> As the article states and the government has been officially proclaiming, these were not sophisticated actions or attacks. They were the lowest of the low hanging fruit that was already so ripe it was starting to rot.
That doesn't excuse it. What they did was still illegal.
They aren't messengers. They're vandals running around tearing up houses who happen to leave their doors unlocked.
Except that these "houses" happen to be banks, which customers have entrusted with their assets (E-mails addresses, passwords, credit card details) to keep safe. Their doors should not be unlocked.
While I believe Lulzsec went too far in their actions, I'd say that they were trying to prove that these companies did not go far enough in their responsibility to keep their systems safe.
To continue the analogy above: The PSN-hack wasn't a bank robbery. It was a person walking into the vault, unarmed, loading everything into their vehicle of choice and leaving the scene. In other words, the bank did too little to keep the assets safe.
That doesn't excuse it. What they did was still illegal.
They aren't messengers. They're vandals running around tearing up houses who happen to leave their doors unlocked.