I'm a security researcher close to the field of the author. I'm usually very sceptical of what Google is doing. In this case though, Google really did nothing

I'm a security researcher close to the field of the author. I'm usually very sceptical of what Google is doing. In this case though, Google really did nothing wrong. They did what they should to protect their users. They didn't know they're interfering with a counter terrorist operation (according to the post), and even if they knew, who knows how many other less commendable operations they disrupted. And who knows who else was using the same vulnerabilities? I'm sure if Google disrupted Chinese or Russian operation the author would be very happy about that. >However, burning operations, no matter the actor and no matter the reason, demonstrates a grave misunderstanding of the critical role that cyber plays in reducing harm in the world. I honestly don't understand what the author tries to convey. What about Iranian operations targeting independent journalists? What about Chinese operations against Uyghurs? Is it also not OK to disrupt those? How should Google decide which operations are OK to disrupt? Especially since they don't really have full insight into campaigns.