Aircraft debris looks like it's from MH370 – now can we find the rest?

Small it may be, but so far it's the only part of MH370 that's been found. Raymond Wae Tion/EPA

It appears that the debris washed ashore on Reunion, an island east of Madagascar, may be from the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 which disappeared in March 2014, believed lost at sea somewhere to the west of Australia.

Reunion lies 500km east of Madagascar near the island of Mauritius, around 4,000km from the area (marked in red) where search efforts for the missing aircraft have been concentrated. That’s a huge distance to travel, even in the 500 or so days it has been since the crash. Is this possible from an oceanographic perspective?

Certainly, it’s possible that aircraft debris – which is built to be relatively lightweight, otherwise it would be difficult for the aircraft to fly – can float quite close to the surface. The near-surface ocean currents in the region are mainly driven by broad wind patterns.

In the southern Indian Ocean the average long-term near surface circulation is counter clockwise, and so material that enters the ocean southwest of Australia would be carried by the West Australia current northwards, towards the equator. There it could join the South Equatorial current moving westwards until it joined the Mozambique current travelling along the African coast and past Reunion. The distance travelled – roughly 5,000-6,000km in 15 months or so – gives an average speed of about 15cm/s. This is quite a reasonable value for the currents in the upper levels of the ocean water column where such debris might find itself suspended.

Currents map the debris' possible route across the ocean. Michael Pidwirny

Using ocean currents to look back into the past

Even if it is part of Flight MH370, does this provide us with any new information that could help investigators pinpoint the crash site location? Perhaps “pinpoint” is too strong a word. But it’s certainly possible to use numerical ocean circulation models to trace the route the debris might have taken and suggest new regions of the ocean to search.

Such simulations come with certain assumptions. Just as a weather forecast becomes less accurate the further ahead we try to predict, attempting to re-create a journey like this through simulation becomes less certain the further back into the past we have to travel.

This is because the circulation transporting the debris would be driven by winds, and we are talking about winds over a remote part of the ocean. Consequently any uncertainty in the wind field used in the model will introduce uncertainty into the model simulations of the ocean currents, which would in turn create potentially large variability in any predictions of the location of a crash site the ocean currents dragged the debris from.

This is not to say that it’s not worth doing – it may very well indicate which part of the ocean the search should focus on, and perhaps even more importantly rule out areas not worth visiting. If one piece of wreckage has emerged, then there may be more to come, which could add accuracy to the prediction model.

Ultimately, when searching an ocean area as huge as the Indian and Southern oceans, any help is better than nothing at all.

Here's why scientists haven't invented an impossible space engine – despite what you may have read

Shutterstock

What if I told you that recent experiments have revealed a revolutionary new method of propulsion that threatens to overthrow the laws of physics as we know them? That its inventor claims it could allow us to travel to the Moon in four hours without the use of fuel? What if I then told you we cannot explain exactly how it works and, in fact, there are some very good reasons why it shouldn’t work at all? I wouldn’t blame you for being sceptical.

The somewhat fantastical EMDrive (short for Electromagnetic Drive) recently returned to the public eye after an academic claimed to have recorded the drive producing measurable thrust. The experiments from Professor Martin Tajmar’s group at the Dresden University of Technology have spawned numerous overexcited headlines making claims that –- let’s be very clear here –- are not supported by the science.

The idea for the EMDrive was first proposed by Roger Shawyer in 1999 but, tellingly, he has only recently published any work on it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and a rather obscure one at that. Shawyer claims his device works by bouncing microwaves around inside a conical cavity. According to him, the taper of the cavity creates a change in the group velocity of the microwaves as they move from one end to the other, which leads to an unbalanced force, which then translates into a thrust. If it worked, the EMDrive would be a propulsion method unlike any other, requiring no propellant to produce thrust.

Fundamental problems

There is, of course, a flaw in this idea. The design instantly violates the principle of conservation of momentum. This states the total momentum (mass x velocity) of objects in a system must remain the same and is linked to Newton’s Third Law. Essentially, for an object to accelerate in one direction, there must be an equal force directed the opposite way. In the case of engines, this usually means firing out particles (such as propellant) or radiation.

