The hazards of cyber-vigilantism

In recent years, some aggressive actions against cyber-criminals and terrorists have come not only from state actors, but also from independent third parties such as Anonymous. These groups have claimed some significant victories in their battles against ISIS and similar organizations, by hacking their email, publicly exposing their secret communications, and knocking their websites offline. The hacker groups also combat other cyber criminals, including distributors of child pornography. Some of the groups' activities, however, violate the computer hacking laws of many nations. Some commentators have criticized these statutes, claiming that the laws unnecessarily prohibit private actors from serving the public good.In this Essay, I defend the broad prohibition of cyber-vigilantism, and argue that well-intentioned private actors can accomplish their goals by working with governments. I first review global jurisprudence, case studies, and academic commentary to explain why courts and policymakers historically have disfavoured vigilantism in other contexts, and I apply that reasoning to cyberspace. I explain that cyber-vigilantism can lead to several negative consequences, including the potential for abuse of the system, undercutting the legitimacy of democratic systems, and disproportionate punishments that are not necessarily effective. I then argue that instead of operating independently, these private groups can more effectively collaborate with governments and other private actors to fight threats in cyberspace.