Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[BRex21]

thinking it in terms of legality, anonymous is participating in illegal activities.
thinking in terms of good vs bad, sony appears to be wearing the horns and anonymous is the knight in shining armor.

i strongly support those who wish to modify their own equipment, and ignoring any form of legality and politics, i can certainly see anonymous's point of view. sony is outright abusing the system.

/thread =3

Geohot's also abusing the judicial system. Instead of going into court and fighting his legal case like he should, he's been tampering with evidence and using delaying tactics ( California is not the right location, I've never heard of SCEA ).
.

Actually the "tampering with evidence" thing was a joke from the start, Geohotz didnt provide a component called the controll card, which anyone with electronics experience can tell you is really an over the counter part that, electronics giant like Sony should have had no problems getting. What they did was slander him so reactionary people would stop supporting him.
A trial in California makes little sense and Sony has been grasping at straws in order to prove otherwise, First it was that "bushing" the unknown person place or thing that was in California, then it was that people from California visited Geohotz site, and for what, so that he can be tried under the California Computer Crimes Laws that would be less friendly that the ones that he should ACTUALLY be held accountable for. I shouldnt be able to get a murder tried in Texas if it happened in Washington just because i favour the death penalty, this is what sony is trying to do.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"Don't you dare complain about your software being hacked or we'll hack your website" -- Anonymous

Yeah, it's one thing to counter a hateful website like Westboro Baptist Church, but riding in liek you're a super hero employing "An eye for an eye" is just... Well... I just can't support it. As it is, I want Hotz and SONY to just shake hands, come to a comfy medium, and that's it

And it's not like the inevitable blow-back is gonna win Hotz any brownie points with the Court. I can see the Judge saying, "These are the people who side against Sony and this is how they show their support? By taking over my job and passing their own judgment and sentence? I don't think so. Where that Hotz kid? Bring him in here. I wanna show him and his supporters who the real HNIC is."

Too true. If Anon does anything during this case it can and will be used against Hotz. Anon will be doing more hurting then helping here. And great of of "HNIC". Did not see that coming.

He can be held to account for something someone did, who has no relation to him, that he did not endorse? I'm sorry, but no.

It's not that he'd be held accountable for Anon's actions. That was never said. It's that if Anon directly attacks the courts or SCEA, it will make the case much harder for Hotz. He did call himself a "freedom fighter", Anon likes to make the same claim all the time. It`s public appeal. In a case like this it can turn a case. If the people who support Hotz seem to be nothing but wanna be Guy Fawkes and hackers who were Che Guevera shirts that call themselves revolutionaries, it makes the case much harder for Hotz to claim innocence. It`s politics.

My point was that it is irrelivent to case procedings. If Sony tries to present it, it can very easily be thrown out as irrelivent. What they did, in the name of him, is not relivent to the procedings, if he didn't call for it.

I never said Sony has to bring Anon`s actions to court. The fact that they are now attacking Sony will bring media attention to it and public opinion will sway towards Sony. Hotz will look like a punk hacker in the eyes of the media here. They`ll start to follow this case more and moreif Anon keeps attacking Sony, making Hotz look like shit because he`s being sued for breaching Sony`s security system and putting up what he stole online.

 

[Aeshi]

Yeah trust Anonymous to attack anyone who doesn't worship hackers as gods...

Why the fuck has nobody put a bullet in them yet?

Because it's impossible.

How? Just shoot anybody in a Guy Fawkes mask.All you need are some bullets and a gun (and you can reuse the gun)

Kill a few and their bravado ought to go down a few notches.

 

[Spookimitsu]

"While Anonymous hasn't been specific about what it plans to attack, it said that its actions would be symbolic. The release said that Sony was treating its customers as if they were just renting their consoles, and so Anonymous would do the same with Sony's web domains. This action, the release read, was to show Sony exactly how wrong their actions against the hackers were."

Seems like they actually want to do this the right way...

actually after reading this post, I'm all for anon. And anyone else against such capitalist oppressors.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I disagree with the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to mod their products because they might use it for piracy. That's like saying we shouldn't sell people knives because they might cut others.

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Where that analogy fails is that there is nothing in the Ford that is copyrighted or licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. The Ford is yours free and clear (assuming you have title to it). Do with it whatever you want assuming that you're not somehow running afoul of some law somewhere (like removing the headlights and driving it in the middle of the night). The software in the PS3, unlike your Ford analogy, is copyrighted and merely licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

But if Ford decided to license the car like that, it still wouldn't hold up; this court case is a chance to get a court of law to say "you know, these EULA things are unconscionable contracts, and are clearly invalid. Stop trying to enforce them." It's not as far fetched as it sounds, either; EULAs almost never hold up when they reach a court of law, they just don't make it that far very often because of how much money the software publishers have to throw at lawyers, who then tie up the proceedings long enough to keep their BS from getting called. What we have here is an opportunity to give some rights back to consumers. How can you possibly be against that?

