Political dissent is a hot topic. Having often been considered increasingly apathetic by academics and administrations, electorates world-wide are regaining their political voices, standing up for their rights and beliefs in the face of unpopular government decisions or autocratic regimes. The strength of political dissent owes its resurgence in part to the rise of the internet generation - the web is an unparalleled tool for the raising of issues and the organisation of those who wish to support them, and there is an emerging young electorate that has never lived without it.

Like those who use it most, the internet is young. It remains unclear what uses the web might eventually have, what traits will emerge as it begins to test its new political abilities. It may well have the capacity to empower the individual - but it also provides an excellent forum for the identification of would-be activists by more unscrupulous authorities.

The most recent teething problem is the rise and rise of 'Hacktivism', the ''the nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools in pursuit of political ends", and is highlighted in the recent arrest of Jack Davis, the 18-year old charged with hacking offenses. Mr Davies, it is alleged, was the spokesperson for the loosely organised Hacktivist group known as 'LulzSec', and may also have been affiliated with a larger group, 'Anonymous'. Both groups have been involved in a spate of hacking and DOS (denial-of-service) attacks over the last 6 months, targeting companies from Visa, Mastercard and Amazon, to The Sun newspaper and the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

Many have defended both their and Mr Davies' actions, claiming that such activities are and were a legitimate form of political dissent, not crimes. They see in the arrest (amongst several others) of Mr Davies a creeping criminalisation of dissent as 'they', the government, attempt to censor critical political views, believing instead that such behaviour is the logical next form of political protest for the internet generation, civil disobedience equal to that during apartheid and the Kinder-Scout Trespass.

They are wrong. Hacktivism is an illegitimate form of dissent for any civilised society. Unlike legitimate forms of protest, from sit-ins to marches, those who take part in hacktivism are not ready to stand up and be identified, nor are they willing to take their argument to court in hope of changing the law. Instead, they hide behind a wall of anonymity, causing economic damage from the safety of their own homes, believing themselves beyond the reach of the law.

Governments have a duty to protect legitimate protest. But Governments also have a duty to prevent those choosing to protest from adversely affecting those who have equally chosen not to protest. This is the philosophy behind the provision of march-routes: preventing protesters shutting down transport routes, and access for essential services. This is what makes those marches legitimate political dissent.

It appears at first an extreme example, but the actual physical equivalent of a 'political' DoS attack is not a sit-in or a mass trespass, but arson. Both cause temporary, but expensive, damage, to an entity, and prevent other members of the public, who may well disagree with the arsonist's views, from using the service the entity provides. The services that may be hindered may initially seem minor - the VISA site going offline for several hours - but penalties escalate if and when the service targeted is government infrastructure: traffic systems, or the national grid - and they affect everyone, regardless of whether they agree with the protest itself. The suspected attempted hack of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency by Mr Daniels, had it been successful, would have had serious national security concerns, not to mention severe personal consequences for undercover officers whose identity would have become public.

Despite this, courts in Germany have ruled that DoS attacks are similar to sit-ins. But Germany also has laws that make anonymous protest illegal - it is quite probable that any activist taking part in a DoS attack will have to do so publicly. For it is anonymity that constitutes some of the problem: a government's ability to protect both legitimate protesters and those who choose not to protest is undermined by the modus operandi of actors like Mr Davies and LulzSec. Their unidentifiability, and the extent of the damage they could conceivably cause, makes their choice of protest an illegitimate one.

There are times when anonymity is important: dissenters in Syria would do well to remain unrecognised - but it need not be stressed that they are not engaged with a democratic system, simply trying to create one. Democracy is built on the right to disagree - dissent must and will always be a part of any democratic society. But identifiability is also part of that same compact: Free speech must also be public speech - not sniping anonymously from the sidelines.

 

Felix is Comment Editor of Varsity. His blog "Intelligent Debate" can be found at http://intelligentdebate.wordpress.com/. He tweets from @felixdanczak