Hold on, hold on, let me try to clear some things up.
A criminal is a rigidly-defined adjective meaning an entity which breaks or broke laws.
An activist is a rigidly-defined term meaning an entity which acts to further some idea and bring it to public perception.
A hacktivist isn't well-defined, but we'll assume here that it's a form of activist.
Now based on this, the Anonymous and Lulzsec hackers were hacktivists, at least according to their own statements of their intent. They also were criminals, at least according to my reading of the laws of the US. Now, what you may be looking for is whether they were ethically good --- but don't conflate lawfulness with morality, that's worked out poorly in both directions.
But of course, you acknowledge that this is a horribly simplistic view of things. Even DnD got this, after all (clearly Anon is Chaotic, and whether it's Neutral or Good depends on whom you talk to).
So perhaps you might say "I don't believe Anon's actions were for the good", or even "weren't well-intentioned", but please recognize that passing judgement beyond noting the factual statement that they are criminals, is a personal judgement. Not that personal opinions shouldn't be argued, defended, and spread --- just that they should not be conflated with fact.
I agree to the defined terms, and further purpose hacktivist is an activist who's chosen/preferred method is "technology", be it illegally accessing private systems, or building nifty robots out of servos and shit.
But, what cause or idea have they furthered? Computer security? Social injustices? Tax evasion by corporate amarica? I can't find one other then their own personal enjoyment.
I can not point to a single action they have taken and describe it as "constructive." The issues they do occasionally allude to could be furthered much more successfully, legally and in a morally responsible fashion (respecting individuals privacy) by other means.
As for their harm, it is fairly self explanatory, but to make it clear, releasing innocent individual's personal information and encouraging others to use it to commit further crimes is most decidedly not neutral.
I don't believe LulzSec's actions helped anyone. If you think they did some good, please enlighten me, point it out. I can't see it.
I would argue that their actions, at the very least, are getting people thinking about the privacy and security issues we face. Their methods are blunt and can be damaging, but you can't deny that people have been talking about these issues much more, and I think that's a good thing.
Raising awareness for privacy and security issues is a good thing. Doing so by creating more privacy and security issues is decidedly counterproductive.
An activist need not be an effective activist to still be an activist.
PETA nailing people with red paint on the street is incredibly counter-productive to their cause. Hell, it probably actually increases sales of fur. They are still however activists.
"An activist is a rigidly-defined term meaning an entity which acts to further some idea and bring it to public perception."
If you agree that PETA's red paint stunts are counter-productive, how can you then turn around and argue that the same red paint stunt is furthering (is productive) to the cause?
Their stated goal is to have fun and cause mayhem. That isn't activism by any stretch of the imagination.
While some of their attacks have stated goals that appear to be activism, some of them, like the attacks on Nintendo, pron.com and Minecraft appear not to serve any type of activism I'm aware of.
They put the spotlight on the widespread disdain for security exhibited by major corporations regarding their client's data?
That was the core message between the lulz. That said, dumping the full data was not necessary to make that point, even though it probably increased the media coverage, hence the spread of their message.
But the lulz were so loud that I could not hear the core message. They were certainly not primarily activists. At best, that was a scant moral cover for what was basically mass vandalism.
On the one hand, I don't feel too bad for trolling you, since your comment basically glorifies the same activity. Lulz and all that.
On the other hand, I feel that you should understand why your comment is not smart. "X bad/useless activity is better than Y bad/useless activity, therefore X is ok" is always a stupid argument.
A criminal is a rigidly-defined adjective meaning an entity which breaks or broke laws.
An activist is a rigidly-defined term meaning an entity which acts to further some idea and bring it to public perception.
A hacktivist isn't well-defined, but we'll assume here that it's a form of activist.
Now based on this, the Anonymous and Lulzsec hackers were hacktivists, at least according to their own statements of their intent. They also were criminals, at least according to my reading of the laws of the US. Now, what you may be looking for is whether they were ethically good --- but don't conflate lawfulness with morality, that's worked out poorly in both directions.
But of course, you acknowledge that this is a horribly simplistic view of things. Even DnD got this, after all (clearly Anon is Chaotic, and whether it's Neutral or Good depends on whom you talk to).
So perhaps you might say "I don't believe Anon's actions were for the good", or even "weren't well-intentioned", but please recognize that passing judgement beyond noting the factual statement that they are criminals, is a personal judgement. Not that personal opinions shouldn't be argued, defended, and spread --- just that they should not be conflated with fact.