Sony CEO Adamantly Defends Openness On PSN Attack
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
poiuppx said:[
I think we're coming from amazingly different places on this. Among other things, you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable for 1/3rd of the console market to disappear, undoubtedly putting a lot of people who are in no position to make decisions on things like DRM or keeping/trashing features, out of business in an already difficult job market, just to teach the people at the top who did make that decision... what, a lesson in humility?
Also, your use of one word defines this for me; capitulate. If this was done for the social-engineering reason of teaching them a lesson about what they can/can't do with their customer base, they're doing that by engaging in underhanded tactics that produce upheval not for merely the company, but for everyone even tangentally connected, most especially the self-same customer base this is suppossedly for. THAT is where I draw the line; you cannot hold, in effect, the peace of mind and free will choice of the customer base hostage and expect ANY kind of positive reaction.
As an additional aside, if this really was Anonymous, I'm damn disappointed in them. This -may- hurt Sony in the long run, but it damn sure hurts the tens of millions of customers who weren't even in any position to make the decision they're protesting, it damn sure hurts the small third-party companies who rely on the PSN and PSN Store to survive, it damn sure hurts the bigger studios for whom these days if you don't have your multiplayer up Day 1 you're almost certain to soak much worse sales, potentially failing to turn a profit and limiting what they can even THINK of doing in the future... do you see what I'm saying here? Whoever did this may have wanted to give Sony a black eye, but in the process was waving the baseball bat around so wildly, they broke everyone else's stuff too. Including the people, suppossedly, this was all for. If it was Anonymous, then to take a twist on what you said above, they don't deserve the internet.
Okay, much clipped to get this down to the point and prevent this from getting nasty.
For the easy bit first, I will simply say that I think you might REALLY want to think about what Anonymous is before you express any kind if disappointment. Anonymous is NOT a group of white knights. Yes, they might get involved in some good things, but they are not really out for the greater good. I won't break it down, but a lot of their involvement with Sony here is arguably a turf war as much as anything. Sony's behaviors actually infringe on the "complete anarchy on the internet" attitude of Anonymous. Remember also that this is the group that did things like harass Jessie Slaughter (as obnoxious as she was). Above and beyond anything Anonymous exists for "lulz", usually at someone's expense. This is a group that might fight for a speech principle in one place, but might also coordinate to say post kiddie porn on the welcome page for a daycare center, or pick out some kid for life-ruining harassment. This is a group that has considered this a victory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7liYfhRgXGk
The issue of child porn on the internet? pointless. Lulz? Priceless.
You act like there is something to be disappointed in. I understand how some people might have the wrong opinion about Anonymous if somehow they only heard about them recently BECAUSE of Sony or whatever, but their body of work is so much more. How can you be disappointed in a group that has defined itself as pure chaos, their only rule seems to be that one will not torment or kill cats for fun. Of course then again even with Anonymous that isn't REALLY a rule or even an enforced guideline as illustrated by things like the "classic" Zippocat and the like. Zippocat being a copypasta step by step of a cat being lit on fire and torched alive intended for use to troll people like animal rights activists. It's old news now, but that's an occurance by and large associated with them. Ever seen the recurring image of a black man in an afro and suit, and the caption "Pool's Closed"? or "Pool's closed due to AIDS" Famous mostly because someone left a print out of it outside a real pool and it wound up on TV? That's another thing associated with them, dating back to the Habbo Hotel raid where they were all making avatars of black guys with 'fros and suits to recognize one another and harassing the user base by doing things like blocking the doorways of the central hub (with a pool) and telling everyone that the pool was closed due to AIDS. They also took those little avatars and formed swatstika patterns out of them (ie a Swatstika of little black guys with afros and suits) and things like that.
I'm not sure if "Plastic Duck" was one of theirs, or one of Something Awful's "Goon Squad" but another moment sort of attributed to them was how when Second Life had it's first real world millionaire from in game business, there was a press conferance in their virtual world, and they swamped the place with virtual floating penises.
Then of course there are the many lulz inspiring antics around "Fort Longcat" in it's various incarnations throughout Second Life.
Holding Anonymous to standards?... sorry, I just can't compute that.
Overall I think their stake in this pretty much comes down to Sony's actions infringing on The Internet given that they performed a crackdown on a PSN hacker, and indeed the very fact that PSN uses everyone's favorite "system of tubes" and Sony is trying to impose it's own order in ways it doesn't approve of. Everything else is probably trappings, but I'm not in the loop, so I can't say.
