Anonymous Says It's Not Finished With Sony

[JDKJ]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

 

[chippa6]

If it wasn't for the escapist I wouldn't even know about this stuff...
I still enjoy my PS3 and that won't change anytime soon

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

 

[subtlefuge]

I agree with them fully on this point.

I'd still rather (openly) support the EFF than Anonymous, but I really hope that this comes back to bite Sony and everyone else involved.

 

[Plurralbles]

I AM SAYING WORDS! [SNIP other drivel by me]

YOur attitude of not doing anything wrong so you have nothing to worry about is retarded. The more peopel who have acess to your information the less secure it becomes.

So when your social security number gets stolen because it's on 8 different comapnys' servers... don't come bitching to me.

Okay. Point taken. I am not fond of my information being out there for others to get. But it is. How is somebody else going to get it?

1) Legally: I have agreed in the Terms & Conditions somewhere (that I never read) that they can give it away. There's nothing I can do about it.

2) Illegally: Somebody hacks in and takes it or they give it without my permission. I have recourse to sue for the latter. The former, they are probably legally protected against. I honestly won't know if I have legal right to sue because I didn't read the damned T&Cs in the first place.

If what Sony did to farm that data was illegal, then PayPal and YouTube would not have released it. Of course this is opinion. I'm talking out my ass here because I clearly have not read the entire history on this data release. (Nor do I plan to.) Know that going in before flaming.

p.s.
Be very careful if you respond here Plurralbles. Try to maximize your hate toward my statements and minimize potshots at Sony. I notice that SonyOnline is one of your Twitter followers. They are probably reading your comments here and storing your negative feedback for future use.

All I can hope for is that someday, and maybe even now, there's a lawyer sitting in the wings that is ready to pull a Asbestos\Hurricane Katrina\big tobacco lawsuit on sony.

There's so much money in it

Hopefully he\she doesn't get caught bribing a judge and we win.

 

[JDKJ]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas on Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

 

[JDKJ]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

You might wanna pull that anti-conspiracy tin-foil hat down closer to your ears. The mind-controlling gamma rays that Sony, the Magistrate, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Bank-International Monetary Fund are constantly beaming at you might leak in under your hat, if you don't.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Here s my question... The poem is "Remember remember the fifth of November. Gunpower, treason and plot. I see no reason wy gunpowerder, treason. SHould ever be forgot." right? So what's with the big V for Vendetta masquerade? Guy Fawkes was going to blow up parliament... You guys have it all wrong anon... seriously

And the PS3 was a cute touch.... with a little bue USB reader... Kinda pathetic really

You think anybody at Anon is actually smart enough to know history?



Seriously though guys. Why can't companies protect their Intellectual Property anymore? Hackers use this guy's techniques to play for free - and last I checked, pirating was illegal.

So if Sony uses the Law to crack down on pirates... What's the problem, exactly?

no no no no no, anon is more attacking SONY for having the audacity to ask the court for the IPs of all the people who view Hotz' videos. They aren't attacking SONY for asking for the IP addresses, they aren't attacking the courts for granting them, they're attacking SONY for having the audactiy to put in a request... THAT is the part I find sad in this case... They are attacking SONY for a viable, legal avenue

But the thing I have against the V for Vendetta trick is simple.... IT'S NOT FUCKING NOVEBER YOU IDIOTS! If you were going to strike on the 5th of november.... Har har har har har,, you got us, tres bloody clevar, but it's clear the opposite end of the year anon, why the V fr vendetta gig on th opposite end of the year when Guy Fawkes opposed government, not "privacy"

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

You might wanna pull that anti-conspiracy tin-foil hat down closer to your ears. The mind-controlling gamma rays that Sony, the Magistrate, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Bank-International Monetary Fund are constantly beaming at you might leak in under your hat, if you don't.

LOL. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that people are greedy and can be bought off. You really think that no one has ever accepted a bribe ever? I think that makes you the one with the irrational belief.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

OR, I shall instead educate you in law. Each state has its own seperate laws, very much like in Canada, each province has federal, provincial/state. and municipal (city) laws. Now what SONY was going after Hotz for (thieft of intellectual property a.k.a. the root key to their systems) happens to fall under state law.