Unfortunately, EULAs aren't as unconscionable or invalid as you claim and there are a number of court decisions upholding their validity and enforceability. They may not be "fair" and may be horribly one-sided but that alone doesn't make them unenforceable as a matter of law. That just makes them a shitty deal for the consumer. But just because a deal is a shitty one doesn't make it an unenforceable one.

It's highly dependent on the EULA in question; for every case where one gets upheld, there's another case where it gets thrown out. The type of EULA involved in boxed game purchases is absolutely an unconscionable form of a contract of adhesion, as is what Sony is trying to get Geohot under, assuming he's telling the truth about not having signed up for a PSN account. Even if he did, it's still not a definite win for Sony.

That's not true. You can look up any EULA online now. Hell, I can probably walk into a video game store and request to look at a copy of the EULA before purchasing anything. The EULA is not the shrink wrap contract it used to be. You can find a way to read it without spending a penny on anything. Geohotz can say he didn't sign up for the PSN and didn't agree to the EULA, but Sony could easily state that they have it up for free on their website to read at anytime. It's also in the box before you turn the damn thing on so there's no excuse for Hotz here.

I'm not sure if even that holds up; sure, you can find the contract if you seek it out, but it's so far separated from the actual purchase that it's still a shrinkwrap contract. To put it this way, if the local GM dealership sold you a car which you paid for in full with cash, without making you sign anything but the registration, you drove the car off the lot, and then once you tried to start it up again to leave your house, it refused to start unless you agreed to an entirely different contract, would the fact that the contract was available on a website that the dealership neglected to tell you existed make it any less of a shrinkwrap contract?

I really think the car analogies need to stop as they really don`t work here. Listen when you drive a car off the lot, you`ve used the car. That`s why cars lose 15% in their value as soon as their off the lot. The difference is that when you buy a PS3 you don`t have to agree to anything until you turn on the console and try to use online. You could buy a PS3, look at the EULA online before opening the box and return the PS3 if you don`t like the EULA. We live in a world where you can find ALL EULAs online. Its called clicking on the support page of any website linked to an electronic product that has online capabilities. You can`t exactly say the same thing about cars which is why these analogies need to stop.

The only material difference between car sales and videogame sales is the price difference. To counter your point about cars losing %15 of their value as soon as you drive them off the lot: Videogames do too. They're impossible to return for a full refund after they've been opened -- which you have to do to see the EULA, because let's face it, the online version may as well be on the moon for all the good it does at the actual time of purchase -- and if you try to trade it in as used, I can guarantee that you will lose a whole lot more than %15 of your money. If I listened to every person who said that comparing videogames to other products was comparing apples to oranges, I wouldn't have a single product left to compare them to, because apparently they are completely unique in both the legal and the material world. Of course, if this were the case, none of the laws we're arguing here would apply, because nothing applicable would have been written yet. This clearly isn't the case, so to the gaming community as a whole, please stop acting like videogames are incomparable to any other product on the face of the planet.

 

[AngryPuppy]

At least they do something to change things other then sit on forums or blogs and ***** about making changes. Like them or hate them at least they take a stand. (No this is not a dig at anyone here)

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"Don't you dare complain about your software being hacked or we'll hack your website" -- Anonymous

Yeah, it's one thing to counter a hateful website like Westboro Baptist Church, but riding in liek you're a super hero employing "An eye for an eye" is just... Well... I just can't support it. As it is, I want Hotz and SONY to just shake hands, come to a comfy medium, and that's it

And it's not like the inevitable blow-back is gonna win Hotz any brownie points with the Court. I can see the Judge saying, "These are the people who side against Sony and this is how they show their support? By taking over my job and passing their own judgment and sentence? I don't think so. Where that Hotz kid? Bring him in here. I wanna show him and his supporters who the real HNIC is."

Too true. If Anon does anything during this case it can and will be used against Hotz. Anon will be doing more hurting then helping here. And great of of "HNIC". Did not see that coming.

He can be held to account for something someone did, who has no relation to him, that he did not endorse? I'm sorry, but no.