-
As far as the rest goes, your quite correct that I *don't* care if a ton of people are knocked out of work as a result of a victory by Anonymous. I actually think that's a good thing overall.
See, I don't believe in propping up corrupt and rot filled businesses simply because they employ a lot of people. Such justifications (even if they don't say so themselves) are akin to using human shields. Indeed the reason why the economy is such a mess is because we allow things like this to continue out of fear of getting rid of them.
Overall, I don't think we're ever going to see a "one console" market again, simply because it's obvious how much money can be made here, someone is always going to be trying to move into the market.
I also think that a complete crash of the gaming industry is not a bad thing overall, because right now the current industry is trapped in a vicious cycle of rot and corruption that in unble to sustain itself. Various attempts at customer exploitation are just ways of making things increasingly worse in an effort to sustain the inevitable. I see no need to support this simply for fear of there being no games, simply because if the whole thing comes crashing down, there will be other people who will pick up the pieces due to the potential profits, and will doubtlessly learn from the mistakes of the current industry by more carefully establishing itself to avoid a lot of the same problems. 99% of the problems in the industry right now are the result of game developers acting like they're operating in Hollywood without the same kind of market to see the return on investments. This leads to more and more attempts being made to gouge customers to meet increasingly lavish demands.
This is getting off the subject, but the bottom line is, that we DO view this differantly. I no more support the continued existance of this industry due to the potential cost to employees than I supported the goverment propping up failing businesses and banks for the same reason.
The overall motives of Anonymous aside, the bottom line is that we're seeing the sins of the industry catching up with it. In this case it has insulated itself against the goverment, but being the rot filled rube of corruption that it is, it's invoking anger from the people itself, and that leads to groups like Anonymous bringing them to task where the authorities can't or won't.
I am not going to support a company stealing from it's customers, simply because bringing the company down for it would cause their employees to lose their jobs. Their specific motivations aside, this all comes down to that as the crux of this issue. Sony is invested in the idea that despite taking money for a product, the customrs don't own anything, and they are entitled to exploit them and break promises until their greedy little hearts are content. Having pretty much bought the legal system they were feeling secure in this fact until someone decide to come along that isn't subject to the legal system and pretty much bring them to task for it.
The reason why Sony won't apoligize here and back down is not just a matter of arrogance, it's also because by admitting they are wrong, would also be basically acknowleging that people own their consoles and/or have rights regarding them, and even scarier that Sony has to keep any deals it makes when it sells products.... or simply put engage in fair business practices. That's anathema to Sony's goals.
I could be wrong, but the guys acting against Sony, which seem to be Anonymous, or some faction within it, are probably concerned about the issue of security limiting internet freedom, combine with the simple fact that Geohotz got hammered for sharing information that a company didn't like, when there shouldn't be any limitations. As I understand Anonymous from watching them for years, they might have just as easily gotten involved if say someone got nauiled for distributing doctored gay porn of Sony CEOS having sex with Crash Bandicoot. Of course then again if such a thing did appear in wide distribution there is a good chance Anonymous had a hand in it to begin with...
In the end even with the potential of millions of people losing their jobs if Sony was run off the internet, that's actually a lesser evil than the billions who suffer under the kind of tyranny they are promoting. Heroic freedom fighters, or guys out for their own agenda, I really can't fault Anonymous here. That isn't to say I always agree with them, I don't. I'm one of those people who disagree with them 100% in defending Wikileaks as I feel national security is one of the few exceptions to free speech, and by defending a site that was basically outing diplomatic documents and such I think that was going too far. Sony getting booted from The Internet if it ever came to that might be a big deal, but it's an entirely differant cup of tea.
Or in short, I support my right to own what I pay for. I don't care how many millions might lose their jobs or die (including me actually, I'd probably fight for that if it came to some kind of armed conflict). That's what the situation with the "Other OS" is about on a fundemental level. Sony's right to sell someone something, and then just take it away "because we can", when they see a profit to be made by doing so. As far as I'm
concerned Sony is dead wrong and it either needs to back down, or get chased out of the relevent business. People paid for that feature, Sony's belief that it has the right to victimize them in order to maybe make a few extra bucks by combatting piracy is absolutly wrong.
