I think webpage defacements are a perfectly valid outlet for political protest. Often, the object of protesting is to reach as many people as you can with your message, while openly displaying your disaproval of whatever strikes your fancy at the time. If, with a single web defacement, someone can reach the eyes of 1000 people with his/her message, then why is this a bad form of protest?

The problem is not the medium, it's the message. Allow me to explain. Frequently, messages of political dissent are obviously tacked onto the defacement as a way to justify this act. This keeps the person doing them within his or her ethical boundaries. A defaced page with the following message:

----begin----
BAD STUFF IS HAPPENING IN KASHMIR! PAKISTAN POWER!

greetz to [hackerbob] [0oPOISONo0] [.......]

**** youz to: GROUP HACKALOT, JERKS!
----end----

...is just stupid. This is an act void of honest political intentions, the first line is merely a justification for the following two. I have seen webpage defacements that go into length about whatever political message the author wishes to convey, on specially targetted machines, with no one taking credit for it.

If you are against such means of protest, then it is to be assumed that you are against political graffiti, politically oriented vandalism (of all sorts) and things like that. If so, then there is no reasoning with you, as our views cannot mesh. If not, then how can you possibly deny the validity of ANY politically oriented web defacements?