Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Alphakirby]

Anonymous seems to be in both sides of the moral spectrum more so this time. Mainly because the ToS is the contract of a console,and despite the fact that it is true that we should be allowed to do what we wish with the systems we paid for,it isn't legal if Sony's ToS says it isn't. I don't like it,but it's how the world works,and seeing how Sony is a multi-million dollar company,it's putting some on the fence on who to root for. I have to root for Anon again,just because it's not right to screw people over because they want to use the system to a higher level of potential.

 

[Emergent]

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 ).

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.

I didn't say you insulted me. I suggested that your argument would be strengthened with less of a condescending tone. I stand by that statement.

Ok, "men with guns" ...I like what you brought up. That, as a person, men with guns might come to your door - but that as a "corporate person" that can't happen. Let that one roll around in the back of your head for a few days. Call it fearmongering if you like, but you brought it up.

As to the rest... you seem to think I'm displaying favoritism when I respond to JD, but if you go back and look I did make the case clearly, specifically mentioning the exact laws the judge and Sony were in violation of (Wiretapping act of 1968, privacy act of 1986). Hope that clears it up.

 

[JDKJ]

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 ).

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.

I didn't say you insulted me. I suggested that your argument would be strengthened with less of a condescending tone. I stand by that statement.

Ok, "men with guns" ...I like what you brought up. That, as a person, men with guns might come to your door - but that as a "corporate person" that can't happen. Let that one roll around in the back of your head for a few days. Call it fearmongering if you like, but you brought it up.

As to the rest... you seem to think I'm displaying favoritism when I respond to JD, but if you go back and look I did make the case clearly, specifically mentioning the exact laws the judge and Sony were in violation of (Wiretapping act of 1968, privacy act of 1986). Hope that clears it up.

I doesn't clear it for me because, as I point out above, those documents designated "Attorney Eyes Only" will never become part of any publicly available record. They'll be shielded by a protective order deliberately excluding them from inclusion in the public record (i.e. "filed under seal"). If they're never publicly disclosed, where's the violation you claim?

 

[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.

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.

I assumed you didnt know what a "shrink wrapped EULA" is because you obviously didnt do much research, if you did you would know that these cases boil down to a judge more than the law and that in more than half of these cases go to the defendant. Since even wikipedia would tell you its a draw i would have to assume you didnt even go THAT far, as you said it was an obvious win for Sony, when anyone familiar with the term "Shrink Wrap Contract" knows that it is in fact a defence.
Also i could care less about how many people buy there consoles at Best Buy, it dosnt matter, THEIR return policy isnt in question. That responsibility falls on Sony themselves and if a retailer wants to save money by not having to mark down opend package they can do that.
Oh and technically in legal terms when you click "i agree" on your EULA thats called signing, same as marking an X on a contract if you cant write.

 

[Emergent]

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.

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.

Okay, so when I buy Sony common stock am I a shareholder or not? Just kidding, we both know the answer to that question. As to the rest... you do realize that only part of the subpoena is considered Attorney's Eyes Only, right? You aren't purposely omitting that?

 

[The Sane]

Just like the guy who was banned 35 times on Xbox, what is the solution? Hack Some More!

I'm sure it'll work.

 

[Emergent]

Not directed at anyone in particular: Let's go ahead and kill the idea that no one who actually held the information taken by Sony objects: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/ps3-forum-subpoena-quash/

Even more specific: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/soflayer.pdf

 

[JDKJ]

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.

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.

Okay, so when I buy Sony common stock am I a shareholder or not? Just kidding, we both know the answer to that question. As to the rest... you do realize that only part of the subpoena is considered Attorney's Eyes Only, right? You aren't purposely omitting that?

Yeah, but it is the part that encompasses all that personally identifying information. That was Kilpatrick's argument to the Magistrate: if the shit is sensitive and that officious intermeddling woman from the EFF is so concerned about the privacy of others, then let's just designate it "Attorney Eyes Only." I'd imagine that the stuff not so designated is the stuff that no cares if it ends up in the hands of the public because it isn't sensitive in nature. No harm, no foul.

 

[Jumplion]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what GeoHot do was to unlock the PS3 so people could once again install what they wished on their PS3's? If PS3 had left the feature I was talking about IN their would be no ANON attack or GEOHOT hacking.

I think GeoHotz's release of Sony's security root key code was the straw that broke the camel's back.

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.

M rated restrictions? What? I've never had that happen to me before, nor to anyone else. I don't know about the AvP demo thing, but I, nor anyone else I've ever seen, has had to use a code to play God of War III. I have no idea what's up with the Fallout 3, but no game needs a "code" or whatever to play on PSN (except for EA's "Project $10 thing", which wouldn't do that kind of stuff).

I have no idea what your friend is doing, but I doubt it's any real "policy" on PSN. Maybe a picture or something? I dunno, I've never heard of anything like that, sounds like either something with the PS3, or your friend is tinkering with it or something, whatever.

 

[Emergent]

I'd imagine that the stuff not so designated is the stuff that no cares if it ends up in the hands of the public because it isn't sensitive in nature. No harm, no foul.

It's good that you can imagine things. Me, I'll stick with Softlayer, Inc. - protected material, undue burden, "a document that purports itself to be a subpoena." (i.e. gtfo Sony, both harm and foul.)