Hotz lves on one part of the country (new york, I think, cound be wrong), and SONY works ther main base in another (california). SONY thinks the battle will go better for them if tey hit Hotz with California law, and Hotz believes he can defend himself better with his local state's laws.

Now what SONY needs to do, is they need to prove that enough support for Hotz came from California (basically that the majority of this case is based in California) in order to hit him with Cali law. Now whhen people donate to hotz, they become a small part of his case. they are supporting him, they are legaly entering the battle to an extent. Therefore, if enought supporters came from California.... SONY can him him with Caifornia law.

tl;dr: The judges aren't corrupt, SONY had a damned good reason for trying to find out the supporters.

 

[Gilhelmi]

People say I am paranoid.

Anonymous is the reason for my paranoia.

Edit: to clarify
I do not support anonymous in any way shape or form. Their lack of respect for the law makes me paranoid.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

OR, I shall instead educate you in law. Each state has its own seperate laws, very much like in Canada, each province has federal, provincial/state. and municipal (city) laws. Now what SONY was going after Hotz for (thieft of intellectual property a.k.a. the root key to their systems) happens to fall under state law.

Hotz lves on one part of the country (new york, I think, cound be wrong), and SONY works ther main base in another (california). SONY thinks the battle will go better for them if tey hit Hotz with California law, and Hotz believes he can defend himself better with his local state's laws.

Now what SONY needs to do, is they need to prove that enough support for Hotz came from California (basically that the majority of this case is based in California) in order to hit him with Cali law. Now whhen people donate to hotz, they become a small part of his case. they are supporting him, they are legaly entering the battle to an extent. Therefore, if enought supporters came from California.... SONY can him him with Caifornia law.

tl;dr: The judges aren't corrupt, SONY had a damned good reason for trying to find out the supporters.

That makes sense to me. If that's the case, then I'm fine with it. Still not a big Sony fan though.

However, I'd like to add that if Sony uses the information in any other way they'd still be in the wrong.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Hmm, as much as I'd agree to protesting, I'm pretty sure I'd be the only one here because half the people here are fricking idiots who don't understand the severity and impact of this whole case.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

Oh nuuuuuuuu! The big bad SONY is out to get us! They are much worse than the government raising taxes, or companies in the west exploiting developing countries for labor...Oh and don't forget about how Evil SONY is compared to BP Oil. But how could we have forgotten about all those hate speeches and nazi rallies SONY hosted...man they are eviler then Fox News. *Sarcasm*

Anonymous summed up:

Anonymous could do so many great things, yet they have their head's up their own asses most of the time. Oh boo hoo that SONY decided to take a Hacker to court, maybe Anonymous should take Microsoft to court for banning Xbox Live players, or take Valve to court because they haven't released Episode 3!

I support Anonymous when they have a righteous cause, but in this case they just seem to be a bunch of incompetent d**ks.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Someone's been watching V for Vendetta too much

 

[JDKJ]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

You might wanna pull that anti-conspiracy tin-foil hat down closer to your ears. The mind-controlling gamma rays that Sony, the Magistrate, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Bank-International Monetary Fund are constantly beaming at you might leak in under your hat, if you don't.

LOL. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that people are greedy and can be bought off. You really think that no one has ever accepted a bribe ever? I think that makes you the one with the irrational belief.

As long as you can appreciate the humor, it's all good. I was yanking your chain more than anything else. And, frankly, the notion that a court in the Silicon Valley area (which is where Ego Hot's case was) would be little sympathetic to a software developer ain't exactly far-fetched. But buying off a Magistrate? It ain't impossible but it is unlikely.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

You might wanna pull that anti-conspiracy tin-foil hat down closer to your ears. The mind-controlling gamma rays that Sony, the Magistrate, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Bank-International Monetary Fund are constantly beaming at you might leak in under your hat, if you don't.

LOL. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that people are greedy and can be bought off. You really think that no one has ever accepted a bribe ever? I think that makes you the one with the irrational belief.

As long as you can appreciate the humor, it's all good. I was yanking your chain more than anything else. And, frankly, the notion that a court in the Silicon Valley area (which is where Ego Hot's case was) would be little sympathetic to a software developer ain't exactly far-fetched. But buying off a Magistrate? It ain't impossible but it is unlikely.