The EMDrive is designed to be a closed system that doesn’t emit any particles or radiation. It cannot possibly generate any thrust without breaking some seriously fundamental laws of physics. To put it bluntly, it’s like trying to pull yourself up by your shoelaces and hoping you’ll levitate.

From Earth to the Moon in four hours? Still impossible. Shutterstock

Nonetheless, a few open-minded experimental groups have built prototype EMDrives and all seem to see it generate some form of thrust. This has led to a lot of excitement. Maybe the laws of physics as we know them are wrong?

Eagleworks, a NASA-based group, built a prototype and last year reported 30-50 micronewtons of thrust that could not be explained by any conventional theory. This work was not peer-reviewed. Now, Tajmar’s group in Dresden say they have built a new version of the EMDrive and detected 20 micronewtons of thrust. This is a much smaller value, but still significant if it really is generated by some new principle.

Experimental problems

Straightaway, there are problems with this experiment. The abstract states: “Our test campaign cannot confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive.” Then, a careful reading of the paper reveals this observation: “The control experiment actually gave the biggest thrust … We were really puzzled by this large thrust from our control experiment where we expected to measure zero.”

Yes, the control experiment designed not to generate any thrust still measures a thrust. Then there’s the peculiar gradual way the thrust seems to turn on and off that looks suspiciously like a thermal effect, and then there are acknowledged heating problems. All this leads to the conclusion stated in the paper that “such a set-up does not seem to be able to adequately measure precise thrusts.” Similar problems were seen by the Eagleworks group, with thrust also mysteriously appearing in their control test.

Taken together, these results strongly suggest that the measured signatures of thrust are subtle experimental errors. Possible sources include thermal effects, problems with magnetic shielding or even a non-uniform gravitational field in the laboratory leading to erroneous force measurements. As a comparison, the force measured in this latest experiment is roughly comparable to the gravitational attraction between two average-sized people (100kg) standing about 15cm apart. It is an extremely small force.

That the experiments detect a measureable thrust is undeniable. Where the thrust comes from, whether it is real or erroneous, is inconclusive. That the experiments in any way confirm the EMDrive works is a falsehood. This was noted by Tajmar himself, who told the International Business Times “I believe there is no real news here yet.”

The experimental scientists involved have done their jobs to the best of their ability, having tested a hypothesis – albeit a spectacularly unlikely one – and reported their results. These scientists aren’t actually claiming to have invented a warp drive or to have broken the laws of physics. All they’re saying at the moment is that they’ve found something odd and unexplained that might be something new but is likely an experimental artefact that needs further study. The panoply of clickbait headlines and poorly researched articles on the topic are doing something of a disservice to their scientific integrity by claiming otherwise.

With so much vested in satellites, solar storms could bring life to a standstill

It looks mean from this close, but it's still damaging when it reaches Earth. Solar Dynamics Observatory/NASA

Satellites are essential to modern life. So essential, in fact, that plans have been drawn up on how to cope with a situation in which we could no longer rely on them. A UK government document entitled the Space Weather Preparedness Strategy may sound strange, but when so much of modern communications, transport and the financial system relies on satellites, you can imagine why one would want a Plan B in place.

The reality is that we depend on satellites in more ways than we realise. The concept was popularised in a 1945 letter to Wireless World written by science fiction writer and inventor Arthur C Clarke – and from then satellite services has grown into an industry worth US$100 billion a year.

This highlights the extent to which satellite services pervade modern life. A fleet of several hundred communications satellites encircles our planet in geosynchronous Earth-orbit, with hundreds more at lower altitudes. Rapid satellite communications enable the global markets underpinning our economy, and the emergency and defence services that keep society safe. Satellites provide GPS global navigation services for transport on land, sea and in the air. Modern agriculture, manufacturing and logistics chains, that supply virtually everything you consume – from the milk in your coffee to the screen you’re reading this on – rely on information provided by satellites.

