Criteria to distinguish between hacktivism and simple vandalism$/$theft include:

Political Motivation: Hacktivism typically involves politically motivated actions aimed at promoting a specific cause, such as advocating for social justice, government transparency, or human rights. Vandalism and theft, on the other hand, are often driven by personal gain or a desire to cause chaos without a specific political agenda.

Target Selection: Hacktivist actions often target government institutions, corporations, or organizations perceived to be oppressive or unethical. In contrast, vandalism and theft may target random individuals, businesses, or public property without regard for political significance.

Methodology: Hacktivism often utilizes digital tools and techniques, such as website defacements, distributed denial$-$of$-$service $($DDoS$)$ attacks, or data leaks, to achieve political objectives. Vandalism and theft typically involve physical destruction or theft of property, such as graffiti, property damage, or theft of physical goods.

Communication of Intent: Hacktivist groups often issue public statements or manifestos explaining their motives and goals, aiming to raise awareness or provoke societal change. Vandalism and theft perpetrators may not communicate their intentions or may do so for personal amusement rather than political activism.

Ethical considerations involved in determining the intent and impact of such actions include:

Justifiability: Hacktivist actions may be perceived as justifiable if they expose corruption, promote accountability, or protect human rights. However, determining the ethical boundaries of hacktivism requires careful consideration of the methods employed and the potential harm caused to innocent parties.

Proportionality: Evaluating the proportionality of hacktivist actions involves weighing the potential benefits of political change against the harm inflicted on individuals or organizations targeted by the attacks. Excessive or disproportionate actions may undermine the legitimacy of the hacktivist cause.

Collateral Damage: Hacktivist actions can inadvertently harm innocent bystanders, such as users of disrupted services or employees of targeted organizations. Ethical considerations require minimizing collateral damage and ensuring that the means employed do not outweigh the intended political ends.

Rule of Law: Ethical analysis of hacktivist actions should consider the adherence to legal and democratic principles. While challenging unjust laws or systems may be ethically defensible, violating laws or infringing on others' rights undermines the rule of law and democratic norms.

Transparency and Accountability: Hacktivist groups should be transparent about their motives and actions, accepting accountability for the consequences of their activities. Lack of transparency or accountability can undermine the credibility and legitimacy of hacktivist movements.