Sony Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over PSN Breach

[JDKJ]

Because the 15 minutes it takes for any smart person to go cut up their card to make sure their identity is not stolen as a result of this, is not worth running a company into the ground, with the reprecussions of their absence in this industry being far worse.

You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, burglar stole a copy of a game you borrowed from a friend. That friend is now sueing you for your whole fucking house.

Let me fix that.

"You promised a friend you wouldn't lose his game, as it is important to him, in fact you signed a legal contract. You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, a burglar stole potentially 78 million games you borrowed from 78 million friends. Those friends are now sueing you for your whole fucking house."

I'm far more concerned that this could set legal precedent allowing companies to fuck over their consumers and lose information with no legal repercussions. I didn;t hear people crying about ruining peoples lives when Sony and other big businesses were suing individual people into poverty.

You really think that this little "incident" isn't going to already hit Sony where it hurts? Losing trust in the company will cost them money in sales. Alot of money. A decent chunk of that 78 million you've been throwing around have probably already migrated to the 360 and won't look back. They've been "punished."

But hey! let's file a lawsuit for identity theft!... before ANY cases of identity theft have been reported.
And frankly, now that we all know what's at risk here.... if someone doesn't take steps to prevent things from going from bad to worse... it's their own damn fault. Not Sony's.

Nope it's Sony's.

I agree that it would be better if people had waited for a few cases to show up.

However that doesn;t change the fact that when/if they do Sony is accountable.

Punishment cannot be dictated by the market. Otherwise theres no point of having a judicial system. Punishment=/=justice. In fact all the people who had to move from PS3 to Xbox have lost money as well. If their details are stolen it doesn't help them that Sony is hurting. Sony has to pay for its mistakes properly. You'd expect the same of me.

Actually, under American tort law, punishment is dictated by the market. This is reflected in the concept of "reasonable care." For example, it is entirely possible for automakers to design and produce an automobile that can withstand most collisions without causing fatalities or major injuries. Such an automobile would resemble a Sherman tank or a Brink's armored truck. But tort law does not impose that requirement on automakers. To do so would be economically unreasonable. Such an automobile would cost more than the average consumer of automobiles would be capable of affording. So instead the law requires of automakers a lesser standard of care in the design and production of automobiles, a standard that isn't "100% certain to never cause death or injury" but, rather, one that is merely "reasonable under the circumstances."

Torts law is a great example of why Sony should be held accountable.

It's quite clear that everyone expected Sony to be able to protect their information, and so Sony is obligated to do as such.

Under tort law, the expectations of everyone are worth about as much as a freshly laid pile of steaming dog shit. What matters is whether the steps taken by Sony to safeguard the information were reasonable under the circumstances. That is the duty Sony owed their subscribers. That a subscriber subjectively thinks Sony should have put the information in a little plastic tube and firmly inserted it up their ass for safekeeping, secure from all possible attempts to hack that information, doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Sony did to safeguard the information was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

 

[ScatterBen]

Here in the UK, to sue in negligence you need a cause of action (i.e. you need to have suffered a loss). Now I don't know about how it works in the US, but if it's the same then nothing will be done yet - at least until someone has actually suffered a loss by having their information used.

Even then, restrictions in the UK for claiming for pure economic loss might make this especially difficult (more so if they exclude liability in the PSN contract, which might impossible to get around since we all ticked that little box saying we agree to the terms and conditions).

Then you need to actually show that there was negligence. Again, we don't know this yet - Sony hasn't stated what it is that compromised their security.

So basically, what I'm saying is we're jumping the gun. Yes, we potentially have a law suit here: the other elements of a negligence claim are there (causation and a duty of care) but there is only the potential that the other two are satisfied at the moment.

 

[JDKJ]

Here in the UK, to sue in negligence you need a cause of action (i.e. you need to have suffered a loss). Now I don't know about how it works in the US, but if it's the same then nothing will be done yet - at least until someone has actually suffered a loss by having their information used.

Even then, restrictions in the UK for claiming for pure economic loss might make this especially difficult (more so if they exclude liability in the PSN contract, which might impossible to get around since we all ticked that little box saying we agree to the terms and conditions).

Then you need to actually show that there was negligence. Again, we don't know this yet - Sony hasn't stated what it is that compromised their security.

So basically, what I'm saying is we're jumping the gun. Yes, we potentially have a law suit here: the other elements of a negligence claim are there (causation and a duty of care) but there is only the potential that the other two are satisfied at the moment.