But you’d be forgiven for never noticing some of the subtle influences of satellite technology on your life. After all, who’d have thought that some trains use GPS data to control which doors open at platforms of different lengths? Or that banks uses high-precision timing of satellite navigation systems to time-stamp its financial transactions?

It’s busy up there. ESA

Worst case scenario

We could survive without satellites, but their influence and benefits are so widespread that it would require concerted effort and massive investment to do so. Which has led some to consider the risks satellites face, and what to do about them.

One threat is the impact of “space weather”. This can be solar flares – powerful bursts of radiation – or explosions of high-speed, high-energy protons ejected from the sun which scythe their way though near-Earth space. During periods of disturbed space weather, the region circling the Earth’s equator, the Van Allen radiation belt, swells with greater numbers of high-energy subatomic charged particles.

These can disrupt satellite operations by depositing electrical charge within the on-board electronics, triggering phantom commands or overloading and damaging sensitive components. The effects of space weather on the Earth’s upper atmosphere disrupts radio signals transmitted by navigation satellites, potentially introducing positioning errors or, in more severe cases, rendering them unusable.

These are not theoretical hazards: in recent decades, solar storms have caused outages for a number of satellites services – and a handful of satellites have been lost altogether. These were costly events – satellite operator losses have run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The wider social and economic impact was relatively limited, but even so it’s unclear how our growing amount of space infrastructure would fare against the more extreme space weather that we might face.

When space weather becomes a hurricane

The largest solar storm on record was the Carrington event in September 1859, named after the British astronomer who observed it. Of course there were no Victorian satellites to suffer the consequences, but the telegraph systems of the time were crippled as electrical currents induced in the copper wires interfered with signals, electrocuted operators and set telegraph paper alight. The geomagnetic storm it triggered was so intense that the northern lights, usually a polar phenomenon, were observed as far south as the Bahamas.

Statistical analysis of this and other severe solar storms suggests that we can expect an event of this magnitude once every few hundred years – it’s a question of “when” rather than “if”. A 2007 study estimated a Carrington event today would cause US$30 billion in losses for satellite operators and threaten vital infrastructure in space and here on the ground. It’s a risk taken sufficiently seriously that it appears on the UK National Risk Register and has led the government to draw up its preparedness programme.

Types of space weather and what they affect. BIS/Crown Copyright

We’ve only been aware of the potential damage space weather can bring for around 150 years – and have only begun to rely on technologies vulnerable to it for 50 years or so – and our understanding of it is still poor and warrants further research. It’s not surprising that engineers and insurers have invested so much effort in trying to identify the risks and recommending ways to mitigate the effects. These include building redundant electronic systems to survive overloads, signal amplifiers to cut through increased interference, super-capacitors to soak up excess electrical charges that could damage electrical or communications grids, and high-precision alternatives to satellite data such as GPS that can be used for periods when satellites cannot be contacted.

As the space weather hazard becomes better understood, it will be possible for satellite manufacturers to design and build their spacecraft to withstand most space weather. But it’s likely that improved engineering standards will be required to ensure that critical satellite systems continue to function though extreme events. In the meantime, satellite service users that need to operate during extreme space weather should plan to find ways around the outages they’d experience.

Folding graphene like origami may allow us to wear sensors in our skin

Scientists have figured out how to make this...with graphene. McEuen Group, Cornell University

Material scientists have found a way to apply the ancient art of kirigami – a way of building complex structures by cutting and folding paper – to the wonder material graphene. The experiment shows that ripples in a graphene sheet can increase the bending stiffness of the material significantly more than expected – a discovery that could lead to new types of sensors, stretchable electrodes or tools for use in nanoscale robotics.

Graphene is a single layer of graphite, a naturally occurring mineral with a layered structure. The material, first produced in the lab in 2003, has impressive electrical, thermal and mechanical properties, which makes it potentially useful in applications ranging from new electronic devices to additives in paints and plastics.

