Are you really intending to condone illegal activity? Just because their targeting "wealthy" companies? That is like condoning a mugger because he is working in a rich neighborhood and not targeting the impoverished.
I was looking for a solid argument, since I am not able to provide one. So far there are none presented here either.
Are we really going to justify this just by "it is against the law"? So many things are against the law, so many ancient laws demonstrate the inability of humans to create the absolute corpus of ethical behaviours™.
The Kantian categorical imperative goes something like, "act as if the basis of your actions would be made universal law." What happens if everyone conducts denial of service and ransom attacks against anyone they perceive as a legitimate target?
The fact is that these particular situations are much more complex than a false dichotomy of "good" and "evil" corporations, or "large" and "small" corporations.
Take any organization you think is "worthy" of being attacked in this manner, and consider all of the implications of such an attack. Think about the people inside the organization, and those outside of the organization that benefit from that its continued operations.
I think it's fair to say the public opinion of oil companies is fairly low; however, arguably the biggest impact of the Colonial Pipeline attack was not on the executives running the company, but on the end customers of gas stations unable to fuel their vehicles due to the shortage (whether truly real or created by panic). I would argue that everyday workers unable to get to work or to the store to buy food is more important than a few executives not getting their bonuses or having their shares lose value.
This isn't to say that these corporations are above all reproach and should be allowed to continued operating in whatever way they see fit simply because they have employees and customers are relying on them. But it's also the wrong mindset to think that it's OK to attack corporations in this way just because they "deserve it" in some way.
If I heard news that Jeff Bezos bank account was hacked and $50 million dollars were stolen, I don't think I would even bat an eye. When I hear of ransomware shutting down hospital computers I'm furious and want to see these clowns rot in jail. There's clearly a spectrum here of where it starts becoming a heinous act.
The global median household wealth is about $7,500. The median income is around $10,000. To much of the world (making some assumptions based on your presence here on HN), you have more in common with Jeff than you do with much of the world; they might take the same attitude to you.
It's possible the only reason we would disgree if the rest of the world took this attitude is our own greed.
To me what's more obviously wrong whether I'm rich or poor is leaking personal info on employees, HR correspondence etc. I don't know whether this group would since they say it hasn't got that far yet but other groups have.
Extortion, mugging, burglary etc are worse than the "perfect theft" where you move some numbers from one account to another.
I wonder if the people involved believe their own spin that "your boss is the one at fault, would rather you suffer than pay"
Bit of an advocatus diaboli, but… Crimes are crimes because they hurt people. Here we’re talking about just lowering company’s profits; same thing happens naturally due to market forces and nobody complains.
Are we really going to justify this just by "it is against the law"? So many things are against the law, so many ancient laws demonstrate the inability of humans to create the absolute corpus of ethical behaviours™.