It's not that he'd be held accountable for Anon's actions. That was never said. It's that if Anon directly attacks the courts or SCEA, it will make the case much harder for Hotz. He did call himself a "freedom fighter", Anon likes to make the same claim all the time. It`s public appeal. In a case like this it can turn a case. If the people who support Hotz seem to be nothing but wanna be Guy Fawkes and hackers who were Che Guevera shirts that call themselves revolutionaries, it makes the case much harder for Hotz to claim innocence. It`s politics.

My point was that it is irrelivent to case procedings. If Sony tries to present it, it can very easily be thrown out as irrelivent. What they did, in the name of him, is not relivent to the procedings, if he didn't call for it.

I never said Sony has to bring Anon`s actions to court. The fact that they are now attacking Sony will bring media attention to it and public opinion will sway towards Sony. Hotz will look like a punk hacker in the eyes of the media here. They`ll start to follow this case more and moreif Anon keeps attacking Sony, making Hotz look like shit because he`s being sued for breaching Sony`s security system and putting up what he stole online.

AH, my appoligies, I believe we had a misunderstanding. I was thinking you were saying that it could hurt him IN trial, rather than in the news. But yes, I suppose I can see how that would hurt his case.

 

[Pendragon9]

Way to go guys, showing how harmless hackers are by HACKING WEBSITES AND HARMING A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION.

I swear, this is so counter-intuitive it's making my brain want to jump out of my ear and into a pot of boiling water to escape the stupidity.

And once again, we have Geohot to blame.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"Don't you dare complain about your software being hacked or we'll hack your website" -- Anonymous

Yeah, it's one thing to counter a hateful website like Westboro Baptist Church, but riding in liek you're a super hero employing "An eye for an eye" is just... Well... I just can't support it. As it is, I want Hotz and SONY to just shake hands, come to a comfy medium, and that's it

And it's not like the inevitable blow-back is gonna win Hotz any brownie points with the Court. I can see the Judge saying, "These are the people who side against Sony and this is how they show their support? By taking over my job and passing their own judgment and sentence? I don't think so. Where that Hotz kid? Bring him in here. I wanna show him and his supporters who the real HNIC is."

Too true. If Anon does anything during this case it can and will be used against Hotz. Anon will be doing more hurting then helping here. And great of of "HNIC". Did not see that coming.

He can be held to account for something someone did, who has no relation to him, that he did not endorse? I'm sorry, but no.

It's not that he'd be held accountable for Anon's actions. That was never said. It's that if Anon directly attacks the courts or SCEA, it will make the case much harder for Hotz. He did call himself a "freedom fighter", Anon likes to make the same claim all the time. It`s public appeal. In a case like this it can turn a case. If the people who support Hotz seem to be nothing but wanna be Guy Fawkes and hackers who were Che Guevera shirts that call themselves revolutionaries, it makes the case much harder for Hotz to claim innocence. It`s politics.

My point was that it is irrelivent to case procedings. If Sony tries to present it, it can very easily be thrown out as irrelivent. What they did, in the name of him, is not relivent to the procedings, if he didn't call for it.

I never said Sony has to bring Anon`s actions to court. The fact that they are now attacking Sony will bring media attention to it and public opinion will sway towards Sony. Hotz will look like a punk hacker in the eyes of the media here. They`ll start to follow this case more and moreif Anon keeps attacking Sony, making Hotz look like shit because he`s being sued for breaching Sony`s security system and putting up what he stole online.

AH, my appoligies, I believe we had a misunderstanding. I was thinking you were saying that it could hurt him IN trial, rather than in the news. But yes, I suppose I can see how that would hurt his case.

No worries. At least it didn`t go into the usual pissing contest on the internet.

 

[Vrach]

Sony is abusing the legal system you say? Let's commit crimes and illegal activity to show them they they shouldn't commit illegal activity. That's...logical... *sigh*

Guy is about to shoot someone? Let's shoot him to show people who like to shoot people they shouldn't shoot people. Yeah, that logic works quite well actually

Entirely situational, as is with this article. In any case, this is not their [Anonymous'] fight and condoning illegal acts to "prove a point" is idiotic at best.

By what strain of logic is it not their fight? Anonymous always stood for values these lawsuits fly right in the face of.

As for the fact those acts are illegal, fancy presenting a way to fight Sony's bullshit in a way that IS legal? And why should they play fair when corporations don't anyway (even given the fact they have far more power to begin with)? Remember those anti-piracy lawsuits and that lawyer that wrote up a pretty good way to defend yourself in court and sold the papers for 10$? What happened? They sued him. They sued a lawyer for giving legal council. Wake up, seriously, no one plays by the rules when big things are at stake.