The promising material is made up of carbon atoms structured in a series of interconnecting hexagons, similar to chicken wire. It is made by pulling apart the layers in graphite in what scientists call a “top-down” approach (where we take something big and make it smaller). This can be done using adhesive tape; chemical reagents; or by sheer force such as those generated in a kitchen blender or mixer. Although this sounds quite simple it is not suitable for producing large sheets of graphene.

To do this, a “bottom-up” approach is needed, where graphene is assembled by decomposing a carbon-containing molecule such as methane over a hot metal surface, typically copper. This is the technique the researchers in the new study used to produce a sheet of graphene that they then could manipulate using a version of kirigami.

Paper and graphene versions of kirigami. Graphene image taken using a transmission white-light optical microscope. McEuen Group, Cornell University

Art meets science

Kirigami (“kiri” means cut and “gami” means paper) is a type of origami (“ori” means fold) which has been practised for centuries to produce beautifully complex shapes and patterns. Lots of us have probably tried our hand at these techniques as children, making snowflakes out of scrap paper.

The researchers used gold pads as “handles” to crumple a graphene sheet like paper – in a process that is entirely reversible. Like paper, the graphene folds and crumples but does not noticeably stretch.

A gold pad (the dark square which measures a few 10’s of microns) is being pushed by a micromanipulator and is attached to a graphene spring

By using a sophisticated measuring technique, where an infrared laser is used to apply pressure to the gold pad on the graphene film, it is possible to measure the level of displacement of the graphene film. This displacement can then be used to workout the elastic properties of the graphene sheet. Wrinkling of the graphene sheet improves its mechanical properties, similar to how a crumpled sheet of paper is more rigid than a flat one.

In fact it was such mechanical similarities that enabled the researchers to translate ideas directly from paper models to graphene devices. Using photolithography, a method of transferring geometric shapes on a mask to a surface, as the “cutting scissors”, the team showed that it is possible to create a series of springs, hinges and stretchable graphene transistors.

Remotely-operated robotics?

The research has opened the door to manipulating two-dimensional graphene sheets to create new material structures with movable parts. The possibility of stretchable transistors is extremely interesting as there is a growing demand to develop flexible and even wearable electronics.

When stretching a material you would normally expect the electrical resistance to change. In the stretchable transistors developed in the new study, a graphene spring is sandwiched between a source and a drain electrode. When stretched to over twice its original size no noticeable change in electrical properties was detected. Repeated stretching and un-stretching also had little effect either.

Working in a water and soap solution, large sheets of graphene can dramatically crumpled like soft paper, and return to their original shape

This ability to maintain graphene’s electrical properties is down to its lattice structure, which does not undergo much change during the stretching of the spring. It even proved possible to take the kirigami devices to the next level, moving or folding the graphene without using direct contact. For example, by replacing the gold pads with a ferromagnetic material, such as iron, the sheets could be manipulated in a magnetic field, creating complex motions such as twists. The technique could be used to create devices that respond to light, magnetic fields or temperature.

The concept of manipulating two-dimensional materials to generate more complex structures on the macro-, micro- and nanoscale is genuinely exciting. Being able to create new metamaterials, engineered to have properties not usually found in natural materials, could open the door to many new types of tools. Possibilities include new sensors, stretchable electrodes that could be used in robotics or nanomanipulators, tiny machines that can move things around with nanometer precision.

Stretchable electrodes would allow highly conformable or flexible electronics and sensors to be incorporated into synthetic skin or flesh, such as in robots or artificial limbs, while retaining full functionality. We could even visualise such flexible electrodes and sensors being used in wearable electronics incorporated into clothing for realtime personal health monitoring – the ultimate personal healthcare.

Auto industry must tackle its software problems to stop hacks as cars go online

Not what anyone wants to see while driving. Bill Buchanan, Author provided

Many companies producing software employ people as penetration testers, whose job it is to find security holes before others with less pure motives get a chance. This is especially common in the finance sector, but following the recent demonstration of a drive-by hack on a Jeep, and parent company’s Fiat Chrysler’s huge recall of 1.4m vehicles for security testing, perhaps it’s time the auto industry followed its lead.