And in the end, the matter is made clear; to you, this is a holy cause. Let the world burn for the sake of this one matter. Let men suffer. Let children starve. Let all those even tangentally connected die for the sins of their masters and those they have chosen to side with for the sake of being able to provide for their families.Therumancer said:I don't care how many millions might lose their jobs or die (including me actually, I'd probably fight for that if it came to some kind of armed conflict). That's what the situation with the "Other OS" is about on a fundemental level.
This is a course of logic I can't even begin to condemn enough. This is honor taken to obscene extents, and it is why Anonymous and any others who believe in this will fail. Because the millions in the industry and hundreds of millions who support the industry will always outnumber the handful who are willing to take up this cause with crusader-like zeal. And every act made in that spirit condemns the group as a whole.
I would suggest, if you believe this strongly, to consider WHY this act will backfire. Consider how the console-makers will respond. Consider how those who create DRM have been given endless fodder for years of sales pitches. Consider the actual honest likelihood of how anyone- the console-makers, the game-makers, the investors, the vast majority of the customerbase -will perceive this. You are literally advocating a scorched earth policy that justifies every locked-down console, every intrusive DRM, every legal trick that you despise.
And also consider that no one is invincible. The old '7 proxies' meme applies here. Once governments get involved seriously- as they are becoming thanks to this -no one is safe. No one is anonymous anymore. Taking this to the extent you suggest would be the kamikaze of the whole freedom of information movement, because it would create the kind of disorder that men go to their deaths for. This doesn't make them noble or wise; it makes them fools, because they chose to take up a road to their ends that all but insured the only victors would be their enemies in the end. These acts build the noose and scaffold of their own ideologies.
Ironically, we're of the same mind on WikiLeaks. Which is why I'm imploring you to consider this. Consider how the international community reacted when those documents first hit. Consider, undoubtedly, how raw things behind the scenes must have become between some of those countries involved diplomatically. That right there is why this is a textbook Bad Idea. Believe strongly in the rights of the consumer, exercise those rights, champion free speech and the free internet; you're not alone in believing in the very NEED of these things for the sake of the future. I imagine that, while this may be shocking to you, we would likely march together under similar banners in that regard. But when you go to such extremes with it that it gives people all the reason in the world to be MORE secrective, MORE locked-down, REDUCE their transparency and the freedom given to those under their purview... you've only become your own worst enemy.
And as a side note, historically, the way to go about knocking the corrupt, bloated, and behind-the-times corporations- as you clearly see Sony to be -is not to take up guerilla warfare tactics. It's to replace them. Minds bright enough to accomplish such an array of feats as these are certainly bright enough to write a business case, get investors, and enter the field themselves. That is how you win. You replace the enemy, you make them obsolete, and condemn them to the rubbish pile of history. You don't scare off their customers; you steal them, and use the money they give you to improve further and steal more of them, until they are left with nothing but a few faded IPs and memories of being a big name once upon a time. And when you're done, if you're feeling charitable, you buy what remains of them out, and give away what titles they had left from the 'good old days' as cheap stocking stuffers. The other way is just anarchy. And I find it hard to play a video game on anarchy alone.
?poiuppx said:And in the end, the matter is made clear; to you, this is a holy cause. Let the world burn for the sake of this one matter. Let men suffer. Let children starve. Let all those even tangentally connected die for the sins of their masters and those they have chosen to side with for the sake of being able to provide for their families.Therumancer said:I don't care how many millions might lose their jobs or die (including me actually, I'd probably fight for that if it came to some kind of armed conflict). That's what the situation with the "Other OS" is about on a fundemental level.
This is a course of logic I can't even begin to condemn enough. This is honor taken to obscene extents, and it is why Anonymous and any others who believe in this will fail. Because the millions in the industry and hundreds of millions who support the industry will always outnumber the handful who are willing to take up this cause with crusader-like zeal. And every act made in that spirit condemns the group as a whole.
It's not a holy cause, it's a matter of me wanting to own the property that I pay for, and expecting people to provide the goods and services they accept my money for. That's actually one of the building blocks of our society.
I don't think tons of people will rally against what I think because of a few million people who might suffer considering the billions of people affected by this and what's at stake.
There is no way to justify Sony taking money to provide a product/service and then choosing to keep that money and take away what you paid for. Not even their TOS agreement would stand up to a proper challenge because that agreement only appears AFTER you paid money to receive the product.
