GeoHot Sounds Off on Sony's PSN Debacle
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
They also put in their Terms of Service that they are not liable for any consumer data loss. Meaning if PSN gets hacked, and your data gets stolen, they are not responsible for your data being stolen.Bags159 said:
Which goes against laws in some nations, which require companies holding private information of its customers to keep it safe and secure.
So either Sony's EULA has more heft than national law, or its full of bullshit.
Just because you put something in writing, does not make it legal.
Except that we've already paid for our console, how is going and buying another going to get back what we paid for. Screw Sony, they brought this on themselfs by making them a target. It sucks that the customers have to pay the price though, and sony will pay the price of that when the ps4 comes around...dreamcast you say?dalek sec said:
You probably already know this, but: http://xkcd.com/221/Irridium said:
(Yes, I was pleased to see a reference to one of the good, old xkcd cartoons.)
OT: He's right about them being foolish to trust the client. That's what led to Blizzard deploying Warden for World of Warcraft, too.
I don't know. I prefer very little clutter in my room.LiquidGrape said:
OT: A month has done very little to diminish my hatred for Geohotz.
Quite.kortin said:
O.k... so we've had no natural disasters for a while, this guy gets elected, same day, bang hurricane.Straying Bullet said:
Honestly, logic like that can be dangerous, get it checked.
and the law says that you have every right to mess with the software inside, publishing that info on the other hand is a bit more murky, but clearly by the tone of your post your a reasonable person who understands that right? I always love to see 1)People just resort to name calling because they have no argument 2)Place blame on "celebs" who are related to the situation but have no actual involvement in whats happening now. OH btw caps lock is cruise control for cool, use em' more, people will take you more seriously.William Thompson said:
As much as he's ragging on Sony's web defense, this is probably the least arrogant tone to his words. Thank god he didn't see the need to post in rap form again.
I agree with the lack of clutter, but look at how the yellow clashes with the muted colours of the walls and floor. As for the floor, it looks like a fitted carpet, which is a big no-no.AbsoluteVirtue18 said:
Furthermore, the furniture is of wholly disparate styles, and again, the colour-schemes are all off.
I ask you, is it too much to ask for some consistency and deliberation?
Given no one's taken claim for this mess, I doubt it's any kind of statement about personaly hacking PS3s or other systems. Was this because sony spent more money combating pirates and the used game market? possibly, even likely, but I'm still inclinded to think it was data theft for the intent of data theft.
***** or not, I think he hit the nail right on the head.Bags159 said:
Sony has been notoriously lazy in supporting the ps3 in every way and it finally caught up to them. They didn't directly send people our info but they apparently did little to protect it too.
Of course we will probably never know how little.
His point is that the bonus money paid off to the higher up execs and board members should've been spent on security.
@Ironic Pirate - I don't know the law I'll admit that, but if it says not to do something I won't do, just in case I'm not suppose to. Look how it turned out for that guy, not very well
GeoHotz didn't go anywhere near the PSN, if rumor is to be believed, he never connected online and signed the updated EULA. He didn't touch the PSN. The two things are unrelated coincidences. Perhaps it was karma for the way Sony treated the community, but Hotz jailbreaking the thing had nothing to do with the PSN getting hacked.Straying Bullet said:
While he's probably right, all I can think is "stfu Geohot". Seriously, does anyone want to hear from him anymore?
I think this video sums up the discussions around this debacle perfectly. Both hacker cheerleaders vs. corporate apologists. They're both douches in their own way...but at least the hacker side can be entertaining.
Well, actually those TOS agreements have never been properly challenged, the effots against them have usually been quite limited and coming from the wrong angles.Bags159 said:
To be blunt, one of the big issues here if someone decided to properly fight these agreements is that when you actually pay for a console your not agreeing to anything. For the TOS to be binding, you'd have to sign that as you paid for the console.
Even so, contract law can be very complicated, there are all kinds of laws in place to prevent people from being screwed, and it can be very subjective and governed by precedent. Issues like the length of a contract, and whether it was clearly stated enough, or even too long can all be big issues if challenged correctly. Your signature on a contract, is just a scrawl on a piece of paper in many cases.
When it comes to very complicated contracts the people involved usually involve notaries who act as witnesses to the signing, who can later be tapped to testify on their understanding of the document, and whether everyone involved had the same understanding.
What's more, it's also noteworthy that all the relevent documentation has to be availible, in the case of things like EULAs and TOS agreements, they frequently refer to laws or rulings but don't actually include those documents even as some kind of attachment.
Another important point is simply that when you buy a console, returning it for the full value is not always an option. A lot of retailers won't take opened electronics back, and the cost of mailing things like a console can be quite high assuming a mail-return option to the company itself is even availible.
At any rate, manufacturers/producers/developers would like to claim they are basically just leasing you permission to use their hardware, software, product, or IP, and have had some luck in defending that position, but right now we haven't seen any serious challenges brought before them. I suspect because the best people in those areas of law are hired, by and/or kept on retainer by the companies themselves... even if never used, the money they accept prevents them from getting involved against the companies due to a conflict of interest. Meaning that most of the people fighting these battles are hardly specialists in this area of law, going up against those that are, in one of the more messed up and subjective areas of the US legal system.
When it comes to non-binding contracts, if you look through a lot of stuff involving various stars making movies in Hollywood you'll find some stuff about it. When they refer to "making deals on a handshake" they don't nessicarly mean that literally, but rather that you see contracts being made without the nessicary safeguards, witnesses, and other people, and then being broken because they are fundementally indefensible in court.
One case for example would be the movie "Boxing Helena" where Kim Basinger allegedly contracted to star in the movie (about a girl who has her arms and legs cut off and is kept in a box under a bed by her insane boyfriend if I remember), accepted payment, and then refused to get involved. The details are sketchy, but the bottom line is that it went to court and she wind up losing like 8 million dollars which put her into bankrupcy temporarly, but then a year later appealed it and got the ruling reversed since the contract was deemed non-binding. I don't remember all the specifics, but the point is that contract law is a giant mess, and there are a lot of things you simply can't agree to in a contract anyway. I have my doubts if the terms specified in a TOS agreement or EULA would remain binding if ever challenged properly even if there WAS a physical contract signed at the time of purchuse.