The growing number of software vulnerabilities discovered in cars has led to calls for the US Federal Trade Commission and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to impose security standards on manufacturers for software in their cars. Cars are likely to require a software security rating so consumers can judge how hack-proof they are.

In the past, cars have generally avoided any form of network connectivity, but now consumers want internet access to stream music or use apps such as maps. If a car has a public IP address then, just as with any computer or device attached to the internet, a malicious intruder can be potentially connect to and hijack it – just as the Jeep hack demonstrated.

Andy Davis, a researcher from NCC Group, has shown that it may be possible to create a fake digital radio (DAB) station in order to download malicious data to a car when it tries to connect. While the Jeep hack was performed on a running car, the NCC Group researchers demonstrated that an off-road vehicle could be compromised, including taking control of steering and brakes. As the malicious data was distributed through a broadcast radio signal, it could even result in a nightmare situation where many cars could be compromised and controlled at the same time. More details on how the hack works will be revealed at the Black Hat conference this summer.

Tuning into the wrong station could give you more than you bargained for. Bill Buchanan, Author provided

More devices, more bugs, more problems

In the last few weeks Ford has recalled 433,000 of this year’s Focus, C-MAX and Escape models because of a software bug which leaves drivers unable to switch off their engine, even when the ignition key is removed. Recently, it was shown that BMW cars would respond to commands sent to open their doors and lower their windows – hardly the height of security. The firm had to issue a security patch for more than 2m BMW, Mini and Rolls-Royce vehicles.

As more and more software appears in cars, the problems of patching them will grow. Our desktop and laptop computers can be set to auto-update, but with embedded systems it’s not so easy. The next wave of the internet, the internet of things where billions of devices will be network-connected, will evidently bring a whole lot more security problems in terms of finding and fixing bugs – on many more devices than just cars.

Crowdsourcing debugging

Some companies take this seriously, while others try and distance themselves from flaws in their products. Google runs a Vulnerability Reward Program with rewards from US$100-$20,000. For example, Google will pay a reward of US$20,000 for any exploit that allows the remote takeover of a Google account.

Google even has a Hall of Fame, for which it awards points for the number of bugs found, their severity, how recent, and whether the bounty recipient gives their reward to charity – Nils Juenemann is currently in top place. Google also awards grants up to US$3,133.7 as part of its Vulnerability Research Grants scheme.

Microsoft and Facebook also operate Bug Bounty schemes to encourage digging out bugs in its own internet software, with a minimum bounty of US$5,000. But while these companies actively seek people to improve software by fixing bugs, companies such as Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler take a negative approach to those who find bugs in their products, unhelpfully describing such efforts as criminal activity.

Change of approach needed

I don’t mean to alarm, but software is one of the most unreliable things we have. Imagine if you were in the fast lane of the motorway when a blue-screen appears on your dashboard saying:

Error 1805: This car has encounter a serious error and will now shutdown and reboot

It would be back at the dealer in no time. We have put up with bugs for decades. We can’t trust these embedded software systems to be bug-free, yet they’re increasingly appearing in safety-critical systems such as speeding one-tonne vehicles. When was the last time your microprocessor suffered a hardware breakdown? Compare this to the last time Microsoft Word crashed and you can see it’s not the hardware’s fault. This is generally because software suffers from sloppy design, implementation and testing. So while a word processor crash is annoying, a car crash is clearly much worse. can we say: Potentially in both senses of the word. (?)

Car owners of the future will need to be a lot more savvy about keeping their vehicles updated. Consider that you are on the motorway one evening and the car informs you:

You have a critical update for your braking system, please select YES or NO to install the update. A reboot of the car is not required, and the update will be installed automatically from your Wi-Fi enabled vehicle

Would you answer YES or NO? If you choose NO, you don’t trust the software; if you choose YES you are entrusting it to execute without problems while driving at speed along a motorway. Neither of these are good places to be.

