[qF]

Personally I feel that you're being a bit too optimistic. LulzSec was much louder about the fact they did it for the 'lulz' rather than for any noble agenda. Encouraging people to log in to random people's FB account and ruin their relationships serves no purpose. Interestingly enough @Anon_central recently tweeted a qualification about their supporters (which has a great overlap with LulzSec), which to me shows that you're being too optimistic [1]. Especially considering that Anon is supposed to be more ethical compared to LulzSec..

[1] https://twitter.com/#!/Anon_Central/status/87402917006557184

[JanezStupar]

Oh I don't think they are some kind of Interwebz Mother Theresa incarnate, they most obviously are not. And indeed the question of are their deeds more positive than negative in net appears not to be in their favor.

However if I retort to D&D classification. Nowadays Lawful Good can hardly achieve anything meaningful without tripping over themselves.

If general tech community is Chaotic Good. The Anon seem to be Chaotic Neutral, LulzSec appear to be Neutral Neutral (or True Neutral).

But that does not mean that no good can come of their actions. Its just more unpredictable. Which may be good - since the opressors cannot fight an enemy without agenda.