Besides, in a world where the bullshit Sony's pulling with these lawsuits is legal, law has obviously already failed at what it's supposed to do. And go ahead and look at any revolution/fight against anything unjust in the entire history of the world. Note the percentage of issues solved by means deemed legal and ok at the time and those that weren't. You'll find the numbers leaning towards the latter.

The fact we accept the law (and really any shitty status quo) we have at the moment as immaculate is just proof that we're still as stupid and easily controlled as we were several thousand years ago and don't understand when we need to get off our arses and do something to change it.

 

[Illyasviel]

thinking it in terms of legality, anonymous is participating in illegal activities.
thinking in terms of good vs bad, sony appears to be wearing the horns and anonymous is the knight in shining armor.

i strongly support those who wish to modify their own equipment, and ignoring any form of legality and politics, i can certainly see anonymous's point of view. sony is outright abusing the system.

/thread =3

Geohot's also abusing the judicial system. Instead of going into court and fighting his legal case like he should, he's been tampering with evidence and using delaying tactics ( California is not the right location, I've never heard of SCEA ).
.

Actually the "tampering with evidence" thing was a joke from the start, Geohotz didnt provide a component called the controll card, which anyone with electronics experience can tell you is really an over the counter part that, electronics giant like Sony should have had no problems getting. What they did was slander him so reactionary people would stop supporting him.
A trial in California makes little sense and Sony has been grasping at straws in order to prove otherwise, First it was that "bushing" the unknown person place or thing that was in California, then it was that people from California visited Geohotz site, and for what, so that he can be tried under the California Computer Crimes Laws that would be less friendly that the ones that he should ACTUALLY be held accountable for. I shouldnt be able to get a murder tried in Texas if it happened in Washington just because i favour the death penalty, this is what sony is trying to do.

I am aware of what "tampering of evidence" constituted. Lesson of the story is don't give people an excuse to fuck you up. Classic example we've all had to live through: If a teacher tells you not to write in cursive on a test and you write in cursive on a test anyway resulting in the teacher docking you points, well guess what? Tough luck. Next time don't write in cursive on the test ( or whatever your teacher's idiosyncrasy is ).

If you ask me, Geohot is slandering the good name of true "personifications of freedom" when he dares to associate himself with them.

Pretty sure Sony's EULA says that disputes will be handled in San Mateo county so they are just following their own rules. The extent of the damages of Geohot's crime can be felt in multiple areas. Therefore Sony has the right to prosecute Geohot in any location where damages occur. They just selected California. Sure you can dig up some judge ruling that this kind of deal is illegal or whatever, but the bottom line is the case has to be held somewhere and there are plenty of judges who do rule it legal ( look it up, different judges have given different judgments ). I don't know if you are aware, but California has some of the most anti-business policies in the world, so Geohot might as well play along.

 

[Emergent]

This clearly isn't the case, so to the gaming community as a whole, please stop acting like videogames are incomparable to any other product on the face of the planet.

We probably should figure out exactly what they are like, then, because in the case of videogames the same product can be physical or nonphysical, can involve hardware - or not - can be purchased wholly or in part, and that differs from one version of the product to the next, can be enjoyed on multiple platforms (and may, or may not, be interactive across them or have variations from one to the next), and before someone mentions "well that's just like mp3's" let's point out that as an interactive medium, the legalities of what is, and is not a "showing" and what is, and is not "personal" use, become much, much muddier than when dealing with other forms of media.

They are, in many ways, a wholly unique product.


Oh, and one more thing, and not directed at Owyn specifically:

Yes, if I could download a car, or a nice juicy steak, or a new heart when mine is failing, I sure as hell would.

As so would you.

You can lie to me, but you can't lie to yourself.



PS: Captcha: "the iollect" ....Escapist staff, this is getting retarded.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I disagree with the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to mod their products because they might use it for piracy. That's like saying we shouldn't sell people knives because they might cut others.

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Where that analogy fails is that there is nothing in the Ford that is copyrighted or licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. The Ford is yours free and clear (assuming you have title to it). Do with it whatever you want assuming that you're not somehow running afoul of some law somewhere (like removing the headlights and driving it in the middle of the night). The software in the PS3, unlike your Ford analogy, is copyrighted and merely licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

But if Ford decided to license the car like that, it still wouldn't hold up; this court case is a chance to get a court of law to say "you know, these EULA things are unconscionable contracts, and are clearly invalid. Stop trying to enforce them." It's not as far fetched as it sounds, either; EULAs almost never hold up when they reach a court of law, they just don't make it that far very often because of how much money the software publishers have to throw at lawyers, who then tie up the proceedings long enough to keep their BS from getting called. What we have here is an opportunity to give some rights back to consumers. How can you possibly be against that?

