Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[jrcillian]

The more I hear of Anonymous the more I want to drag them with their intestines wrapped around their throat through the streets of every town in America.

 

[JDKJ]

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 rose him or her to fervently believe that they want to be my personal slave. I've done nothing wrong then? It doesn't matter?

You mean other than the fact that you "rose" the child? It may not be wrong to "rose" a child but I think it generally preferable that you would have "raised" the child.

 

[Rad Party God]

Holy shit, this is the battle for the ages!, GO ANONYMOUS!

 

[jibjamborie]

Finally a voice of reason..

 

[Poofs]

im rooting for Anonymous on this one.

i think they're in the right this time and even though they're getting revenge through "Illegal" means i still support them

i am, by no means, going to join them, but i'm still on their side

 

[Emergent]

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.

The idea here is to show that the teenagers in their parents' basements have a voice, too.

 

[jibjamborie]

...i disagree.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

As far as Anon goes: Did we really need them to spread their shit on this one? I can't believe how happy people are to hear they're on this one. These are the people who harass children, and frequent a site that features child pornography. I can't believe people are so quick to overlook all the horrible shit they do.
It's like Star Wars: Darth Vader blew up a fucking planet just to piss Leia off. BUT! He threw the Emperor into a pit just before he died. So, everything horrible he did is instantly forgiven. Yeah. That's how you guys treat Anonymous.

I agree with you. The same group who spreads the personal information of shitloads of people they don't like so the entire internet can harass and terrorize them suddenly has a stance against Sony's invasion of privacy. Total bullshit. Anonymous getting involved in this will just make the entire situation worse for everyone.

Which is probably what they wanted, instead of "standing up" for anyone or anything.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I love it how Hackers appear to think that hacking and causing damage to other people's property will somehow win over the public.

This is fucking stupid, regardless of which side you are on.

Well, I think the results make the difference overall.

Honestly I'm a little disinterested in the 'system' as a whole these days, I wouldn't mind a vigilante group or three.

 

[Therumancer]

Interesting, despite some mixed opinions about what Anonymous has done on various fronts, this is another action I pretty much agree with.

The big defense by Sony that they are protecting themselves from pirates. The thing is that in doing so they are infringing on the rights of millions of legitimate users to do what they want to with their own property. Not to mention that some of Sony's own activities in invading the privacy of users are even worse than the piracy they are setting out to prevent.

I do not agree with the attitude that they have the right to infringe on people before those people can infringe on them since they might do so at some point.

My basic attitude about piracy is that as wrong as it might be, the industry (including Sony) is just as bad itself, what's more it's making billions of dollars even with piracy. It's not like piracy actually represents any danger to the industry, it's all about them seeing the potential to make more money by stopping it, and in the pursuit of more monetary units the gaming industry doesn't care who it steps on.

Right now the abillity to police piracy without intruding on legitimate users does not exist, as such I actually think the gaming industry needs to back off. This goes not just for gaming, but for media in general. If these groups were in danger of actually disappearing (other than hype and propaganda) it might be differant, but they aren't, so as far as I'm concerned they represent the greater of evils here. If at some point the technology appears to allow the policing of piracy without infringing on legitimate users and their abillity to do what they want with their own privacy, then by all means use it. Until that point it's a situation where two wrongs don't make a right.

I look at the April Fool's day joke/ad from Isohunt as a good example of exactly WHY policing piracy isn't practical. I got a pretty good chuckle out of that when I heard about it and read it.

 

[Crazycat690]

If anyone is victimizing the costumers it's the hackers, do they really think it's helping us allowing people to cheat at games? Do they really think it helps the costumers to attack Sony's website? If anything, Sony will get more pissed off, and fall upon the hackers with furious anger, after of course they make more security restrictions on Ps3 and removing features.

I don't know how, or when, but you watch, this will end up hurting the avarage honest consumer (of Sony and Ps3 products) more than anyone, unless of course Sony dies or the hackers get sued for billions and thrown in jail...

However, no one dare say that they are doing this to "help the consumers".

 

[BobafetSVK]

and i´ve been wondering why is the sony site down for so long

 

[Emergent]

You mean other than the fact that you "rose" the child? It may not be wrong to "rose" a child but I think it generally preferable that you would have "raised" the child.

