Interesting that this arrest follows just a week after a series of other arrests in USA/UK/NL regarding LulzSec and Anonymous:
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/07/20/arrests-lulzsec-a...
Not a good time to be a hacktivist
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/07/20/arrests-lulzsec-a...
Not a good time to be a hacktivist
Living as I do in the San Francisco bay area, I encounter all forms of activists from people living in trees on college campuses (illegally) to folks who provide services to undocumented workers, to folks who expose security flaws on web sites. Of the ones with whom I've been able to talk briefly about their goals, all of them did not grasp that the results of activism are later perceived through the dialog of what the people that 'win' write. (sort of a variation on the winners write the history)
The idea that we would arrest another human being for sitting at a lunch counter, etc, is designed to provoke outrage at the unjust situation.
The Crito is an excellent place to start in examining I suppose the philosophical roots of civil disobedience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito
An arrested hacker activist is a hacker inactivist. Expecting them to allow themselves to become arrested is absurd.
It's not. It's much more complicated than that.
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.
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.
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.
No, they aren't. Lets review the definition.
"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?
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.
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.
Far better cause than saving whales or impeaching presidents.
I see that we are keeping this classy. Why am I not surprised?
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.
> They're criminals.
The civil rights movement has been historically full of criminals. Lets question the legitimacy of all their claims!
Lulz puts as much effort in to remaining anonymous as anything and, it would seem the consensus opinion here, folds like paper houses when they get caught. I didn't see MLK Jr trying to negotiate a sentence down by selling out the rest of his leadership. Instead, he actually accepted prison time rather than pay a fine because he truly believed in what he doing.
Not quite an equal comparison.