Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I have no respect for and give no support to Anonymous; I never have, and I never will. As far as I'm concerned, they are just a bunch of lawless thugs. They claim they are fighting for what is right and for freedom, but they do so at no risk to themselves. They suffer no consequences for their actions; thus, they have no accountability. Nothing keeps them in check. There is nothing about them that can be trusted other than they are just looking for lulz.
They hide behind a mask and offer no basis for trusting them other than because they say so. Am I really supposed to just categorically trust some faceless group of individuals from nowhere who only claim to have my interests in mind, but incur no risks to themselves in defending such interests and show no reason for commitment to the defense of those same interests? Even worse, the nature of Anonymous is such I can't even guarantee that I'm dealing with the same set of individuals from one moment to the next. How do I know their ideals(other than being in it for the lulz) remain the same when who is Anonymous keeps changing?
Further, who are they to dictate what is and is not right for a company or anyone to do? It is getting to the point that anyone who says or does anything that Anonymous just happens to not like, then that person, organization, company, etc. suddenly finds themselves subject to the wrath of Anonymous on its "crusade" to make the world a better place by righting the wrongs and injustices of the world. But, let's not examine the right of any individual person, company, etc. to actually be in their own right to act as they have; it only matters whether the whim of Anonymous favors you or not.
I have more respect for Richard Stallman and FSF, and I think they're just a bunch of crazy idealists; however, at least there, one is dealing with an actual organization, with an actual identity, that is actually locatable, and is actually legally accountable. Mr. Stallman is at least putting himself out there for what he believes in him, and, though I may disagree with him, I can respect that. Anonymous has nothing of the such and, as such, commands no respect from me. Would Anonymous carry forth their "crusade of justice" if there was any actual risk to themselves? I seriously doubt it.
Hell, come to think of it, I actually have more respect for WBC and scientologists than I do for Anonymous, for the exact same reasons, and I vehemently disagree with both those groups. But, at least they don't hide themselves. At least they put themselves out there for what they believe in. At least they are willing to be spit on, beaten, bruised, battered, heckled, and ridiculed, because they do what they do out front where everyone can actually see who they are. I can actually point to WBC and scientologists and say "Look at these idiots!" Who do I point to with Anonymous? All there is is a mask that says nothing and means nothing, because it stands for nothing but the whim of whoever decides to put on the mask.
I have heard some people compare Anonymous to civil right activists and those who have fought for freedom and against injustice and tyranny in the past. I consider such comparisons a complete insult to those of the past that fought, bleed, and died for the freedoms we today enjoy. Those people put their lives, their families lives, their futures, and their identities on the line for what they believe in. They didn't hide behind some mask in the basement of their Fortress of Solitude on the far off island of LaLa Land. No, these people put themselves out front, in harm's way, to make a stand for what they truly believe is just and right. They risked everything in the hope to make a difference in the world. In this way did their sacrifice carry the full weight and power of their ideals to move hearts to change the world. Anonymous does nothing of the sort, and has no such power. They're just e-thugs who have become drunk upon the attention they have been getting lately.
They hide behind a mask and offer no basis for trusting them other than because they say so. Am I really supposed to just categorically trust some faceless group of individuals from nowhere who only claim to have my interests in mind, but incur no risks to themselves in defending such interests and show no reason for commitment to the defense of those same interests? Even worse, the nature of Anonymous is such I can't even guarantee that I'm dealing with the same set of individuals from one moment to the next. How do I know their ideals(other than being in it for the lulz) remain the same when who is Anonymous keeps changing?
Further, who are they to dictate what is and is not right for a company or anyone to do? It is getting to the point that anyone who says or does anything that Anonymous just happens to not like, then that person, organization, company, etc. suddenly finds themselves subject to the wrath of Anonymous on its "crusade" to make the world a better place by righting the wrongs and injustices of the world. But, let's not examine the right of any individual person, company, etc. to actually be in their own right to act as they have; it only matters whether the whim of Anonymous favors you or not.
I have more respect for Richard Stallman and FSF, and I think they're just a bunch of crazy idealists; however, at least there, one is dealing with an actual organization, with an actual identity, that is actually locatable, and is actually legally accountable. Mr. Stallman is at least putting himself out there for what he believes in him, and, though I may disagree with him, I can respect that. Anonymous has nothing of the such and, as such, commands no respect from me. Would Anonymous carry forth their "crusade of justice" if there was any actual risk to themselves? I seriously doubt it.
Hell, come to think of it, I actually have more respect for WBC and scientologists than I do for Anonymous, for the exact same reasons, and I vehemently disagree with both those groups. But, at least they don't hide themselves. At least they put themselves out there for what they believe in. At least they are willing to be spit on, beaten, bruised, battered, heckled, and ridiculed, because they do what they do out front where everyone can actually see who they are. I can actually point to WBC and scientologists and say "Look at these idiots!" Who do I point to with Anonymous? All there is is a mask that says nothing and means nothing, because it stands for nothing but the whim of whoever decides to put on the mask.