You arguments about the legality of returning unwanted consoles were enlightening. The above statement showed that they were most likely rooted in arrogance, undermining your own position with essentially a self-placed ad hominem. Don't be an ass, especially when otherwise your statements are worth listening to. Also, please consider the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

 

[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 rose him or her to fervently believe that they want to be my personal slave. I've done nothing wrong then? It doesn't matter?

You mean other than the fact that you "rose" the child? It may not be wrong to "rose" a child but I think it generally preferable that you would have "raised" the child.

Gee, ya got me. Never mind that I didn't bother to proofread because I'm running on about 4 hrs of sleep and am really just trying to keep myself awake.

 

[BRex21]

If you think that in-the-box EULAs are not enforceable, you should read the case of Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998). If you're too busy to do so, I'll give you the Reader's Digest version: the court found that a shrink-wrapped EULA resulted in a binding contract being formed when the purchaser retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period.

you cant return your PS3 buddy.

 

[jibjamborie]

As far as Anon goes: Did we really need them to spread their shit on this one? I can't believe how happy people are to hear they're on this one. These are the people who harass children, and frequent a site that features child pornography. I can't believe people are so quick to overlook all the horrible shit they do.
It's like Star Wars: Darth Vader blew up a fucking planet just to piss Leia off. BUT! He threw the Emperor into a pit just before he died. So, everything horrible he did is instantly forgiven. Yeah. That's how you guys treat Anonymous.

I agree with you. The same group who spreads the personal information of shitloads of people they don't like so the entire internet can harass and terrorize them suddenly has a stance against Sony's invasion of privacy. Total bullshit. Anonymous getting involved in this will just make the entire situation worse for everyone.

Which is probably what they wanted, instead of "standing up" for anyone or anything.

I AGREE entirely...
anonymous are just stirring this up..
Imagine they took down sony..bankrupted them and there was no ps4...

IMAGINE IT!!

yeah.. thats not a future i want to live in..

 

[Derek Westlund]

regardless of right or wrong it will be VERY entertaining to watch from a safe distance

but i do side with the ARGUMENT of "i can do what I want with the things I own"

(if it is capable of thought and self preservation you can't own it, including but not limited to pets and AI)

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

And here we go again.......Hey...judging by the style of their Press release, it seems to be a different sect of Anonymous. It doesn't look or sound like their other ones. Well...Whatever. I'll jsut go back to watching this unfold as I consume popcorn.

I hope that one of them screws up and gets caught, and in turn, rats out more of them.

When you mess with the PS3s software, you're not "tinkering with something you own", you're tinkering with something you're leasing. Huge difference.

So the console I spent 250$ on is not actually mine? Bull. I bought it, so I should own it. GRANTED I should not pirate stuff (which I don't) since that's actually a harmful practice, but I should own my own damn console.

 

[Logarithmic Limbo]

I hate sony with a passion ever since they started infecting music cds and games with malware/spyware. I avoid EVERYTHING tainted with SecurROM, which I find annoying since there are a few titles I would have liked to play had it not been for the "undocumented features". I hope anon burns them to the fucking ground.

 

[La Barata]

Anonymous has no official position on ps3.
ANONYMOUS HAS A VERY FUCKING OFFICIAL POSITION ON LULZ.

As a member of anonymous I declare you incorrect.

Now what're you gonna do about it?

That was a joke based off a quote from something Anonymous said a while back in a press release guide for journalists -_-;

Anonymous has no official position on abortion
Anonymous has no official position on tax policy
Anonymous has no official position on health care
Anonymous has no official position on collective bargaining agreements
Anonymous has no official position on campaign finance reform
Anonymous has no official position on the Tea Party
Anonymous has no official position on the Democratic Party
Anonymous has no official position on the Republican Party
Anonymous has no official position on the Green Party
Anonymous has no official position on global warming
Anonymous has no official position on off-shore drilling
Anonymous has no official position on budget deficits
Anonymous has no official position on George Soros
Anonymous has no official position on the Koch brothers
Anonymous has no official position on Fox News
Anonymous has no official position on MSNBC
Anonymous has no official position on CNN
Anonymous has no official position on NAFTA
Anonymous has no official position on the IMF or World Bank
Anonymous has no official position on Wall Street
Anonymous has no official position on entitlement programs
Anonymous has no official position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Anonymous has a very fucking official position on LULZ

Also, not meaning to sound like an ass, but you sound like a newfag. Going LOLZ I ARE ANON makes you look like a bit of a tool.