It also opens disturbing doors, because if Sony can do this, it means that it works towards establishing a precedent where a company can take back anything that you pay them for at a moment's notice. For example buying a chair at a furniture store, and then the next day the guy showing up and saying "hmmm well it says right here on the tag hidden under the bottom that we have the right to take back our chair for any reason" and walking out with your chair and their money. We haven't gotten to the point of this being pulled with physical property yet, but that's fundementally what Sony did with this whole "other OS" fiasco. People will defend their property and/or support it's defense.
Overall this touches on a big enough issue because of the precedent it establishes where simple morality by the numbers proves you wrong. How many Sony employees would be affected by this vs. citizens in countries where people own their own property (as opposed to goverments based on the idea of communal ownership or the state ownership of property... ). Right now it just doesn't seem like that big a deal, because only a limited number of people have so far been affected, but that's also how precedents get established. You let Sony get moving here and things are just going to get bigger and nastier overall.
While much mocked it's one of those old cases where the old schtick
"First they came for the X, but I remained silent for I was not one of the X, then they came for the Y, but I remained silent for I was not one of the Y. Then they came for me, and nobody spoke for me for I was alone".
Your correct that this is a matter of principle (based on property ownership/paid services) for me. It's not a "Holy" issue, but I don't have any direct stake. I'm neither a pirate, nor someone who ever used the "other OS" option, which was mostly there for those wierdos who like to do things like install Linux on everything. I mostly support this because I oppose the idea of paying someone for something, whether it be a good or service, and then having them either take it back, or refuse to provide it. People paid good money for that "other OS" feature and Sony decided to take it away simply for their own profit. Anyone who was using that feature was wronged because it was promised to them when they paid for the system, and even contract trickery doesn't apply because the agreement wasn't part of the purchusing process when money changed hands. If challenged properly (which isn't possible in any practical sense which is part of the problem) I doubt their EULA/TOS stuff would stand up in court, but that's not relevent because by the time anyone even found that agreement they had paid for the product, and probably couldn't return it without incurring a signifigant cost to themselves (mailing a console is not cheap, refunds take time, and that is to say nothing of your gas, and time since you were having your chain jerked).
In fact I think the only reason why your being obstinate in opposing it is because you weren't affected. It's easy to say "oh those poor people who might lose their jobs if this somehow progresses to the most extreme level" when you weren't one of the people being screwed. You also don't seem to be looking at this from the perspective that once they do it once, that means they are liable to do it again if they got away with it. Give it time and eventually it WILL be something that affects you, and you'll be facing a situation where Sony can sit there smugly and go "hey, we've been doing this for years, we have tons of precedent on our side to go with the legal dollars we invested" while twirling it's Snively Whiplash mustache in your direction.... and sadly you gunned down Duddley Doright years ago because his horse was making too much noise.... too bad now that you need him.
I'll also say one last thing, I don't believe in corperate inaccountability. That is to say an organization that becomes so huge to the point where you can't get your fingers around it whenever you need to deal with it for doing something wrong. Everyone involve being someone who was "just doing their job" and nobody being responsibile. As far as I'm concerned letting huge bureucracies go, because they are huge bureaucracies is one of the problems of our society, and why so many things get messed up.
You talk about millions of innocent people, well from a perfectly valid perspective they were all complicit. An bureaucratic or corperate entity can't operated without all of it's gears. It needs all of those secretaries, door greeters, janitors, paper pushers, and so on in order to operate. Every one of them contributed to keeping the entity alive when it did wrong. I have some sympathy when it's a situation that the employees were unaware of, but in cases like this where the issue is one of public record, and well known, the guy losing his job doesn't have a valid excuse in saying "hey, I'm just a desk jockey, I had no involvement in that" when simply by taking the money and coming to work he sustained the system that allowed it to happen. He could have said "your a group of crooks, I won't have any part in this" and walked out (being replaced or not) and yet he didn't.
Now, I know you won't like that point even if you might have agreed with some of my others, but some time when your victimized by one of these huge, faceless organizations, stop and think about what I'm saying here, especially if you ever wind up in a position to do something about it. Noone, whether a person, or a corperate entity, should be untouchable.
