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.
Martin Luther King also put didn't hide from the authorities and voluntarily went to jail out of belief for his ideas.
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.
One of the critical measures though is that most activists openly do so. Someone up-thread mentions that MLK was a criminal, and he was. As was Ghandi, and others. But they said here I am, here is what I am doing, and why I am breaking this law. And for civil disobedience to be effective, here's the kicker, they welcomed and expected the punishment.
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
Civil disobedience is only one of many forms of activism. The people who ran the underground railroad were in no hurry to make their identities known. Where they any less activists for it?
An arrested hacker activist is a hacker inactivist. Expecting them to allow themselves to become arrested is absurd.
Actually, forcing arrests is a very effective form of civil disobedience. One of the most effective civil disobedience campaigns I have seen was one that aimed to poke holes in wide and loosely defined laws being used by police for openly racist reasons (that is, we don't like your kind here). Some states in Australia have laws that can be used to arrest almost anyone for very little reason. For example, public nuisance, indecent language, resisting arrest (yes, people are often charged with, and only changed with, reacting to police attempt to arrest). Basically the campaign involved indigenous Australians going alone to places they knew would get them arrested, getting arrested, and then refusing bail. When bail is refused you are assigned the first available court session. The plan was a success, after 2 weeks the courts were completely clogged with cases judges would instantly throw out (because the prosecution case was beyond flimsy). Attention granted, laws were slightly changed, and some police officers were charged with contempt of court. Allowing yourself to be arrested is a valid activist tool for change.
Forced arrests only work when the system/population deep down realize how absurd the arrest really is. The courts will happily throw as many "hackers" as there can possibly be into the slammer. Hell, the prison industrial complex has actually made this profitable.
Generally it does seem to be a common attribute. Some activists are also idealists, which is to say they have a view of the world that is idealized based on their principles which is a distortion of reality to a lesser or greater extent.
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)
