Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Emergent]

I've supported Anon in their last few crusades but this is one I'm not behind. People are so quick to jump to judgment about Sony and I really don't think they've done anything wrong (at least any more so than any other company)

So you're cool with turning your paypal and web surfing information over to them without being ordered to do so in court?

I don't know the entire story cuz I stopped paying attention lately but on the basis of the core lawsuit here, I support Sony trying to protect their console and PSN.

I'm confused. So are you cool with turning your paypal history, credit card numbers, and other personal information over or not?

 

[mireko]

My best friend Austin owns a PS3. He likes his games, but the Sony company is so strict on rules, that Austin can't even go online to play multiplayer due to certain policies, or own certain games. It sounds crazy to me, because on Xbox 360 (which I own), you can do pretty much do whatever you like as long as it's legal. Sony makes things so unfair, to a point it seems illegal at times (does that even make sense?)

You mean your friend uses custom firmware and can't connect to the PSN? Gee, that's surprising.

[sub]If this isn't what you mean, then I have no idea what you mean. The PS3 doesn't even have regional lockout.[/sub]

 

[MysticToast]

I've supported Anon in their last few crusades but this is one I'm not behind. People are so quick to jump to judgment about Sony and I really don't think they've done anything wrong (at least any more so than any other company)

So you're cool with turning your paypal and web surfing information over to them without being ordered to do so in court?

I don't know the entire story cuz I stopped paying attention lately but on the basis of the core lawsuit here, I support Sony trying to protect their console and PSN.

I'm confused. So are you cool with turning your paypal history, credit card numbers, and other personal information over or not?

Of course I wouldn't be unless under proper suspicion.

But, like I said, I haven't really followed the story lately so I don't know the whole deal behind the PayPal thing or whatever you said.

 

[JDKJ]

A better question is exactly what people are concerned about when their "private information" is being revealed to Sony? Every single person who uses the Internet is already datamined to hell and back ( by Google, good guys of the Internet, no less ). What? Is Sony going to start suing people on a case by case basis? Is that what you, anonymous, or whoever is saying?

I'm fair certain Sony's attorneys aren't going to start suing people on Sony's behalf on their volition, and if nobody in Sony except the attorneys know information that could be used to form a lawsuit, who is Sony going to sue?

Stop using fearmongering tactics. I am sick of people preying on the uninformed to garner knee jerk reactions instead of fairly presenting facts as is.

I'm not exactly sure which part of "I don't want my personal information turned over to a third interested party when neither I, nor anyone else, has been convicted of a crime" is fearmongering, but I'm sure you can clarify your position. I also noticed you didn't answer my question.

An employee of a corporate person isn't a part of that corporate person. Only the shareholder(s) of the corporate person are part of the corporate person.

http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/employment/faq/index.html#q6 ....so, basically, most of them?

The operative word in "stock option" is "option." As in the option to buy the stock if you want to buy it or to not buy it if you don't want to buy it. And, moreover, there are literally thousands of corporations that don't offer their employees a stock option.

 

[Illyasviel]

I'm not exactly sure which part of "I don't want my personal information turned over to a third interested party when neither I, nor anyone else, has been convicted of a crime" is fearmongering, but I'm sure you can clarify your position. I also noticed you didn't answer my question.

JDKJ answered for me.

So what do you do about Google? Or Facebook? Pipl.com? Or credit card companies in general? Because you know, those guys have books on you.

Your information is already out there. If you truly are interested in protecting your "private information," than honestly? Sony isn't your enemy. Google and Facebook is. The very fact that Sony had to ask Google and Youtube for your "private information" should tell you that hey, Sony hasn't been publishing a new book about you every weekend. As opposed to the organizations with the libraries Sony is asking to take a quick peek into.

 

[sleeky01]

What's more, the release said that judges and other legal entities involved in the suits were guilty of "undermining the well-being of the populace and subverting [their] judicial mandate."

And this is what Anonymous is all about. a half-hearted attempt to sound like the defenders of Cyber-Freedom, but they are really just in it for the lulz.

 

[health-bar]

*Wild Geohot appeared!

*Sony sends out EULA(shortsighted user agreement)!
*EULA uses hacker defense curl...
its console hackability decreased.

*Geohot uses shortsided workaround!
ITS SUPER EFFECTIVE!

*Sony uses Legal Action!
Critical Hit!

*Geohot uses Victimization!
Geohot's victimization attracts Wild Anonymous

*Wild Anonymous' DDoS Ability clouds the battlefield!

 

[MysticToast]

When reading the article, I can actually agree with Anonymous- that Sony does in fact rip off their customers. Not to a bad degree, but in a way if we can't do anything with our consoles that we bought legally then that's a bit unfair. Before you accuse, let me explain:

My best friend Austin owns a PS3. He likes his games, but the Sony company is so strict on rules, that Austin can't even go online to play multiplayer due to certain policies, or own certain games. It sounds crazy to me, because on Xbox 360 (which I own), you can do pretty much do whatever you like as long as it's legal. Sony makes things so unfair, to a point it seems illegal at times (does that even make sense?)