It's sort of like how I didn't exactly cry for all the people who lost their jobs when Enron went down, there is no way people should have let something like that continue to go on just so those people could remain employed. What's more, other than running on empty, I think most people that worked there were aware of how sleazy it was as an entity (even if they dodn't know it was bankrupt and apparently involved in what amounted to a giant corperate Ponzi scheme to disguise not having any real resources). It's hard to really feel all that sorry for them.
i would say that it is less than what ended up happening. i would say that you could tell that youve been hacked in less than a week but then again, this is sony, the same sony who pretty much said "security is for cowards" when designing their consoles.Jack Rascal said:Do you know what an impact it would have been for Sony to inform their customers worldwide that "change your card details"? And then a week later publish a press release stating "Nope! Sorry, the intrusion was nothing to worry about. Sorry for the inconvenience." My bet is that people would have been screaming bloody murder at that point. I think better safe than sorry, and in this case it was safer to investigate first.harvz said:it would be nice if they said "we believe its possible our servers have had intruders on them, we arnt sure if anything was taken, please change card details", it would be an inconvenience but would be easy to do and wouldnt have caused all these issues...or, you know, they could have atleast had a free firewall up.
Week is not really a long time, but this is my opinion only. I still think Sony handled this well.
Actually, that's where you're wrong (and a bit hypocritical given you admit you have no skin directly in the game either other than ideology and the fear of corporate seisure of physical property, which is going pretty damn extreme into outcomes as well). Speaking as someone who has spent the last year and a half trying to break into the video game industry on the producer/QA track, yes, I am directly affected. Because this is rather personal for me, and I freely confess that. I don't agree with the logic that says everyone must burn because somehow this will lead to a Neuromancer-style cyberpunk dystopia of corporations owning your soul and leasing it back, as you seem afraid it will.Therumancer said:In fact I think the only reason why your being obstinate in opposing it is because you weren't affected.
What I agree with is an industry I give a damn about. I was born in 1985, so literally my life has been one giant timeline of the post-83 crash. Do I have misgivings about what Sony did with Other OS and why they did it? Hell yes. I think they were very short-sighted and should have considered the PR ramifications if nothing else, no matter what the reason they felt it had to be done. But the thing is, you keep treating Sony like a 'Too big to fail' recession-causing company. It's not. Not even close. Their failure or success directly impacts the industry, however.
And honestly... I don't get the mentality here. Are you suggesting that as soon as Other OS was pulled, regardless of any internal memos or whatever, the people working at Sony should have all quit and prayed there were a few million open jobs somewhere else? They should have stormed the corporate offices and killed the CEO? And really, a comparison to Enron of all things is pretty low. Do yourself a favor and look up one of the MANY documentaries on the environment there. The only company that even comes CLOSE to acting that way in the modern video game industry is Activision, and even they aren't making it standard business practice to screw everyone over... well, unless the rumors around Infinity Ward are right, in which case, strike that.
My point is, though, I get that we see this from remarkably different fronts. And honestly, I appreciate that. As I appreciate that you're willing to share your opinions with me at length like this. I respect you infinitly more than those who did this, actually. I may not agree with your logic, or your conclusions- and I damn well know you don't agree with mine -but you had the guts to put them forth and debate them publically, and articulate your viewpoints and concerns in a way that, were I more on the fence, could sway me. As it stands, you at the least gave me pause, regardless of my personal interest in this matter. And that's excellent. That is EXACTLY how this kind of conversation should take place. What these hackers did, however, IF it was motivated by social engineering efforts to chastise Sony's actions re: Other OS and Geohot, only hurts the narrative. That is my main point here; even if you agree with the logic underpinning this, the end result is poisonous and hurtful to everyone, especially their own purpose.
Consider; if the FBI and Homeland Security catches up with who did this, and after all this upheval they stand on a pedistal and say this is why, what do you think the public reaction will be? What do you think the corporate reaction will be? Hell, at that stage, what do you think government reactions will be, and the legal ramifications thereof if the hackers are found guilty? I imagine it will be brutal, ugly, and something neither you nor I would be comfortable with. Mob anger and government responses are rarely small, measured, or careful; they will call for blood and accept lockdowns and new 'protective measures' that will make the most foul DRM look no worse than a code wheel for one of the old Gold Box D&D games. And if that happens, pray, who wins?
