Mal Fletcher comments on the lack of accountability with groups like Anonymous and the potential consequences of their actions.

It is also being used to design new civic programmes for reducing crime and recidivism.

When handled correctly, predictive analysis will enrich our lives. It will also boost our care for the vulnerable in natural, economic and medical emergencies and improve our record when it comes to the environment.

Meanwhile, holographics, haptic virtual reality and artificially intelligent machines will move us further from simply going online to living an 'onlife', in which the line between the digital and the real is even more blurred than it is today.

Imagine then, within this near-future scenario, the havoc internet lone-rangers with sophisticated hacking skills might wreak on economic, transport, healthcare and security services.

Not long ago, in a test of hacking capabilities, McAfee researchers remotely programmed insulin test pumps to release what would under normal circumstances have been lethal doses of the substance. They wanted to demonstrate how vulnerable computerised medical machines can be to interference.

In theory, any computerised device can be hacked. Talk of payment chip implants to replace credit cards raises the dystopian possibility of human bodies becoming hackable (and trackable) devices.

The positive benefits of technology - and there are many - could so easily be swallowed up by the negative impact of maverick groups like Anonymous. It believes that it has a sovereign right and a civic responsibility to bring down systems it happens not to like.

Anonymous has launched hack attacks on such companies as Sony, PayPal, MasterCard and Visa. Similar hacking groups have cyber-attacked US government agencies, media organisations, military contractors and police and military personnel.

Is there a need for accountability platforms in the online media space? Absolutely. However, accountability can only be credibly offered when the body providing it is itself answerable to the wider public.

Anonymous is accountable only within its internal structures, whatever those are. Its members are faceless, hiding behind masks and computer screens. There is no vote, corporate or political, on the rightness of either its means or its ends.

Indeed, if a corporation or public institution dares to challenge the credibility of Anonymous, that organisation is liable to face an attack.

Anonymous does not, as a constituency, engage in debate or call for action through legitimate channels.

It seeks a shortcut to influence; a way to inflict its will without going through the channels accepted by society - including the voting booth or, in the case of companies, the courts.

The group also has no recognisable leadership, nobody who can be called upon to speak for the group or held responsible for actions carried out in its name.

In fact, internal dissent seems to be a feature of its culture, including disagreement about whether the group should focus on pranks or more serious political statements. It may well be that some members of Anonymous actually agree with the sentiments expressed above.

In our desire to overcome the threat of ISIS, we should think twice about giving recognition and credibility to groups like Anonymous who do not play by any rules but their own.