I have heard some people compare Anonymous to civil right activists and those who have fought for freedom and against injustice and tyranny in the past. I consider such comparisons a complete insult to those of the past that fought, bleed, and died for the freedoms we today enjoy. Those people put their lives, their families lives, their futures, and their identities on the line for what they believe in. They didn't hide behind some mask in the basement of their Fortress of Solitude on the far off island of LaLa Land. No, these people put themselves out front, in harm's way, to make a stand for what they truly believe is just and right. They risked everything in the hope to make a difference in the world. In this way did their sacrifice carry the full weight and power of their ideals to move hearts to change the world. Anonymous does nothing of the sort, and has no such power. They're just e-thugs who have become drunk upon the attention they have been getting lately.
Q.E.D., my ass. Not when the source of that citation is Sony Pictures Entertainment. There is nothing on the face of that information that would force me to conclude that the "Sony Corporation" in "Sony Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan" necessarily includes Sony Computer Entertainment of America. Not to say it doesn't. Just to say that you've done absolutely nothing to establish that fact. And even if was, I'll repeat that it is at best an "option." Just because you are an employee doesn't mean you've availed yourself of the stock option offer. I'd be surprised to discover that 100% of Sony employees have bought into the stock option. Wouldn't you, too?Emergent said:
Sony common stock is Sony common stock, no matter how you get it, and I bet you know that, deep down.JDKJ said:
So let's take this back to the conversation at hand. The issue we were discussing was who gets to access the personal information. I stated that since employees of Sony can be shareholders, I don't see a difference between Sony attorneys having access to personal information and "Sony the legal fiction" having access to the information.
I invite you to explain in detail why you disagree with me, if you do.
uhh, yes, i believe i may have already stated that Anonymous is breaking the law. thanks for reiterating...multiple times.Hyrulian Hero said:
not everyone who mods their console for piracy, they do it to use it in a way that it was not intended. how would you feel if you bought a frying pan and that 'nifty little contract' said that you must only make pancakes with it or they'll sue you. so following that you go to the shop, only to find 2 other types of frying pans, but the black frying pan was way overpriced and the other one required you to do a dance to cook. both are extremely restrictive in the same way as well, but you can make a few more things than pancakes.
now lets say that you can modify the frying pan to cook anything, even the recipes that are created by other people at home...ok, surely by this point you get the analogy.
lets see what else i can think of that the ps3 is missing, homebrew games, better access to playing pictures, music and movies, i wouldn't know much more because for a long time, ive refused to buy a ps3 and agree to the 'nifty little contract' set by the devi...er, sony.
all i know is, thanks to this ps3 hacker, my ipod touch looks a lot better today and yet i still pay the outrageous prices in the itunes store.
I am asserting that the information gathered through the subpeonas were used solely for the purpose of determining whether California is an appropriate venue to continue further legal action. Additionally, that any information gathered thusly will not be made available to everybody in Sony due to the aforementioned attorneys' eyes only clause, a circumstance different that what many people, like yourself, imply. Furthermore, the information gathered will not be used to pursue individuals, in great part due to the fact that the people who actually make the decisions on who to sue and when to sue will likely not be privy to the necessary information, and well, common sense. Nobody wants to run around suing individuals all day. In short, you and I, the people, have nothing to fear at all.Emergent said:
I am asserting that anybody, like yourself, blurting out "SONY IS SEIZING YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION" without providing appropriate context, as I have provided above, is fearmongering, aiming to garner knee jerk reactions against Sony amongst the lesser informed. Additionally, I am asserting that what little information Sony gathered through its subpeonas is piss compared to the vast ocean of your "private information" that is already available all over the Internet regardless of whether you willingly handed over said information or not. Finally, I am asserting anybody really concerned about violations of privacy through the Internet has no reason to focus on Sony when there are bigger fish to fry. I, myself, no longer use Facebook and have deleted all my accounts and block all stray Google scripts on principle.
Certainly. The attorneys of record in the SCEA v. Hotz litigation are all attorneys of the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend. There are no in-house Sony attorneys who appear as counsel of record on SCEA's behalf. Accordingly, the stipulation entered in that litigation requiring that documents produced as part of the discovery process are "Attorney Eyes Only" would apply to only those eyes of the attorneys at Kilpatrick Townsend, not any eyes of the in-house attorneys at their client, SCEA.Emergent said:
There should absolutley be some recompensation to those people.Though I'm sure if enough PS3 buyers made such claims they'd be taken seriously by comsumer watchdogs.As you point out,they should supply what it says on the box.Emergent said:
As far as taking a morality lesson from Anonymous goes,now that they've been brought to my attention ah..the Jessie Slaughter case?WTF.