The auto industry has a long way to go to prove that it grasps the risks posed by network-enabled vehicles and to then tackle them with our safety at all costs in mind. An independent safety rating for cars would provide some incentive for manufacturers to get this right. As for penetration testers, the industry may find that bug bounty schemes can help do this difficult work for them for less money than it costs in fines and recalls when undiscovered bugs make it to their products on the market.

Windows 10: Microsoft's universal system for an increasingly mobile world

Windows 10, a bit of the new, a bit of the old. Microsoft

With Windows 10, Microsoft is trying to turn the tide against the proliferation of operating systems across desktops, servers, tablets and smartphones by creating a single operating system that will run on them all.

Currently the world’s billions of Windows users are spread across its older versions, with Windows XP, released in 2001, still boasting the same installed base of users (around 12% market share) as the two-year-old Windows 8.1 (at 13%). The bulk of Windows users (61%), are still using Windows 7, released in 2009. And that’s not to mention the various incompatible Windows versions designed for tablets or smartphones.

Trying to consolidate different versions isn’t a new idea, although it’s much easier said than done. Recent versions of Apple OS X operating system for desktops and laptops have drawn inspiration from iOS designed for iPad and iPhone, while Canonical, the company behind the Ubuntu Linux distribution, has also produced a version for phones.

However, with Windows 10, Microsoft is taking the idea to its logical conclusion, producing not just a single OS for all devices, but a framework for apps that run on all of them, making the move between devices seamless.

One app to rule them

If we believe the Microsoft marketing machine, this will be the start of the era of Windows universal apps. There are many clever things in Windows 10, such as the integration of the digital assistant Cortana, but universal apps are what really excites me. This will allow developers to write code once and deploy it to all the different devices Windows 10 supports. It’s not quite as easy as Microsoft would have us believe though: there would still need to be some code that’s written specifically for each type of device, only some of it would be shared.

This is exciting because Microsoft is hoping to entice developers and bridge the “app gap” on Windows devices. As of May 2015, the Google Play Store has 1.5m apps, the Apple App Store has 1.4m, while the Windows Phone Store a mere 340,000. Applications, and therefore available developers to create them, are key. Getting developers on board is the best way for Microsoft to make headway in the race to get their devices into our pockets.

Mixing the new and the old

I’ve spent some time with the technical and insider previews of Windows 10 for the desktop. The latest builds are speedy and show a lot of promise, so much so that every one of my Windows tablets and desktops are now signed up and awaiting the free upgrade. As predicted, it blends the traditional desktop experience of Windows 7 with the apps-based approach of Windows 8. It feels like a new desktop experience but is also familiar, an evolution rather than a revolution.

We’ve come a long way. Microsoft

Some of the key improvements are less headline grabbing than a talking digital assistant like Cortana or the return of the start menu. A key market as personal PC sales decline is the enterprise, and under the hood changes in security have been a heavy focus for Microsoft to ensure businesses are open to upgrading from Windows 7. But other than the front-end “bells and whistles” there aren’t too many obvious internal changes.

This familiarity should entice those Windows 7 users still holding out, those who found the new Metro UI interface of Windows 8.1 too much of a culture shock. Gone are the two interfaces, now merged into a single mix of traditional start menu with start screen stuck on the side. Gone too is the charms bar (popup menu) that was so heavily reliant on touch.

In another new move Windows 10 is being given away as an upgrade for free. With successive Android, iOS, Linux and OS X updates now offered free I think it was inevitable that Microsoft would eventually go the same route.

Although Windows 10 for desktop is available now, we’ll have to wait until September for the mobile version and to experiment with universal apps. Of course it’ll be a bit longer still to see what impact a unified OS platform has, and whether Windows 10 is the fresh start Microsoft is banking on.

Hactivists aren't terrorists – but US prosecutors make little distinction

For Lauri Love, being treated as a terrorist is no laughing matter. Lauri Love/Facebook

Activists who use technology to conduct political dissent – hacktivists – are increasingly threatened with investigation, prosecution and often disproportionately severe criminal sentences.