Actually yes, I do think that employees at a company that does something like this that is well known should either quit or if they choose to stay be aware of what they are siding with and the risks they are taking. Unlike fantasy there is no such thing as an "antiseptic" conflict in real life where there isn't going to be collateral damage. In the real worldpoiuppx said:Actually, that's where you're wrong (and a bit hypocritical given you admit you have no skin directly in the game either other than ideology and the fear of corporate seisure of physical property, which is going pretty damn extreme into outcomes as well). Speaking as someone who has spent the last year and a half trying to break into the video game industry on the producer/QA track, yes, I am directly affected. Because this is rather personal for me, and I freely confess that. I don't agree with the logic that says everyone must burn because somehow this will lead to a Neuromancer-style cyberpunk dystopia of corporations owning your soul and leasing it back, as you seem afraid it will.Therumancer said:In fact I think the only reason why your being obstinate in opposing it is because you weren't affected.
What I agree with is an industry I give a damn about. I was born in 1985, so literally my life has been one giant timeline of the post-83 crash. Do I have misgivings about what Sony did with Other OS and why they did it? Hell yes. I think they were very short-sighted and should have considered the PR ramifications if nothing else, no matter what the reason they felt it had to be done. But the thing is, you keep treating Sony like a 'Too big to fail' recession-causing company. It's not. Not even close. Their failure or success directly impacts the industry, however.
And honestly... I don't get the mentality here. Are you suggesting that as soon as Other OS was pulled, regardless of any internal memos or whatever, the people working at Sony should have all quit and prayed there were a few million open jobs somewhere else? They should have stormed the corporate offices and killed the CEO? And really, a comparison to Enron of all things is pretty low. Do yourself a favor and look up one of the MANY documentaries on the environment there. The only company that even comes CLOSE to acting that way in the modern video game industry is Activision, and even they aren't making it standard business practice to screw everyone over... well, unless the rumors around Infinity Ward are right, in which case, strike that.
My point is, though, I get that we see this from remarkably different fronts. And honestly, I appreciate that. As I appreciate that you're willing to share your opinions with me at length like this. I respect you infinitly more than those who did this, actually. I may not agree with your logic, or your conclusions- and I damn well know you don't agree with mine -but you had the guts to put them forth and debate them publically, and articulate your viewpoints and concerns in a way that, were I more on the fence, could sway me. As it stands, you at the least gave me pause, regardless of my personal interest in this matter. And that's excellent. That is EXACTLY how this kind of conversation should take place. What these hackers did, however, IF it was motivated by social engineering efforts to chastise Sony's actions re: Other OS and Geohot, only hurts the narrative. That is my main point here; even if you agree with the logic underpinning this, the end result is poisonous and hurtful to everyone, especially their own purpose.
Consider; if the FBI and Homeland Security catches up with who did this, and after all this upheval they stand on a pedistal and say this is why, what do you think the public reaction will be? What do you think the corporate reaction will be? Hell, at that stage, what do you think government reactions will be, and the legal ramifications thereof if the hackers are found guilty? I imagine it will be brutal, ugly, and something neither you nor I would be comfortable with. Mob anger and government responses are rarely small, measured, or careful; they will call for blood and accept lockdowns and new 'protective measures' that will make the most foul DRM look no worse than a code wheel for one of the old Gold Box D&D games. And if that happens, pray, who wins?
it's a matter of degrees. sure, quitting a job on principle might not be easy, but then again getting laid off if the company does something like this and burns for it isn't easier either. Actually it's worse because it's easier to find a job when you already have one, than to wind up out on the street.
Simply put, saying that you should let companies engage in victimization because of collateral damage is wrong.
You are correct overall that it's going to be bad for the people that are involved if they happen to be caught and made to stand trial. That's one of the risks involved in something like this, regardless of the motives. That's why you don't see it too often, and why it's noteworthy when this kind of resistance happens. Most people will QQ but won't actually take action.
At any rate, we'll have to agree to disagree, I think we've both stated our positions as much as we can, and I don't think there is much more to be said on the subject. I am not the biggest Anonymous fan in the world, but think that this is a good thing and I hope they win on this front even if it causes collateral damage, since I think the issue is that important. You pretty much think the opposite. In the end what we think doesn't much matter, and only time will tell how it plays out. Whether it's over or there will be another attack, and if there is how far it will go, remains to be seen.
