Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[The Floating Nose]

Never piss off a geek...

 

[JDKJ]

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?

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?

Wouldn't that, if anything, create an incentive not to once again be seen back-pedaling? You'd have a less crippled leg on which to stand if the Court hadn't already used up its error quota for the year as you claim.

 

[Drago-Morph]

I can't wait until Sony gets mad about this and retaliates against Anonymous, who seem to be content to do symbolic DDoS attacks. But once Sony fights back, Anonymous will bring the pain.

I can't wait, it's going to be awesome.

 

[sleeky01]

So help me out here.

What else can Anonymous do to Sony besides various DDoS attacks?

 

[OMGIllithan]

Companies have the right to attempt to protect themselves from piracy, period. Some ways might be more of a pain in the ass than others (Assassin's Creed 2 for PC for example) but that doesn't mean we have to buy their products (which is really sad because that was one game I was looking forward to actually purchasing!). Its utterly stupid that anon is basically attacking Sony for wanting to protect the Playstation from piracy.

 

[sleeky01]

http://piratenpad.de/sonydox

not just DDos Attacks

Uh-huh. And this helps how?

 

[awsome117]

I could have sworn they worked on a "for teh lulz" basis.

Then again, they'll more than likely get bored, and go DDoS another company in a few weeks or so I'll wager.

 

[Emergent]

Wouldn't that, if anything, create an incentive not to once again be seen back-pedaling? You'd have a less crippled leg on which to stand if the Court hadn't already used up its error quota for the year as you claim.

I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore. That's just nonsensical. I mean, I guess I could answer your question with "no," and be done with it.

Yeah, I will.

 

[Saelune]

Seems they agree with me then. Sony IS abusing the law and is just invading privacy of so many people it has no right to invade. Sony always is like "We need to have this private info, and that private info...for JUSTICE!" Bull.
Definatly wont wince at what happens to Sony right now.

 

[JDKJ]

Wouldn't that, if anything, create an incentive not to once again be seen back-pedaling? You'd have a less crippled leg on which to stand if the Court hadn't already used up its error quota for the year as you claim.

I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore. That's just nonsensical. I mean, I guess I could answer your question with "no," and be done with it.

Yeah, I will.

I assumed the point you were making is that the Court would be inclined to grant a Motion to Quash because it already has a long track record of reversing itself. But the exact opposite would strike me as being the case: because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.

Do you have a working knowledge of American Sign Language? If it would help, I can include in my posts little pictures of fingers spelling out what I'm trying to say letter by letter.

 

[thelonewolf266]

The funny thing is a lot of the people supporting anonymous that have a ps3 will then start whining to Sony when there are entire lobbies full of cheaters because the root-key is now available not to mention loss of revenue due to pirated games will result in poorer quality services that said I support anonymous but I can just see everyone blaming Sony for it when they supported the actions of the group that while not actually responsible for the hacking is attacking them because they try to punish the people responsible.

 

[sleeky01]

I suppose I'll have to give Anonymous some credit. godhatesfags.com is *STILL* down.

I suppose if you can DDoS long enough....*shrug* Presuming of course that they are the ones keeping it down. It's possible Phelps and crew haven't yet bothered to put the site back up yet.

 

[Emergent]

Your comparing a whole bunch of 20 somethings who have nothing better to do then cause shit to people who actually had something to say...

Err, you probably have a very idealized interpretation of the American Revolution, I'd bet.

they dress up out of fear and cowardice. Not because without identity they are unable to be punished and can make a difference but because they are scared children.

Kind of like how, at the Tea Party, the protesters hid their identity so as not to be punished... or is there something I'm missing here? The Tea Party protesters maybe dressed up for a DIFFERENT reason?

As for the harassing of a girl it's pedophilia when you ask her to get naked. anyone and everyone who is associated with anon can die horrific painful deaths for that one and single reason. Everything else they do just adds to my hate for them.

It's sexual harassment, sure, and if she had actually got naked it would be child pornography, but unless the only sexual advances that person has made, ever, were to children, it isn't exactly pedophilia. Not that I'm defending it, it's illegal and shouldn't have been done: It's just not worth killing anyone over.

 

[Emergent]

I assumed the point you were making is that the Court would be inclined to grant a Motion to Quash because it already has a long track record of reversing itself. But the exact opposite would strike me as being the case: because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.

Do you have a working knowledge of American Sign Language? If it would help, I can include in my posts little pictures of fingers spelling out what I'm trying to say letter by letter.

That explains it, you made an assumption. I was trying to figure out how you, an otherwise eloquent and intelligent poster, could have possibly went so wrong. Now I know. Thanks for explaining.

 

[JDKJ]

I assumed the point you were making is that the Court would be inclined to grant a Motion to Quash because it already has a long track record of reversing itself. But the exact opposite would strike me as being the case: because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.

Do you have a working knowledge of American Sign Language? If it would help, I can include in my posts little pictures of fingers spelling out what I'm trying to say letter by letter.

That explains it, you made an assumption. I was trying to figure out how you, an otherwise eloquent and intelligent poster, could have possibly went so wrong. Now I know. Thanks for explaining.

Then, please, pardon my mistaken assumption and explain to me what the Court's track record for errors has to do with the price of cheese in Denmark. You raised it and said it left me without a leg to stand on with my point that a Court is generally disinclined to reverse itself (no sane person willingly wants to wear egg on their face or eat crow) and I'm not seeing what your point has to with my point or how it leaves me legless.

 

[darkcommanderq]

As much as I disliked sony before this whole GeoHot incident, I dont think Anonymous would have gone after them and nor would have I really rooted for one side or the other.

However sony caused this whole incident when they removed the advertised feature of using the PS3 as a linux box. If they did not want that functionality on there console they should have have advertised it. The hackers main goal was to enable there PS3s to work with linux again, not to enable pirated games. It was only after the linux crowd cracked it that piracy became a concern.

Sony brought this whole ball of wax on themselves. I root for Anonymous all the way and hope they do way more than a few DOSS attacks.

Iv been watching Anonymous and I have yet to see them do anything to anyone that was not being a complete jerk in the first place. (even if it is 'wrong'/illegal)