Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Dastardly]

The Beatles: Revolution
Kinda of saying everyone wants things to change, but, we got to do it the right way, not with violence or destruction of property.

I agree with that in the majority of cases. Soft change is slower, but more effective. It requires that the "underdog" be more patient than they perceive the "overdog" as being.

Hard change is faster, but is more likely to cause long-term fallout and backlash. More collateral damage along the way. A historical picture of this is to see how countries throughout history have handled slavery--an obvious and inarguable wrong. In many countries, it phased itself out over time via industry... and in America, it was hacked away cold turkey. In America, this caused a long-running backlash and a cultural divide that will never, ever be bridged. No one defends slavery, but it might have worked better to recognize that, for better or worse, the economy of the agricultural sector was built upon it, so a gradual (but closely watched and mandated) change might have been better. Might have even avoided the entire WAR that way.

Those who want change may be "absolutely right," but that doesn't mean absolutist tactics are the best way to get things done.

 

[mireko]

UPDATE: It looks like Anonymous has started its assault. As of 13.30 EST, the US PlayStation [http://us.playstation.com/] site is down, presumably from a denial of service attack.

It's loading just fine over here, did it come back in just ten minutes?

 

[Jman1236]

Why do I get the feeling that a crapload of upcoming PS3 games are going to get leaked soon by these guys?

 

[Sporky111]

"It's going to be symbolic"

...

"Sony website is down"

Changing things up this time around, are we?

 

[The Apothecarry]

The Internet has arrived. Sony is doomed. Keep an eye out for falling Longcats and giant Fail stamps.

I don't condone hacking in the least, so I can only understand Sony as far as repealing online service. A full-blown lawsuit is insane, I'll admit. To Sony, take a hint from Microsoft and only ban players. Suing them is an entirely different matter.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm clearly no legal expert, but corporations are allowed to donate money to a legal defense they agree with, yes? Even if it's a competitor. I could see it as a "bad faith" contribution if they were somehow secretly involved said elicit activity.

Right. I'm simply saying that depending on the circumstances, it could warrant further investigation into the possibility of shady dealings. If GH has a corporate sponsor, one that is in direct competition with Sony, it's a clear case for conflict of interest.

Also, a bribe is a money paid to alter the decision of a certain party in your favor. Contributing to a legal defense would not constitute a bribe.

I agree. I was using bribery only as an example of another instance in which the "who/when/why" of donation matters in a legal sense. This would be a softer form of using money to game the system--contributing money to increase the chances of one side winning, but because of feelings on the plaintiff, not on the issue.

I agree, no harm in asking. I know people are concerned about an individual basis though, more so than Microsoft is concerned about being implicated. They are afraid that if the courts find in favor of Sony, they are going to turn around and sue the contributors.

But there's no legal grounds anywhere that would indicate that line of reasoning could even be considered. You can include someone in a suit for contributing to the crime, not for agreeing with the defendant. Now, it might be that those who contributed to the defense might find their online behavior monitored more closely for breaches of policy, but that's no different from a store watching folks in a particular little league uniform more closely because a couple of that team's players shoplifted recently. Nothing illegal about it.

The only way a contributor could be sued is if that contributor had a vested financial interest in swaying the decision, or even just increasing the likelihood of a long, drawn-out, expensive trial. That's really not something you can pin on a private citizen. They're safe from anything but increased scrutiny from Sony--and if that's an issue, just don't give them any personal information to begin with.

 

[ZtH]

And preforming DDoS Attacks is gonna change the world? It's one thing to question authority it is another to be a nuisance to it.

While I agree DDoS attacks aren't exactly the best methods being a nuisance to authority is exactly the type of peaceful protest that can lead to change without violence.

OT: Not entirely sure if I can agree with Hotz, but I think I can sympathize with Anonymous's stand in all this.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Geeze Anon is late to this little adventure, I expected this to happen weeks ago. Oh well, but this is all getting rather silly now.