Care to share an exact example of him not being able to play or own certain games? I have encountered no such thing

If I am not correct then it's my bad, but this is what my bud told me when I was hanging with him and i'll tell you by memory. He wanted to play Alien vs Predator the Demo, but he couldn't download the demo because it required him to download it on the same day as the actual game came out. It baffled me because aren't demos suppose to be playable before they come out? Besides that, I decided to try out his Assassin's Creed 2. We played it for a bit, and we had some fun with missions.
But, on another time when I asked if he owned God of War III, he said he wasn't allowed to own it. I asked if it was because of parents and he said no, that the console monitured his birthday due to a contract and spite permission to own Rated M games- he could not play one because it required a 'code'. I didn't believe him at first until he showed me with on of his other games. Fallout 3 he tried, and some pop up came up which then screwed us over because we couldn't log out of it so we had to turn off the PS3 and restart it (because we didn't have the code sadly). Does this explain your answer by any means? Because maybe it's just his PS3 or something.. but overall the policies are pretty unfair.

As far as the AvP thing, I don't think he's telling the truth about that cuz I could play the demo before the game came out. About the age policy, I haven't encountered that because (and I can't remember if I did this or not) I may have added a year or two to my age when setting up my PS3 in anticipation to this type of thing.

But if I may play Devil's advocate, doesn't it make sense on Sony's end to try to keep Mature rated games out of minors' hands. After all, there are parental controls on the PS3.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

Shouldn't they be targeting banks and corruption rather than an electronics company that is trying to protect it's product?

Also I hate those damn Guido Fawkes masks, Guy was a fundamentalist moron who wanted to restart the bloody reign of Catholicism in England. He was also massively stupid, sending letters of warning to MP's he liked. Bonfire/Guy Fawkes night represents a condemnation of his actions, hence why we burn his effigy and not worship it.

For the record, you can modify your console without Sony coming after you but you are not allowed to sign up to or use the PSN which is what GeoHot was doing. GeoHot is hurting gamers more than Sony has, he's fueling fears from game studios that more DRM is needed and enabling idiots to hack online games.

 

[Emergent]

Of course I wouldn't be unless under proper suspicion.

But, like I said, I haven't really followed the story lately so I don't know the whole deal behind the PayPal thing or whatever you said.

Basically Sony got a judge to hand over paypal and google user data of anyone in communcation or making a transaction with GeoHot. It's kind of illegal, since that data is technically only legally available for national security issues or to protect the legal rights of paypal or google, not Sony.

JDKJ answered for me.

So what do you do about Google? Or Facebook? Pipl.com? Or credit card companies in general? Because you know, those guys have books on you.

Your information is already out there. If you truly are interested in protecting your "private information," than honestly? Sony isn't your enemy. Google and Facebook is. The very fact that Sony had to ask Google and Youtube for your "private information" should tell you that hey, Sony hasn't been publishing a new book about you every weekend. As opposed to the organizations with the libraries Sony is asking to take a quick peek into.

JDKJ did not answer for you. I did not ask if they were, or were not, part of the corporate person, I asked YOU what you, personally, were asserting.

Anyway, the thing is, I GAVE that information to Google and Facebook willingly. Sony took it using unconstitutional force.

The operative word in "stock option" is "option." As in the option to buy the stock if you want to buy it or to not buy it if you don't want to buy it. And, moreover, there are literally thousands of corporations that don't offer their employees a stock option.

To the first sentence: I guess if Sony disclosed all the personal information of their employees and shareholders we'd be able to accurately judge which one of them are shareholders and which aren't, but that isn't publicly available, is it? Tell you what: If Sony sends me a COMPLETE and itemized shareholder list, or maybe publishes it on their website, I'll use it to decide which of their employees can see my information and which can't. Is that fair? As to your second sentence, the red herring: we aren't talking about thousands of other corporations. We're talking about Sony, aren't we?

 

[Venereus]

Remember: the Corporation is always the bad guy when one of them is involved.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Oh boy, Something tells me this is not going to end up pretty. I usually favor Anon with a lot of things, but this time it feels... off. Dunno how else to put it.

I think this might be why, it's why it feels off for me

SONY isn't abusing the legal system, they're USING the legal system. You might think what they're suing for is wrong, but if the judge allows the case to go through, it's because it's not abusing the legal system and a case can be made by both sides. You might not like what SONY is doing, but a legal battle is a viable option for SONY, they are using it, and if you don't understand that, tough.

I've supported Anon' MANY times in the past, including the WBC bollocks they went through, but they were right for that. WBC was pushing hate on the world. SONY is not abusing the legal system, they are simply using that method

Why is it that EVERY TIME someone twitches the wrong way, Anonymous goes "You are abusing the public and misusing all of this! We shall teach you a lesson!" like their donning batman's fucking cape? I can understand it if they get involved in an issue or two, but now they're hacking for the sake of hacking, they're watching everything going "Can we find a reason to hack for that? no...... How about that? ...... no....... OOooooh, lets do THIS!!!!"

Kind of makes things seem static doesn't it?

