[icedpulleys]

I have nothing against security firms or their work, but

> At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth.

No, you're not. You're consultants doing analytical work. I'm not arguing that one is intrinsically more worthwhile or valuable than the other, but post-hoc security analysis is not science.

In this particular case, anonymous is implicitly raising the question that if a security firm can't even secure their own web presence, their internal emails, and the data that they've gathered on an FBI contract, then how could their data and conclusions be trusted? Regardless of whether the employees of any particular security firm are sympathetic individuals, and whether being hacked would incur significant financial loss, you'd hope that a security firm would be, you know, secure.