How can I possibly take them seriously.They seem pretty hit and miss in the morality department.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Anyway, The proper context was indeed provided, by the very posts I was responding to when I made the comment. As to your continuing claims to fearmongering and comparisons to google/facebook: The information was taken by the threat of force (men with guns eventually come to enforce the decision if it is not complied with promptly), not given. You do understand the difference between giving information to a second party with permission, and it being taken by a third party without, don't you?
How will you go about guaranteeing that assertion?Illyasviel said:
It might benefit your argument to tone down the condescending tone.Illyasviel said:
Anyway, The proper context was indeed provided, by the very posts I was responding to when I made the comment. As to your continuing claims to fearmongering and comparisons to google/facebook: The information was taken by the threat of force (men with guns eventually come to enforce the decision if it is not complied with promptly), not given. You do understand the difference between giving information to a second party with permission, and it being taken by a third party without, don't you?
Emergent said:
Your willingness to discuss the "for attorneys' eyes only" sections with JDKJ and I because we keep bringing it up bears no relation with your willingness to discuss or even reveal this context when discussing the same topic with lesser informed individuals, as I have quoted. Instead, you just said "its kinda illegal" and implied Sony used coercion to gain this information ( the information is only legally available for national security issues or to protect legal rights, therefore, to gain it, Sony had to do some nasty things ).Emergent said:
Men with guns do not appear at your door, men with guns appear at Google's door. Speaking of Google, Google has, by now, a veteran legal team ( after all their battles with Microsoft ). If they found the subpeona to be inappropriate, I am sure they would've fought it. Google happily handed it over. Sony's legal tactics so far have been a bit unorthodox, but as far as I am concerned, squeaky clean. If Sony truly were breaking the law in their pursuit of Geohot, I would not be supporting them.
I have not called you an idiot or otherwise insulted you. I have only alleged you are using fearmongering tactics. I do not perceive this as condescending or insulting. There is simply a lack of a more eloquent word. Everybody has used fearmongering tactics before, including myself. But this is an important topic. Please respect it enough ( and other people who are interested ) as to provide adequate context.
It's not complicated at all. Nothing in legitimate copyright law (i.e. before the giftwrapped *AA handjob that was the DMCA) makes you "not allowed to screw with it." As to whether something could be banned for possible infringing use, we already have Betamax for that. As long as there's significant non-infringing use, tough luck. (NB: Existing precedent matters less and less the more laws get hand-crafted, so YMMV).TacticalAssassin1 said:
Sony isn't the only company that tries to act that they still own the product, especially hardware, after you buy it, but they're one of the worst. Right up there with the cell phone companies. Anything that takes them down a peg is a good thing.
Of course, this won't accomplish that. I doubt there's much ignorance anymore as to what kind of scum SCEA are, so it's only reasonable to assume that anyone affected by this 'informational' attack already knows and just doesn't care.
Since you let the issue of purchasing Sony common stock being the same stock regardless of which program you purchased it through drop, I'm going to assume you've conceded it. Now, about the rest. Let's get one thing out of the way early: The information was NOT stipulated to be used ONL:Y for determining jurisdiction. It is also intended to be used as evidence of distribution. Go back and look that up if you don't believe me. Once the evidence is entered into the court, it becomes public knowledge, EVEN IF THERE IS NO CONVICTION. That means a precedent is being set that allows a third party to access private information you willingly gave to ANOTHER party in confidence, then RELEASE THAT INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, despite the fact that such access is prohibited under the wiretapping act. If the evidence were ONLY being used to determine jurisdiction, I could probably be convinced to concede the point. As it stands, this is invasion of privacy.JDKJ said:
Here's where it gets muddy: Once we've agreed that customers who wanted to PS3 for it's use as a Linux box should be compensated, how do you go about deciding which customers are which? As to how to go about judging Anonymous: It helps to understand that Anon is a social movement, not a group, it has no policies and no long-term agenda. The best way to judge Anon morally is in the moment. Is what they are doing RIGHT NOW morally acceptable to you or not? Because the Anon of RIGHT NOW is not the anon of yesterday or tomorrow, and yes, that is both a great strength and terrible flaw.eels05 said:
Actually, you suggested that we move back to the core issue under discussion and I went along, polite person that I am. Just kidding. That whole "stockholder" shit is, at best, in the margins.Emergent said:
Here's where your disagreement with my disagreement fails:
Documents produced and designated as "Attorney Eyes Only" when introduced as evidence never become part of the publicly available record. They're introduced under seal of a protective order. Ain't nobody without a direct relationship to the litigation ever seeing that crap.