 

[BRex21]

Please don't insult my intelligence. I know what a shrink-wrap EULA is. And if you really want to impress me, find the place among Best Buy's refund policy pasted below where it says I can't return my PS3 for refund merely because I've opened the box it which it was contained (but for the rare exception of a BBFB purchase - and ain't too many businesses in the market for a PS3, I'd imagine):

First off, I wasnt aware everyone bought their consoles from best buy now. I know my EBgames wont take an open console. Since its on Sony not the retailer we have to take every retailer into account, not just the big box. Besides future shop wont take used PCs back without a reason, its not on their reciepts, but its perfectly reasonable. There isn't any way to prove they wont need to refurbish the product once they take it back, and time costs money. also note that you only have a partial list, thats some of the items they wont take back.
As for repeating shrink wrap contract, You ignored it when i said it once, and you still dont seem to get it. You cant make someone sign a contract after you take their money.

 

[JDKJ]

Please don't insult my intelligence. I know what a shrink-wrap EULA is. And if you really want to impress me, find the place among Best Buy's refund policy pasted below where it says I can't return my PS3 for refund merely because I've opened the box it which it was contained (but for the rare exception of a BBFB purchase - and ain't too many businesses in the market for a PS3, I'd imagine):

First off, I wasnt aware everyone bought their consoles from best buy now. I know my EBgames wont take an open console. Since its on Sony not the retailer we have to take every retailer into account, not just the big box. Besides future shop wont take used PCs back without a reason, its not on their reciepts, but its perfectly reasonable. There isn't any way to prove they wont need to refurbish the product once they take it back, and time costs money. also note that you only have a partial list, thats some of the items they wont take back.
As for repeating shrink wrap contract, You ignored it when i said it once, and you still dont seem to get it. You cant make someone sign a contract after you take their money.

Outta curiosity, what percentage of the market for PS3 sales do you think Best Buy has? Compared to EBGames? And if nothing else, at least you've learned something today: quit spending your money at EBGames where you don't have the ability to return your purchases. Instead, take your ass to Best Buy, where there's a liberal return policy.

And why would you ever think that I, who posted a New York court opinion involving a shrink-wrapped EULA, and to which you responded, wouldn't know what a shrink-wrapped EULA is? C'mon, man.

And why do you keep babbling about EULAs being "signed?" Ninety-nine percent of all EULAs don't require signature. You either (a) "click-through" or (b) your consent is implied by use and access.

 

[mrdude2010]

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 understand Sony's trepidation, but I don't agree with them.

I see your point but it's... Complicated.
Isn't the Sony software in the PS3 copyrited and secret and stuff? If so then I say you're probably not allowed to screw with it.
I'm sure it would be in the agreement that everyone signs when they buy the console or set it up or something.

i can understand denying certain online privileges or something to modded consoles, but i have to agree with tactical assassin. if you purchase some form of media, and you have a system capable of playing it, it should be perfectly within your right to use that system to play that media. it's like mounting a disk image of KOTOR so you don't have to put the CD in, just instead of a disk image it's a different console? i don't know it is complicated, but i tend to dislike corporations

 

[Emergent]

Yeah sure.I understand what your getting at.
But as far as Anoymonous making a point about adhearing to the letter of the law by breaking it themselves?
Sorry I cant support that kind of hipocracy.
At the end of the day I guess I'm more concerned about voiding the warranty on expensive products by cracking them open and putting in shit the designer didn't want in there.

Two things: Anon isn't making a point about legality, they're making a point about morality. As has already been pointed out in this thread, there's an important difference there. Also, I can understand your position, but what about folks who bought the product as advertised, then found out that Sony removed that functionality (Linux) and are left without recourse? Would you agree that those consumer's rights have been violated?

 

[XxSummonerxX]

While I'm not going to go ahead and endorse any illegal activities, I hope Anon CRUSHES Sony. Sony is being completely ridiculous, I chipped my PS1 and 2, and it's ok. It voided the Sony warranty on it, I couldn't get a refund on it, and it was TECHNICALLY illegal. But I paid for them and I legally owned them and I understood that.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

This is basically the equivalent of stealing cookies from a cookie jar when your parents told you not to, and because they got caught they are now trying to throw a tantrum going "WELL I HAVE A RIGHT TO EAT COOKIES AND NOT FOLLOW THE RULES EVERYONE ELSE ABIDES BY!"...presumably before they crap their pants and cry for a diaper change.

If they have such a problem with Sony, then why don't they JUST NOT DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Jeez, if Sony decided "Hey, you know what? We are sick of this crap, we are DONE making PS3's and we will no longer provide PSN or any future consoles/services" the ONLY people we'd have to blame is Anonymous and Hackers. (Unlikely scenario, but if stronger restrictions and oppression is placed on gamers, then we know who to point the finger at)


Anonymous...babe...I love you to death...I know you're legion and you are many...but your being such a child in this scenario. Now don't get mad and bang your fists on the floor, or scream and bang your head on the walls till your ear's bleed, but this time you're wrong. You're not standing up for human rights, your not making the world a better place, your just fighting a fight that is so pointless that it is overshadowing the good and great things that require the effort elsewhere.