 

[JDKJ]

And when did he agree to that license? He could of pulled the software directly of the PS3 without ever seeing a license. The burden of proof is on Sony and so far I have seen no proof of him agreeing to any license other than Sony saying he did.

The second he accessed the software in a PS3 is when he became a licensee in agreement with the terms of Sony's EULA. Access to the software in a PS3 is conditioned on acceptance of the EULA terms. All Sony would have to prove in order to establish the fact of agreement to its terms is that he accessed or used the software in his PS3. And I don't think even Hotz is disputing that he accessed the software in his PS3. But you never know. He's seems prepared to lie about pretty much everything else. Although how he could have cracked software code in a PS3 without accessing the PS3's software is beyond my understanding. But, then again, his lies don't make much sense, do they?

 

[WanderingFool]

Imagine this:

Someone buys himself a new car so the car is officially his property.
Then he installs an illegal nitro-system in his car so he can go way faster than allowed.
When the police pulls him over confronting him with his modifications being potentionally dangerous for other road-users, do you think he can say: "It's my property, so I can do with it whatever I want."?
Same thing with the PS3. Allowing people to modify their consoles would have the effect that people use it to steal software from Sony or other PS3-users, and maybe even get access to people's private information.
Would you want to have someone steal your downloaded games and get your name, last name, adress and ZIP-code?

I think its more like this:

Nissan has a new GT-R, that has a chip in it that limits the engine power, preventing full power from being used when on public roads*. Lets say somebody figures out how to either disable or remove this ship, allowing them to use the engines full power on public roads. While there might be a problem, he is probably within his rights. But, what if he makes a video detailing the process to remove or disable this chip, and than posts it online. Now, anybody with a GT-R can remove or disable this chip. and with people being idiots at some point in their life, one can imagine the shits that will probably happen.

Its less that he did something to something he owns, and more he showed other people how to do it. And while he may not have any intention to do evil, thats just him...

*Edit*

Forgot to add,

* the chip will disengage when the car is on a actual racetrack allowing full engine power. Just figured to add this if anyone was curious.

 

[HaMSt3rBoT]

As someone else earlier in the thread said... "ANONYMOUS IS FUCKING STUPID".
And I agree.

That WBC incident is fine, though I mean, hell, assholes like that are everywhere.
But after reading their "Manifesto" on the ZeroHedge site, these guys really are resembling a Death Note scenario to me, trying to hold the world hostage to get their way disguised as benevolence. Like Light they think they're righteous and this is what the masses want, subverting the law and judicial system and mentally establishing themselves as some supreme intelligence, while systematically going for bigger targets and causing more damage.
They're attacking the system of power we have established as governments, banks, etc., so they can have the comfy big boy seat instead. Sure they've probably done some good, but they're letting it get to their heads. It's like a preschooler watching too much DBZ till they're thinking they've got planet destroying energy balls in their hands.

Dramatic and interesting as the whole thing will be, they're going to cause more damage than good. Especially defending the person who modified the one thing he didn't have rights to.

And just like Light they won't back down, they've transcended their egos to GODS... DEATHGODS. 8D

But SONY... Come on... COME OOOOONNNN... Marketing 101 here!
Your starting capital -> Product -> Promotion -> Consumer -> Profit -> Customer loyalty rewards and Consumer Care -> Increased sales by satisfaction and increased Customer Loyalty. YOU ARE NOTHING WITHOUT YOUR CUSTOMERS. RULE NO 1. *****.

 

[aesondaandryk]

I don't see how a denial of service would even get publicity. If Anon is going to do something, then do something that teenagers aren't able to do in their parents basement.

 

[BRex21]

Snip

They're stopping someone from sharing pirated goods through his root key, which is under contract what you cant do, and are trying to protect profit, like any business would. How is that interfering with someone's life? Lets put you in sony's shoes. You made a product that you're selling for large amounts of profit (I know, Sony loses on each PS3, just stick with me), and I find a way to take even a small fraction of that away. Wouldnt you try to stop me?