Eh. You'd like to think so, but do you remember the whole debacle with Duke Cunningham? And he was a friggin' congressman. But someone else illuminated the fact that Sony had a legal right to ask for the information because it was relevant to decide the jurisdiction of the case. If enough people from California sent Hotz money, that would mean that the case should be settled in California. So I rescind my previous comment. Although it still might be the case that Sony buttered them up a little bit.

 

[JDKJ]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

You might wanna pull that anti-conspiracy tin-foil hat down closer to your ears. The mind-controlling gamma rays that Sony, the Magistrate, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Bank-International Monetary Fund are constantly beaming at you might leak in under your hat, if you don't.

LOL. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that people are greedy and can be bought off. You really think that no one has ever accepted a bribe ever? I think that makes you the one with the irrational belief.

As long as you can appreciate the humor, it's all good. I was yanking your chain more than anything else. And, frankly, the notion that a court in the Silicon Valley area (which is where Ego Hot's case was) would be little sympathetic to a software developer ain't exactly far-fetched. But buying off a Magistrate? It ain't impossible but it is unlikely.

Eh. You'd like to think so, but do you remember the whole debacle with Duke Cunningham? And he was a friggin' congressman. But someone else illuminated the fact that Sony had a legal right to ask for the information because it was relevant to decide the jurisdiction of the case. If enough people from California sent Hotz money, that would mean that the case should be settled in California. So I rescind my previous comment. Although it still might be the case that Sony buttered them up a little bit.

My favorite example of corruption is Alcee Hastings, a federal judge who was impeached and convicted for bribery but because the Senate, for some strange reason, didn't impose the usual sentence of exclusion from seeking public office in the future, Ol' Alcee ran for Congress and won a seat. He's still a Congressman. As Don King always says, "Only in America."

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

[SNIP more ramblings from me]

So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?

1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.

2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.

For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"

Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.

If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.

Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.

The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Sony didn't use a subpoena though. They just asked for it.

From where are you gettin' your facts? They mostly certainly served court-granted subpoenas of Google, PayPal, BlueHost, and others. You don't think SCEA's $700 per-hour attorneys know that if they had simply asked, pretty please, for Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others to just give them the information, they would have received in response a collective "Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit!" from Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others? At $700 per, they ain't wasting their client's money with that effort in futility. They went to the Magistrate and got them some subpoenas which they then served on Google, PayPal, BlueHost and the others. That fact is well-covered by dozens of news outlets on the 'net, including everyone's favorite source for gaming-related news, the Escapist.

Well in that case I blame Sony. And the (likely very corrupt) magistrate that gave them the subpoena. Actually, I largely blame the magistrate/judge. WTF! Seriously, a subpoena for what cannot even be construed as an illegal activity. "They donated money to the guy we're suing, after he's already done the things that we're suing him for. Can we have their personal information please?" Someone got their pockets lined in that one.

You might wanna pull that anti-conspiracy tin-foil hat down closer to your ears. The mind-controlling gamma rays that Sony, the Magistrate, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Bank-International Monetary Fund are constantly beaming at you might leak in under your hat, if you don't.

LOL. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that people are greedy and can be bought off. You really think that no one has ever accepted a bribe ever? I think that makes you the one with the irrational belief.

As long as you can appreciate the humor, it's all good. I was yanking your chain more than anything else. And, frankly, the notion that a court in the Silicon Valley area (which is where Ego Hot's case was) would be little sympathetic to a software developer ain't exactly far-fetched. But buying off a Magistrate? It ain't impossible but it is unlikely.

Eh. You'd like to think so, but do you remember the whole debacle with Duke Cunningham? And he was a friggin' congressman. But someone else illuminated the fact that Sony had a legal right to ask for the information because it was relevant to decide the jurisdiction of the case. If enough people from California sent Hotz money, that would mean that the case should be settled in California. So I rescind my previous comment. Although it still might be the case that Sony buttered them up a little bit.

My favorite example of corruption is Alcee Hastings, a federal judge who was impeached and convicted for bribery but because the Senate, for some strange reason, didn't impose the usual sentence of exclusion from seeking public office in the future, Ol' Alcee ran for Congress and won a seat. He's still a Congressman. As Don King always says, "Only in America."

Eh. Any plausibility of a non-corrupt government flew out the window with the advent of lobbyists. There is no grand conspiracy. You just can't get elected without having a lot of corporate money behind you.