I feel that anonymous are simply vigilantes. There’s no accountability.
Ditto many "lawful" organizations, corporations, and government entities: they may or may not portray themselves as accountable, but often are not, IMHO.
I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful. I really do appreciate your reply. I just thought it was kind dismissive.
Was the civil disobedience of Selma, Alabama comparable? (Boy, there sure are some differences: a cyber-attack is not at all like the passive resistance of not riding in the back of the bus). I guess my question is: under what circumstances or with what restrictions is breaking the law a justifiable means to an end?