I'd be careful not to attribute the non-criminal activity of some of these individuals to the criminal. It's not an association that we can necessarily make. Even when somebody is talking on behalf of Anonymous, who are they really talking on behalf of? Perhaps it's themselves and one or two others, and not on behalf of others who may exploit the Internet for other criminal activities.
What I'm hoping the committee can look at is how we, as parliamentarians, react when one of our colleagues is being intimidated in this fashion. What type of support do we offer them, in terms of ensuring that they can continue to carry out their responsibilities to the people who elected them from their riding?