Anonymity, fidelity to law, and digital Civil disobedience

Making use of the liberal concept of civil disobedience, this paper assesses, under which circumstances instances of illegal digital protest-called "hacktivism"-can be justified vis-a-vis the pro tanto political obligation to obey the law. For this, the paper draws on the three main criteria for liberal civil disobedience-publicity, nonviolence, and fidelity to law-and examines how these can be transferred to the realm of the digital. One of the main disanalogies between street and cyberspace protests is the tendency of hacktivists to remain anonymous, which in turn calls into question their fidelity to law (the third criterion). The paper argues that there are functionally equivalent alternatives to what can be called the "acceptance-of-legal-consequences-condition" (ALCC) associated with the fidelity to law. As a result, the ALCC is not a necessary condition for hacktivists to showcase their fidelity to law, thereby resolving the apparent disanalogy.