Also, I would wholeheartedly disagree that the WBC doesnt try to interfere with others lives. I think the recent standings when they're picketing funerals of dead soldiers and little girls that died in senseless acts of violence are interfering with someone's life (or lack their of). Also, they go on violent tirades against those they dont like, and I can honestly say a friend of mine who is homosexual has been assaulted by a few of those psychotic fucks.

peacefull protests are protected speech. something anonymous believes in, despite the message the WBC is preaching, they have the right to say it. Also there are really only what, 50-70 members or so. Theyre bad people, they do horrible things, but they generally obey the law and anonymous has said they dont attack people for excercising their freedoms.

As far as Sony, they are welcome to go after software pirates, which there is no evidence that Geohots is. They chose not to do this. What they did was run a bait and switch scam and said it was ok because you signed a blank contract by purchaising the hardware and we changed the contract so we dont need to come through on our advertised features. They then lied and slandered the competition by saing he had fled the jurisdiction and he had tampered with evidence, they manipulated the trial to move it to a location where they have a shot at winning. Sonys stance here is that they can blindly make you sign a contract and if that wasnt good enough they can change the terms of the contract whenever they see fit. Geohot didnt tell people how to pirate games he told them how to restore full functionality to their consoles, yes this has the potential to enable piracy, but owning a car or being allowed to drink enables me to drink and drive, i know i didnt sign a contract saying i couldnt own a car or drink, but many people didnt sign, and some could argue that we never sign, EULA agreements that they couldnt use linux. Where do you draw the line in fair contract anyway, can Sony give themselves the right to make you re-purchaise the games you already owned, can they give themselves the right to come into your home and drink your milk for as long as you use the PSN? Because according the the EULA they can.

 

[Dastardly]

It's just like what Extra Credits said.

"Sony, a word to the wise: DO NOT tangle with the kind of people who install Linux on their Playstations! Trust me. You are wasting your time."

It's far easier to break something than to build it. You can build a beautifully-engineered tower, and I could take it down with just one bomb. Does that mean I'm better or smarter than you?

Hackers aren't impressing anyone.

 

[HaMSt3rBoT]

Lol, and ironically, my subtitle is "Anonymous Source". >u<|m|

 

[jibjamborie]

(my first post, as i am new)

BUT COME ON!!
I am a ps3 gamer, and a pc gamer..
I enjoy games as a medium because they are awesome, amazing ways of escaping from real life.

BUT THIS EFFECTS INNOCENTS AND ANON ARE HYPOCRITES.
They claim to be helping people.
Sony sue hackers because there breaking laws.. i won't argue over who is right there..
BUT
If anonymous decide to tear down Sony, then innocent gamers who don't break laws and just go by their days playing homefront and GOW..
i cant use Sonys website.. because anonymous decide to look for retribution..

I STRONGLY DISAGREE..

am i alone here?

 

[AngryPuppy]

Imagine this:

Someone buys himself a new car so the car is officially his property.
Then he installs an illegal nitro-system in his car so he can go way faster than allowed.
When the police pulls him over confronting him with his modifications being potentionally dangerous for other road-users, do you think he can say: "It's my property, so I can do with it whatever I want."?
Same thing with the PS3. Allowing people to modify their consoles would have the effect that people use it to steal software from Sony or other PS3-users, and maybe even get access to people's private information.
Would you want to have someone steal your downloaded games and get your name, last name, adress and ZIP-code?

That makes no sense. Your comparing what he did to his PS3 to some idiot installing nitro into a street car? Really? I'm pretty sure nothing you do to your PS3 could make it deadly and a threat to other human life short of rigging it with C4 or reinforcing the case and just beating someone to death with it.

Also, your little bit about making it effective to hack. So, umm making it like a computer? Guess all computers should be banned right this second! Dear god we're all doomed!

 

[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.