Unfortunately, EULAs aren't as unconscionable or invalid as you claim and there are a number of court decisions upholding their validity and enforceability. They may not be "fair" and may be horribly one-sided but that alone doesn't make them unenforceable as a matter of law. That just makes them a shitty deal for the consumer. But just because a deal is a shitty one doesn't make it an unenforceable one.

It's highly dependent on the EULA in question; for every case where one gets upheld, there's another case where it gets thrown out. The type of EULA involved in boxed game purchases is absolutely an unconscionable form of a contract of adhesion, as is what Sony is trying to get Geohot under, assuming he's telling the truth about not having signed up for a PSN account. Even if he did, it's still not a definite win for Sony.

That's not true. You can look up any EULA online now. Hell, I can probably walk into a video game store and request to look at a copy of the EULA before purchasing anything. The EULA is not the shrink wrap contract it used to be. You can find a way to read it without spending a penny on anything. Geohotz can say he didn't sign up for the PSN and didn't agree to the EULA, but Sony could easily state that they have it up for free on their website to read at anytime. It's also in the box before you turn the damn thing on so there's no excuse for Hotz here.

I'm not sure if even that holds up; sure, you can find the contract if you seek it out, but it's so far separated from the actual purchase that it's still a shrinkwrap contract. To put it this way, if the local GM dealership sold you a car which you paid for in full with cash, without making you sign anything but the registration, you drove the car off the lot, and then once you tried to start it up again to leave your house, it refused to start unless you agreed to an entirely different contract, would the fact that the contract was available on a website that the dealership neglected to tell you existed make it any less of a shrinkwrap contract?

I really think the car analogies need to stop as they really don`t work here. Listen when you drive a car off the lot, you`ve used the car. That`s why cars lose 15% in their value as soon as their off the lot. The difference is that when you buy a PS3 you don`t have to agree to anything until you turn on the console and try to use online. You could buy a PS3, look at the EULA online before opening the box and return the PS3 if you don`t like the EULA. We live in a world where you can find ALL EULAs online. Its called clicking on the support page of any website linked to an electronic product that has online capabilities. You can`t exactly say the same thing about cars which is why these analogies need to stop.

The only material difference between car sales and videogame sales is the price difference. To counter your point about cars losing %15 of their value as soon as you drive them off the lot: Videogames do too. They're impossible to return for a full refund after they've been opened -- which you have to do to see the EULA, because let's face it, the online version may as well be on the moon for all the good it does at the actual time of purchase -- and if you try to trade it in as used, I can guarantee that you will lose a whole lot more than %15 of your money. If I listened to every person who said that comparing videogames to other products was comparing apples to oranges, I wouldn't have a single product left to compare them to, because apparently they are completely unique in both the legal and the material world. Of course, if this were the case, none of the laws we're arguing here would apply, because nothing applicable would have been written yet. This clearly isn't the case, so to the gaming community as a whole, please stop acting like videogames are incomparable to any other product on the face of the planet.

You completely missed my point. Again with the comparison of cars to electronics in general, not just video games, you have to use a car to leave take it off the lot. The same cannot be said about electronics. You can take them home after purchase. Put it on your table. NOT open the box. Look up the EULA online. (For a PS3, iPhone, or whatever). Disagree without having to click on anything. Take it back to the store. And get all your money back. I never said videogames were incomparable. You just have to compate them with the right things. Like I said PS3s and iPhones both have EULAs. Which are online. And besides it's not like breaching the EULA is the only thing Hotz is accused of here.

 

[Giddi]

Not even reading the post. Anonymous is a bunch of cocks who don't care for the legal system i hope they die. The end.

You're right. Don't ever question any types of authority. Go along with everything you are told to do, it's safer without independent thought.

 

[Giddi]

At least they do something to change things other then sit on forums or blogs and ***** about making changes. Like them or hate them at least they take a stand. (No this is not a dig at anyone here)

Even debating it is a stand of sorts. People don't have to run around with pitchforks to make a difference (not a dig at your comment, just making myself feel better about doing nothing ).

 

[Aeshi]

Not even reading the post. Anonymous is a bunch of cocks who don't care for the legal system i hope they die. The end.

You're right. Don't ever question any types of authority. Go along with everything you are told to do, it's safer without independent thought.

And let me guess, if we just let guys like Geohot and Anon run around and hack/modify whatever they want they'd install world peace and uncover the magic cancer cure that the Government is secretly hiding because they somehow make money out of keeping it hidden?

 

[FamoFunk]

The took a while to get involved, did't they? *yawn*