Judge Awards Sony With Visitor IDs of PS3 Hacker's Website

[DaHero]

I'm not being a PC fanboy about this (I hope not) but the future of consoles as a gaming platform is looking grim. Soon word will get out that if people own a console they can't go to XYZ website because they'll be banned. Microsoft will get a subpoena to record on Kinect 24/7 to see if anyone's using it to hack...

We live in a world where social and economical privacy is being torn down brick by brick from the foundation up so the ignorant population doesn't see the spotlights of corporate takeover until it's too late.

 

[Tom Goldman]

Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney calls the subpoenas "inappropriate" and "overly broad." When you're demanding the location of someone that posted "LOL" to a YouTube video, yeah, I'd call that pretty inappropriate too.

Would you consider it inappropriate to subpoena someone who witnessed an accident, chuckled, and walked off?

I'm not sure the two quite compare but I see what you mean.

 

[Iglock]

Seriously?

Wow...



It's not even that they have this information that bothers me- it's the fact that they are intentionally hunting down this personal information with intent to prosecute people who aren't even remotely involved in what is essentially just a couple of guys who decided to hack their ps3s.

This whole legal case was completely ridiculous from the start, but this is plain insane.

 

[Nemesis729]

Ya that seals it, Im kicking my PS3 out a window

 

[jovack22]

People speak with your dollar.

Stop buying bluray, and PS3 games. Switch to PC, Wii, or XBOX360 if you want to game...

Feeding this mega corporation is a bad idea considering the fact that they are willing to go to these lengths.

 

[thisbymaster]

One of those people is going to be a lawyer or journalist and they are going to get struck down on mass.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

They have the data, they couldn't accuse me of downloading data from that site. BECAUSE I DIDN'T VISIT IT.

As was said earlier, there was a video from that site posted to the Escapist. If you watched that video...sorry...you did.

And to be fair if you went on that particular site after the patch was made it probably wasn't for "wholesome reasons". So yeah, sony go nuts. And i have no problem with my use of anything being used as evidence if its the truth

And who determines the Truth in this situation? A radical State that wants to stop gamers or a paranoid gaming hardware company?

(you know what LAWS are built on).

I shall pause a moment to laugh here. If Laws were built on finding Truth, then they wouldn't still require you to swear on a book that 50% of the world believe is fiction.

They could only sue people as accessory if said people had a good knowledge of what was occurring and were fully aware that it was illegal. Pretty hard to do, and something Sony won't do because it's not in their best interest.

If you downloaded a file from that site (and the video on here could count), then they can say that you were illegally receiving goods. Add a few high-powered lawyers into the mix and that's a potential case.

Hotz needs a good kick in the ass and sony are providing. Cracking a system is fine (if a little iffy) for personal use, by spreading it on the web he just ruined many multiplayer games, and lowered the income for many games devs, that selfish lack of foresight (so he could get some fame) is what i take issue with.

See, I don't have a problem with Hotz taking a kicking for what he did. I've a HUGE problem with taking thousands of people's legal rights away. That's the LAWS I'm interested in.

 

[ryo02]

I'm going to leave a comment about how Sony's legal system is flawed and this is over stepping their boundaries.

10 bucks says Sony and Youtube work out a deal where they have my comment edited to say "YEAH BOI I BOUGHT 3 OF DIS SHIT TIME TO HACK COD AND USE MY PS3 AS AN ILLEGAL ABORTION TOOL."

you didnt say it there but you did say it here just now oh noo theyre gonna want info from this site now.

 

[pyroghast]

i am confused about this case do we rent or license the console from sony or do we own it because it seems like sony wants to have control of our personal property and that frightens me quite a bit

 

[Jumplion]

Like I even need to say it anymore.

Nobody wins in the end.

The pirates will still pirate, the hackers will still hack, the Sony guys will still Sony-up, and the consumer gets screwed every which way.

Screw this whole situation.

 

[Iglock]

Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney calls the subpoenas "inappropriate" and "overly broad." When you're demanding the location of someone that posted "LOL" to a YouTube video, yeah, I'd call that pretty inappropriate too.

Would you consider it inappropriate to subpoena someone who witnessed an accident, chuckled, and walked off?

Did you really just imply someone being in a (car?) accident is of a similar gravitas to commenting on a youtube video?

Smooth "lol".

 

[Axelhander]

As long as Sony doesn't use this info to start banning like PSN users, it probably won't affect those visitors that much.

Still worrisome, though.

 

[Avatar Roku]

geez people this only being used as EVIDENCE. Their not even doing anything about the people they have info on (yet). And even if they did, they would be in the right, its their service and they should do the best to protect it from thieves and people ruining games due to hacks.

So you are fine with the judge handing sony all personnel information on anyone who has interacted with a person of interest to them? They want anyone whose seen his youtube videos (probably including his real life friends) and anyone whose seen his twitter feed. what about people who have seen news stories about it and have googled it to get more information?

Sony who is not an unintrested party when it comes to personal information usage; its a major player in the overly draconian RIAA.

It's equivalent to Person A committing a minor crime and the police receiving personal information on anyone who has ever been spotted by CCTV walking past or anywhere near Person A. Except it's much worse than that because they are receiving information on people from other countries who are not subject to their laws. In fact it is down-right illegal according to our (UK) data laws to hand out people's personal information without a very strong cause.

A big law case is a fairly strong cause.
And It depends how bothered you are about personal information. I don't really care if people know who i am or where i live. Mainly because it won't change any part of my life.
Aslong as you don't keep my bank details i do not care

You're sort of ignoring the most important part of his statement: some of the information is on people in other states and other countries. A California judge should not have the jurisdiction to do hand over the information of that many people. In some of the places some of those people live in, that is blatantly illegal.

 

[Bobzer77]

Even the identities of people from different countries?

A dark dark day for freedom and anonymity everywhere.

 

[pyroghast]

i am calling it right here anonymous will probably do something about this it seams like their thing, freedom speech and all that