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.

Okay, how about this for an example The teacher says dont write in cursive so you dont and she gives you a zero because your a's were too curvy, Geohots had to give his hard drives, he did give the hard drive, sony wanted to shout about something while he was away.
Also, since the "crime" took place in new jersey, that should be where it is prosecuted according to US law, any EULA stating otherwise is completely invalid in that respect. sony is trying to buld a strawman to say the most damages happened in Californa, or that they have a mysterious witness in california in order to get it tried in an area that has unfriendly laws in this regard. You can say they are anti business, but they have harsher penalties than any other state im aware of for computer crimes

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

A) The Romans weren't bothered when Augustus ceased power and created the imperial line. But it probably wasn't in their best interest given what followed afterward, (e.g. Nero, Caligula, etc.)

If they weren't bothered, than it wasn't an issue. The idea that what came later makes it wrong builds on the assumption that, without the imperial line, everything would have been a-okay. But we're also setting up a case in which one dictator, under the guise of benevolence, can rightfully swoop in and overthrow the dictator that is seen (by the "benevolent" dictator) as bad without the permission of those being ruled.

B) You think that you can talk to Sony? You're nuts. The people who are vocal are such a minority that they'll never get anything done.

Then it sounds like the vote has already been cast. If what you're saying is true, the majority doesn't care. And since no one's rights are being abridged, there's no human rights interest in this to justify going against the complacent majority. If most people are happy with the service they're getting from Sony, then the majority doesn't want that service interrupted because a handful of people are unhappy that they can't modify the device in this highly-specialized and comparatively-uncommon way.

But yes, I believe you can talk to Sony. And you're right--they communicate through money. If you don't like how Sony handles their products, do not buy their products. The loss of revenue will send a clear message, one way or the other. If it's a big loss, they'll take notice. If it's a small loss, it means Sony isn't the place for your business anyway.

But I can tell you that there won't be any dialogue with Sony.

Only true if you choose not to engage in financial dialogue. But regardless, what mandate to they have to engage in dialogue anyway? Only the mandate to deliver profits to their shareholders. If they're not listening to you, and you can't make enough financial impact as a group to make them listen, take your business elsewhere. That is how you engage in a dialogue with these companies.

Whether or not you like Anonymous, I will tell you that whatever they do will probably be more effective than anything you could hope to accomplish through a dialogue.

It has nothing to do with whether or not it will be effective. The question centers around whether they have the right to interfere with any of the services enjoyed by a few million perfectly happy customers, just because a small minority wants things their own way.

This is interesting. If you're talking about dialogue simply as people not buying Sony's products, then sure. That will be enough if there are enough people who are willing to boycott Sony. I wouldn't consider that a dialogue though, it's just the workings of the free market. However, I assure you that if you try to engage in a literal dialogue with letters and emails, you will get absolutely nowhere.

Now, there are two things that muck up your argument.

1) The problem is that Sony's behavior sets a precedent for what you can do with the hardware you own. While most gamers might not care about hacking their PS3, a lot of people do care about what they are allowed to do on their phones. If Sony wins this lawsuit, then lawyers have precedent to cite in future cases that can apply to any piece of hardware you can think of. What happens if Microsoft makes a deal with FOX news so that you can only access FOX news sites on your devices? That doesn't scare you a little? (If you're a Republican just imagine it's MSNBC instead.)

The problem is also that you're confounding a lack of interest with a lack of knowledge. It may well be the case that most PS3 owners are just unaware of this debate, but if they did know about it, they would all rise up and try to stop Sony.

2) If we accept that rights only matter when people care about them being violated then brainwashing is 100% acceptable. Under your argument, North Koreans are perfectly fine. It doesn't matter that their rights are horribly violated because their government is so good at lying and brainwashing them that they either don't care or don't even realize it. What if I kidnapped a child and raised him or her to fervently believe that they want to be my personal slave. I've done nothing wrong then? It doesn't matter?