[gdcbyers]

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.

[Jacobra]

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.

[gdcbyers]

Raising awareness for privacy and security issues is a good thing. Doing so by creating more privacy and security issues is decidedly counterproductive.

[burgerbrain]

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.

[gdcbyers]

You again, eh?

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?