For example, in January 2015 self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was sentenced to 63 months in prison for hacking-related activities including linking to leaked material online. Edward Snowden is currently exiled in Russia after leaking the global surveillance operations of the NSA and GCHQ.

Prosecutions of hacktivists intensified in 2013, when Andrew “weev” Auernheimer was sentenced to 41 months after exposing a vulnerability that affected 114,000 iPad users on AT&T’s service. Jeremy Hammond was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison after hacking and releasing documents about military subcontractor Stratfor. Aaron Swartz, who was facing a prison sentence of 25 years after hacking into JSTOR – a database of academic articles – committed suicide in January of that year. Chelsea Manning leaked secret military documents to Wikileaks and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment in August.

Long arm of the law is getting longer

While these are US citizens subject to US laws and punishments, the Obama administration has recently indicated that it will also aggressively pursue hackers located overseas for alleged criminal activities.

So in July 2015, British hacktivist Lauri Love was re-arrested under a US warrant for violating the Computer Misuse Act. His case, like those mentioned above, illustrates the remarkable steps the US government will undertake in the pursuit and prosecution of hackers.

In 2013 the US District Court for New Jersey issued an indictment against Love, charging him with hacking into the US Missile Defense Agency, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and other government departments. The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York claims Love stole the sensitive personal information including emails of Federal Reserve employees.

The leaked Federal Reserve emails may have been part of Operation Last Resort, an Anonymous project to avenge the death of Swartz, which they linked to prosecutorial harassment and the over-zealous enforcement of outdated computer crime laws. Like all major Anonymous operations, Operation Last Resort was a visual spectacle, including hijacking an MIT website to put up a Swartz tribute, releasing the names and contact information of 4,000 banking executives, and hacking the US Sentencing Commission website.

Are hackers terrorists?

Like Hammond, Manning and Snowden before him, Love is accused of hacking into government agencies and leaking information in an effort to make federal agencies more transparent.

Love faces extradition to the US, even though a British police investigation failed to turn up any incriminating evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service acknowledged it didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute and Love was released from bail in 2014.

The impending threat of US extradition is powerful enough to have kept Wikileaks publisher, Julian Assange, holed-up in Ecuador’s London Embassy for three years – and it is not difficult to understand why. Extradition law is generally reserved for serious criminal suspects such as those accused of terrorism.

Consider some of the individuals who have been extradited from the UK to the US: Abdel Abdel Bar and Khalid Abdulrahman al-Fawwaz, wanted in connection with the 1998 terrorist bombing of US Embassies in East Africa; KGB spy Shabtai Kalmanovich; al-Qaeda operative Syed Fahad Hashmi; and Christopher Tappin, accused of selling weapons parts to Iran.

Blurring the political and the criminal

Gary Mackinnon spent 10 years facing extradition and a possible life sentence in the US. John Stillwell/PA So it’s ironic that while Obama recently noted that the US criminal justice system “isn’t as smart as it should be”, his government pursues a policy that seems to blur the differences between and the sanctions against hackers, terrorists, spies and political activists.

There have been successful challenges against extradition orders aimed at those accused of hacking offences, such as Gary Mackinnon, who spent 10 years facing extradition before Home Secretary Theresa May rejected US demands. But Love’s case also offers a window into the anti-democratic operation of state power. The scale of US government response to hacktivism is disproportionate.

Love is accused of attempting to reveal secret facets of the military and financial-industrial complexes so that they might be held accountable. If, as it is alleged, his activities were associated with Operation Last Resort, they were part of a broader digital civil disobedience action involving a form of cyber-squatting on two federal websites as a coordinated protest against the persecution of a fellow hacktivist. Were this activity to have been conducted in the offline world – sit-ins, placard-waving protests, even obtaining and leaking information to journalists – the punishments would not be nearly as severe.

That Love has been doggedly pursued by the US, a year after being released in the UK, reveals that the apparatus of state power is increasingly aimed at criminalising dissent as it is conducted online.