If refusing to obey laws for ideological reasons they are doing some form of civil disobedience, that is still obeying the "law"[1]. Even when refusing to follo

If refusing to obey laws for ideological reasons they are doing some form of civil disobedience, that is still obeying the "law"[1]. Even when refusing to follow a specific law you still follow the Law, the point is that you willingly accept the consequence of your (in)action as per that law, i.e. that usually means go to jail. Thoreau's seminal essay or Gandhi or King's(and many others) writings talk about the topic in length . King actually frames civil disobedience as the expression of highest respect for the law. All behavior is motivated by either seeking gratification/pleasure or for avoiding pain, however such a reductive mental model is not useful work with in this context. Coercion in the context of leak (MICE) usually is understood as unwilling participant who is being blackmailed to leak. Money, Ideology and Ego are voluntary, Coercion is forced is the idea i believe. --- [1] I am talking about the conventionally held definition of Civil Disobedience, non-violent and public are generally accepted qualifiers . It is not really required under many definitions. Ellmann states that covert lawbreaking is just valid way of expressing your morality ( ideology ) as public disobedience. There are similar arguments for revolutionary and violent variations as well. It boils down does common(yours) morality allow deceit or violence under this situation. Morality being more subjective( you may agree violence is justified someone else will not) most popular commentators try to stick to non-violent and public conditions to make their case stronger and widely supported. Whether that public or non-violent is a component or not it doesn't matter. The point I am trying to make is: if is ideological then consequences will be readily accepted, otherwise it just common crime.