Agreed, and thank you for the debate and a look into your viewpoint. Here's hoping neither of our worst-case scenarios ever come even close to coming true.Therumancer said:Actually yes, I do think that employees at a company that does something like this that is well known should either quit or if they choose to stay be aware of what they are siding with and the risks they are taking. Unlike fantasy there is no such thing as an "antiseptic" conflict in real life where there isn't going to be collateral damage. In the real worldpoiuppx said:Actually, that's where you're wrong (and a bit hypocritical given you admit you have no skin directly in the game either other than ideology and the fear of corporate seisure of physical property, which is going pretty damn extreme into outcomes as well). Speaking as someone who has spent the last year and a half trying to break into the video game industry on the producer/QA track, yes, I am directly affected. Because this is rather personal for me, and I freely confess that. I don't agree with the logic that says everyone must burn because somehow this will lead to a Neuromancer-style cyberpunk dystopia of corporations owning your soul and leasing it back, as you seem afraid it will.Therumancer said:In fact I think the only reason why your being obstinate in opposing it is because you weren't affected.
What I agree with is an industry I give a damn about. I was born in 1985, so literally my life has been one giant timeline of the post-83 crash. Do I have misgivings about what Sony did with Other OS and why they did it? Hell yes. I think they were very short-sighted and should have considered the PR ramifications if nothing else, no matter what the reason they felt it had to be done. But the thing is, you keep treating Sony like a 'Too big to fail' recession-causing company. It's not. Not even close. Their failure or success directly impacts the industry, however.
And honestly... I don't get the mentality here. Are you suggesting that as soon as Other OS was pulled, regardless of any internal memos or whatever, the people working at Sony should have all quit and prayed there were a few million open jobs somewhere else? They should have stormed the corporate offices and killed the CEO? And really, a comparison to Enron of all things is pretty low. Do yourself a favor and look up one of the MANY documentaries on the environment there. The only company that even comes CLOSE to acting that way in the modern video game industry is Activision, and even they aren't making it standard business practice to screw everyone over... well, unless the rumors around Infinity Ward are right, in which case, strike that.
My point is, though, I get that we see this from remarkably different fronts. And honestly, I appreciate that. As I appreciate that you're willing to share your opinions with me at length like this. I respect you infinitly more than those who did this, actually. I may not agree with your logic, or your conclusions- and I damn well know you don't agree with mine -but you had the guts to put them forth and debate them publically, and articulate your viewpoints and concerns in a way that, were I more on the fence, could sway me. As it stands, you at the least gave me pause, regardless of my personal interest in this matter. And that's excellent. That is EXACTLY how this kind of conversation should take place. What these hackers did, however, IF it was motivated by social engineering efforts to chastise Sony's actions re: Other OS and Geohot, only hurts the narrative. That is my main point here; even if you agree with the logic underpinning this, the end result is poisonous and hurtful to everyone, especially their own purpose.
Consider; if the FBI and Homeland Security catches up with who did this, and after all this upheval they stand on a pedistal and say this is why, what do you think the public reaction will be? What do you think the corporate reaction will be? Hell, at that stage, what do you think government reactions will be, and the legal ramifications thereof if the hackers are found guilty? I imagine it will be brutal, ugly, and something neither you nor I would be comfortable with. Mob anger and government responses are rarely small, measured, or careful; they will call for blood and accept lockdowns and new 'protective measures' that will make the most foul DRM look no worse than a code wheel for one of the old Gold Box D&D games. And if that happens, pray, who wins?
it's a matter of degrees. sure, quitting a job on principle might not be easy, but then again getting laid off if the company does something like this and burns for it isn't easier either. Actually it's worse because it's easier to find a job when you already have one, than to wind up out on the street.
Simply put, saying that you should let companies engage in victimization because of collateral damage is wrong.
You are correct overall that it's going to be bad for the people that are involved if they happen to be caught and made to stand trial. That's one of the risks involved in something like this, regardless of the motives. That's why you don't see it too often, and why it's noteworthy when this kind of resistance happens. Most people will QQ but won't actually take action.
At any rate, we'll have to agree to disagree, I think we've both stated our positions as much as we can, and I don't think there is much more to be said on the subject. I am not the biggest Anonymous fan in the world, but think that this is a good thing and I hope they win on this front even if it causes collateral damage, since I think the issue is that important. You pretty much think the opposite. In the end what we think doesn't much matter, and only time will tell how it plays out. Whether it's over or there will be another attack, and if there is how far it will go, remains to be seen.