So-called cyber attacks targetting human rights activists

As for the two reasons why Google threatened to leave China, in my own opinion, what sounds ridiculous enough was their alleged "cyber attacks".

In fact, Google doesn't have any proof that the cyber attacks have anything to do with the Chinese government. All the speculation and guesses are still media hearsay. Although the White House stepped in afterwards, such accusations without evidence, however, offered grounds for the opponent to fight back. As the investigation continues, even Google's internal staff and the loopholes in Microsoft Internet Explorer came under suspicion, which made Google's arrogant accusations look even more passive.

And another weak spot is that Google claimed the cyber attacks were aimed at the e-mailboxes of human rights activists. It even revealed that the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists who use Gmail in Europe, China or the United States had been "routinely accessed" using malware that had been unknowingly installed on their own computers.

First, I don't understand why in an era with omnipresent hackers human rights activists have the privilege of avoiding a cyber attack. Second, which is even more difficult to understand, how can Google know which e-mailboxes belong to human rights activists? Do Gmail users need to claim whether they are human rights activists when applying for an account? Or did Google already know clearly about the e-mails of these human rights activists?

It is known that assisting the U.S. government in monitoring network communications has been one of the requirements of the American anti-terrorism law after the September 11th attacks. Doing things like this perhaps cannot be counted as "evil," because they are aimed at terrorists who are "evil." Monitors against this "evil" are naturally right and good. That is what we call the standpoint.

But when it comes to "human rights activists", whose standpoint on earth should be based on in judging whether they are good and evil? Obviously, Google knows that "human rights activists" are symbols against powers in the West. But the way Google emphasized "human rights activists" as "part of the victims in the so-called cyber attacks", it would on the other way round offer more room for people to fly their imaginations. Such emphasis would anyway leave Google into another embarassing situation that it did intrude upon the privacy of e-mail users. I don't know either how we should judge between good or evil in such a situation?