The ethics of protests

There is an interesting article on the Economist website about the ethics of denial of service (DDOS) attacks, which were used both against Wikileaks and by its supporters in the aftermath of publication of the US embassy cables.

The Economist compares DDOS attacks with civil disobedience, against British rule in India, or against segregation in America, likening them to a mass sit-in, making entry to or exit from a building impossible. But it adds:

In a free society the moral footing for peaceful lawbreaking must be an individual's readiness to take the consequences, argue in court and fight for a change in the law. Demonstrators therefore deserve protection only if they are identifiable. Some countries (like Germany) even prohibit protesters from wearing masks.
Protesters in cyberspace, by contrast, are usually anonymous and untraceable. The furtive, nameless nature of DDOS attacks disqualifies them from protection; their anonymous perpetrators look like cowardly hooligans, not heroes. This applies to those attacking WikiLeaks too—a point American politicians calling for reprisals against Julian Assange's outfit should note. Posses and vigilantes, online and off, mete out rough justice, at best. That is no substitute for the real thing.