Anonymous, a loose collective of hacktivists, have called Islamic State militants (ISIS) as gangsters who have hijacked Islam and have launched a social media campaign against them, according to reports.

Operation Ice Isis, as the campaign is called, aims to protect people who are defenseless, both in the cyber world and the real world.

The objectives behind launching the campaign were twofold: to underscore the ISIS threat, and also to clarify that the group does not represent or uphold the values of Muslim faith, told one of the member of the group wearing the group’s trademark Guy Fawkes to France 24 on its ‘Tech 24’ program

Anonymous posted several videos on YouTube recently about ISIS activities and also explained the tactics their group is using to counter the ISIS’ online presence.

RELATED STORY: Anonymous Hacktivists to attack countries supporting ISIS

One of their tactics was to attack several countries that supported ISIS financially, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

“We warn that if they continued to support ISIS, we would be forced to destroy their virtual infrastructure – and yes, we have those who can do this.”

He also said that they tried to counter ISIS ideologies with truth and logic because they cannot be attacked directly, as they mostly operate through social media.

“In the process, we were doing our job to inform the people that these criminals are liars and deceivers, and they do not deserve to be listened to,” according to France24.

“We cited Islam’s rules of engagement, which include not harming prisoners of war, or cutting down a tree, or attacking ministries. We also cited the covenant the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, had with all worshipping Christians, and that whoever breaks that covenant is excluded from his people. Things like these drastically change their influence on social media and exposes them for who they are – gangsters who hijack the Islamic religion.”

He added that the ISIS were no different from white supremacists.

“The Islamic State, as they call themselves, is very much like those of the Westboro Baptist Church, those who are affiliated with Anders Breivik and very much like the KKK,” he said.

It is not just Anonymous who have taken upon themselves to wage a virtual war against the militant group. Many attempts by others have been made in the past as well. Currently Muslims from allover the world are running a Twitter campaign against ISIS with hashtag #NotInMyName.

Also Follow @No2ISIS AND @NO2ISISofficial on twitter for updates

A U.S. proposal to expand the U.S. Justice Department’s ability to hack into computers during criminal investigations is furthering tension in the debate over how to balance privacy rights with the need to keep the country safe.

A committee of judges that sets national policy governing criminal investigations will try to sort through it all. It’s weighing a proposal made public yesterday that would give federal agents greater leeway to secretly access suspected criminals’ computers in bunches, not simply one at a time.

The underlying goal is to take rules written for searching property and modernize them for the Internet age. The proposal arrives at a precipitous time for a government still managing backlash to electronic spying by the National Security Agency that was exposed last year by contractor Edward Snowden.

“What I think we’re looking for as a society is a way to investigate crime while limiting the exposure of information that should be kept private,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University.

While the intent of the proposal is reasonable, the idea of law enforcement potentially placing malware on computers of innocent Americans that can access personal data is a cause for concern, he said.

“I don’t think many Americans would be comfortable with the government sending code onto their computers without their knowledge or consent,” Nathan Freed Wessler, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a telephone interview. “The power they’re seeking is certainly a broad one.”

Only Option

The department must describe the computer it wants to target with as much detail as possible. For example, an investigator may be covertly communicating with a suspected child molester and know an IP address, and then obtain a warrant to use malware to find the actual location. In the case of botnets, malware might be used to try to free the compromised computers from a criminal’s control.

The Justice Department’s effort appears to be in response to an April 2013 court ruling denying a search warrant for a remote-access operation, said Wessler, with the ACLU.

In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith of the Southern District of Texas picked apart the government’s request to secretly install software on an unknown computer in an unknown location that could extract stored electronic records and even activate the computer’s built-in camera.

Smith said the computer could be located in a public place or used by family members or friends not involved in illegal activity, and that the request didn’t satisfy constitutional requirements.

Wessler said the government should be required to exhaust other options for finding and accessing computers suspected of being used in crimes, such as serving individual warrants on Internet service providers.

While federal investigators make efforts to use other tactics, “the use of remote searches is often the only mechanism available to law enforcement to identify and apprehend” criminals, said Carr, the Justice Department spokesman.