BROOKE GLADSTONE: Arrest, intrigue, moral ambiguity - just another day in the never-ending story that is WikiLeaks. We talked last week about a loose faction of online activists called Anonymous, responsible for the so-called distributed denial-of-service attacks that crashed websites that had fled from WikiLeaks, including MasterCard, Visa and PayPal. In a press release, Anonymous wrote, quote, “We are average Internet citizens. Our current goal is to raise awareness about the underhanded methods employed by the above companies to impair WikiLeaks’ ability to function.”

BOB GARFIELD: In defending their denial-of-service attacks – illegal under U.S. law – Anonymous cited Internet theorist Evgeny Morozov, who suggested such acts can be legitimate expressions of dissent, can be. And so, in an essay this week in Slate, Morozov asks: Do the Anonymous attacks rise to the level of civil disobedience? In answering it, Morozov used the criteria laid out by philosopher John Rawls in his 1971 treatise A Theory of Justice. Were the attacks public and were authorities notified? Yes. Were they nonviolent? Check. Were they conscientious and motivated by moral convictions? Arguably. And, finally, were the lawbreakers willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions? Originally, Morozov’s answer was, oh, not so much. The Anonymous attackers were, after all, anonymous. But we spoke to Morozov via Skype from Belarus, and he says he’s since kinda changed his mind.

EVGENY MOROZOV: I've been tracking some of the reaction from the Anonymous members themselves, and some of them actually claim that their attacks can be easily traced to their computers and that they can be arrested. So I myself have slightly changed my mind on this issue also, because some of them are willing to take the risks and they're willing to go to jail.

BOB GARFIELD: All right, so let's say some percentage of the Anonymous hackers realize they could be traced and put in some legal jeopardy. It leaves open the question though about the Rawls stipulation for conscientiousness and moral conviction. To what extent do we have evidence that these are conscientious actors behaving thoughtfully or just - a mob?

EVGENY MOROZOV: First of all, I think it’s not correct to call them hackers. They have not broken into any databases, they have not stolen any data. So they actually themselves dispute that term, and I think they do it correctly. But in terms of whether they have moral convictions and whether they're pursuing any sort of agenda for change, I think they are. In this particular case, they didn't like Amazon and PayPal and MasterCard and Visa for what they think was a very unfair treatment of WikiLeaks and for succumbing to government pressure. So, from their perspective, I think they definitely had a claim, and I - I think they actually had good reasons behind that claim for launching those attacks. As we wouldn't dispute their protests in front of Amazon’s front door or in front of PayPal’s office, I think this is legitimate.

BOB GARFIELD: If this fulfills Rawls’ stipulation, well, then can anybody decide that any business’ practices, for any reason, justify this kind of denial-of-service attack? How much do we have to fear about just total pandemonium?

EVGENY MOROZOV: It’s definitely an issue. Since the so-called cyber war between Russia and Estonia in 2007, denial-of-service attacks have been getting more and more media coverage. They have become easier to launch. I mean, now it’s a point-and-click kind of warfare, and all we have to do is specify the target. In the European Union, for example, now some of their commissioners are thinking of setting up a dedicated hotline for reporting denial-of-service attacks and maybe even dedicating some kind of a digital SWAT team. I myself have written a lot about the ways in which such attacks are being misused against independent media in places like Belarus or Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Lebanon. I mean, it’s very easy to shut down an independent newspaper with the help of denial-of-service attacks. So it’s definitely a very complex and increasingly disturbing issue. I, I just don't think that the way to go forward is to criminalize all of that because I think it will only embolden the likes of Anonymous to make their attacks even more sophisticated and to get even more people inside their ranks.

BOB GARFIELD: Evgeny, as always, thank you so much.

EVGENY MOROZOV: Oh, thanks so much for having me.

BOB GARFIELD: Evgeny Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University and author of the forthcoming The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom.

[MUSIC UP AND UNDER]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This is On the Media.