerical issues. Cyber-vigilantes are most likely not following proper investigation procedures such as obtaining warrant meaning that they could be finding useful evidence proving someone’s guilt only for it inadmissible in court. I also had the thought that the more stories that come out about the possible positive outcomes of positive cyber-vigilantism there will likely be more people that will lose faith in law enforcement and the justice system leaving them to take matters into their own hands.
I have a lot more to learn about cyber-vigilantism. As of right now, if I was asked if I feel cyber-vigilantism should be legal or not, I would be unable to decide. I feel that there are breeches of privacy and harm to innocent people that needs to be taken into account. Yet, I know that there are many success stories which makes me wonder if there would be guilty people getting away with criminal activity due to a lack of resources and hours in the day. Perhaps the best thing that we could do is acknowledge that there are people out there that are extremely talented with their online sleuthing skills and that there is only going to be a rise in cyber crimes as technology becomes more and more readily available. There is also a major roll out of different artificial intelligences that is going to impact the number and sophistication of cyber crimes. With that being said, maybe we should be allocating more funding to cyber crimes. This could allow us to hire and train some of these super sleuths. This will improve the likelihood of cyber crimes being solved, in turn, helping to improve the efficacy of law enforcement in the eye of the public.