 

[Eijarel]

[food for thought]
After reading about all of these stories of anonymous's hacktivism, i tend to regress back at the story of Ghost in the shell specifically the "laughing man" arc, is fairly easy to see some coincidental parallels, after all; the romantic tale of the shining knight against the dragon has suddenly obtained a much more contemporary romanticism as the "hacker vs the corporation" (who is who is not for me to decide)

but there might be something hidden, following the example of G.I.T.S.
i would not be surprised if in the near future a the very same corporation, or a rival company decides to hide acts of white collar crimes/stock manipulation/espionage as attacks perpetrated by "Anonymous"

this basically mirrors an instance in G.I.T.S in which the hacker that wanted to expose a corporate crime, became a household name(the laughing man) , but this name was actually fabricated by other companies to do attacks against the competence (while the actual hacker remained silent).


basically creating their own copycat stunts to achieve some for of personal gain,
for now i cant tell you, an "anonymous" attack is currently met with a specific form of "Publicity"
so far i doubt a company is "bold/smart" enough to manipulate it into a viral form of marketing...yet.

 

[JDKJ]

I'd imagine that the stuff not so designated is the stuff that no cares if it ends up in the hands of the public because it isn't sensitive in nature. No harm, no foul.

It's good that you can imagine things. Me, I'll stick with Softlayer, Inc. - protected material, undue burden, "a document that purports itself to be a subpoena." (i.e. gtfo Sony, both harm and foul.)

A Motion to Quash don't mean shit until it's granted. And if it's ultimately denied, then it damn sure don't mean shit. And here's the kicker: that Motion will be heard and ruled upon by the same Court that granted issuance of the subpoenas in the first place.

 

[Emergent]

A Motion to Quash don't mean shit until it's granted. And if it's ultimately denied, then it damn sure don't mean shit. And here's the kicker: that Motion will be heard and ruled upon by the same Court that granted issuance of the subpoenas in the first place.

It seems that you are aware that when someone files documents with a court, it is ruled upon by that court, not some other, random court. Good for you. Here, have a gold star.

 

[JDKJ]

A Motion to Quash don't mean shit until it's granted. And if it's ultimately denied, then it damn sure don't mean shit. And here's the kicker: that Motion will be heard and ruled upon by the same Court that granted issuance of the subpoenas in the first place.

It seems that you are aware that when someone files documents with a court, it is ruled upon by that court, not some other, random court. Good for you. Here, have a gold star.

No need for snarkiness, now. Especially not with me, The Crown of Prince of Snarkiness.

 

[Emergent]

A Motion to Quash don't mean shit until it's granted. And if it's ultimately denied, then it damn sure don't mean shit. And here's the kicker: that Motion will be heard and ruled upon by the same Court that granted issuance of the subpoenas in the first place.

It seems that you are aware that when someone files documents with a court, it is ruled upon by that court, not some other, random court. Good for you. Here, have a gold star.

No need for snarkiness, now. Especially not with me, The Crown of Prince of Snarkiness.

My apologies, I suppose I should have said "your post is meaningless, in that it refutes no points and makes none of it's own." Making it a bit more lighthearted actually seemed less aggressive at the time.

EDIT: I guess just posting a fail-meme pic would've done the trick, too, but that's against forum policies for some crazy reason.

 

[JDKJ]

A Motion to Quash don't mean shit until it's granted. And if it's ultimately denied, then it damn sure don't mean shit. And here's the kicker: that Motion will be heard and ruled upon by the same Court that granted issuance of the subpoenas in the first place.

It seems that you are aware that when someone files documents with a court, it is ruled upon by that court, not some other, random court. Good for you. Here, have a gold star.

No need for snarkiness, now. Especially not with me, The Crown of Prince of Snarkiness.

My apologies, I suppose I should have said "your post is meaningless, in that it refutes no points and makes none of it's own." Making it a bit more lighthearted actually seemed less aggressive at the time.

Of course it makes a point. I thought it would have been immediately apparent to you. But, if you need me to sprinkle you a bread-crumb trail out of the Forest of Obtuseness, here we go:

The Court that granted the subpoenas in the first place is unlikely to be the same Court chomping at the bit to reverse itself.

 

[loremazd]

http://www.psmods.com/content.php?189-Sony-wins-subpoena-for-Geohot-s-PayPal-records

Tuesday's order by US Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero said the information subject to Sony's subpoena ?shall be provided on an Attorneys' Eyes Only basis?

FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.

FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.

FOR ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.

Please stop trying to sensationalize what actually happened. Sony can't see any of the names gathered. Sony can't sue you. They don't know who you are. Only their attorneys do. Sony essentially performed an anonymous census.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I do have a question: Are you asserting that an employee of a corporate person is not, in fact, part of that corporate person?

No, but if said attorney's give Sony information not pertaining to the case, they'll be disbarred and sued by the state. Corporate attorneys are still liscensed by the state and must abide by their guidelines.

 

[crystalsnow]

Just when I was starting to admire their work with the WBBC they pull this. Always a mixed bag.

 

[icame]

Anddddd Anon went from starting to get on my goodside to being total pricks again.

 

[Emergent]

Of course it makes a point. I thought it would have been immediately apparent to you. But, if you need me to sprinkle you a bread-crumb trail out of the Forest of Obtuseness, here we go:

The Court that granted the subpoenas in the first place is unlikely to be the same Court chomping at the bit to reverse itself.

If they hadn't already modified and reversed many decisions in this case, specifically because the Honorable Judge does not understand the concepts involved (she has already apologized once for requesting GeoHot "retrieve the code" and it being explained to her by Kellar - geo's lawyer- that you can't "retrieve" the internet), you might have a leg to stand on.

No, but if said attorney's give Sony information not pertaining to the case, they'll be disbarred and sued by the state. Corporate attorneys are still liscensed by the state and must abide by their guidelines.

How do they go about deciding what pertains to the case, and what dosn't, again?