Actually and believe it or not, the idiot attorney-disaster chaser who filed the class action claims that the damage to the class is the cost and inconvenience associated with having to respond to the possibility that their account information was compromised (i.e., having to call your bank and notify them and change your card number and PINs and reporting the matter to the credit reporting bureaus, etc., etc.). He/she/it knows better than to actually try claiming damages resulting from fraudulent transactions resulting from comprised account information. In America, that damage isn't generally suffered by the credit card holder. The risk of fraudulent transactions and any damage that may result therefrom is the bank's, not the card holder's.

 

[JDKJ]

Because the 15 minutes it takes for any smart person to go cut up their card to make sure their identity is not stolen as a result of this, is not worth running a company into the ground, with the reprecussions of their absence in this industry being far worse.

You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, burglar stole a copy of a game you borrowed from a friend. That friend is now sueing you for your whole fucking house.

Let me fix that.

"You promised a friend you wouldn't lose his game, as it is important to him, in fact you signed a legal contract. You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, a burglar stole potentially 78 million games you borrowed from 78 million friends. Those friends are now sueing you for your whole fucking house."

I'm far more concerned that this could set legal precedent allowing companies to fuck over their consumers and lose information with no legal repercussions. I didn;t hear people crying about ruining peoples lives when Sony and other big businesses were suing individual people into poverty.

You really think that this little "incident" isn't going to already hit Sony where it hurts? Losing trust in the company will cost them money in sales. Alot of money. A decent chunk of that 78 million you've been throwing around have probably already migrated to the 360 and won't look back. They've been "punished."

But hey! let's file a lawsuit for identity theft!... before ANY cases of identity theft have been reported.
And frankly, now that we all know what's at risk here.... if someone doesn't take steps to prevent things from going from bad to worse... it's their own damn fault. Not Sony's.

Nope it's Sony's.

I agree that it would be better if people had waited for a few cases to show up.

However that doesn;t change the fact that when/if they do Sony is accountable.

Punishment cannot be dictated by the market. Otherwise theres no point of having a judicial system. Punishment=/=justice. In fact all the people who had to move from PS3 to Xbox have lost money as well. If their details are stolen it doesn't help them that Sony is hurting. Sony has to pay for its mistakes properly. You'd expect the same of me.

Actually, under American tort law, punishment is dictated by the market. This is reflected in the concept of "reasonable care." For example, it is entirely possible for automakers to design and produce an automobile that can withstand most collisions without causing fatalities or major injuries. Such an automobile would resemble a Sherman tank or a Brink's armored truck. But tort law does not impose that requirement on automakers. To do so would be economically unreasonable. Such an automobile would cost more than the average consumer of automobiles would be capable of affording. So instead the law requires of automakers a lesser standard of care in the design and production of automobiles, a standard that isn't "100% certain to never cause death or injury" but, rather, one that is merely "reasonable under the circumstances."

Torts law is a great example of why Sony should be held accountable.

It's quite clear that everyone expected Sony to be able to protect their information, and so Sony is obligated to do as such.

Under tort law, the expectations of everyone are worth about as much as a freshly laid pile of steaming dog shit. What matters is whether the steps taken by Sony to safeguard the information were reasonable under the circumstances. That is the duty Sony owed their subscribers. That a subscriber subjectively thinks Sony should have put the information in a little plastic tube and firmly inserted it up their ass for safekeeping, secure from all possible attempts to hack that information, doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Sony did to safeguard the information was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

I have to ask you exactly where you've been.

I've been operating under the false assumption that you had the slightest idea of how ineptly sony have handled the security of their users information.

And you know this for a fact beyond all reasonable dispute because you work in Sony's IT Security Department? Do you frequently jump the gun and rush to draw factual and legal conclusions based on absolutely no firsthand knowledge of a situation? You, at best, are of the personal opinion that Sony's handling of the matter was "inept." That personal opinion doesn't magically transform itself into the legal conclusion that they were negligent. While you no doubt hold your own opinions in high regard, perhaps you shouldn't assume that anyone else does likewise.

 

[rmb1983]

If it's one thing americans like more than bombing poor people, it's suing for a quick buck. I for one want no part of it.

This is a world wide event, I'm sure this is just the beginning. If anything you should applaud these guys for being so on the ball.

Being on the ball? They're trying to sue for damages that didn't occur, and demanding compensation for downtime to a service that is offered free of charge.

Sure, Sony was a little evasive before a couple days ago, but with the situation at hand, far worse shit would be hitting far bigger fans if they'd have just come up right off and said "A hacker procured sensitive information from our servers. We are looking into nailing this shit-head to the sun." Information would have been nice, but we got the gist, and they didn't want to give details they didn't have/couldn't say without hard evidence to back it up (unless they wanted to deal with serious legal ramifications).

This "lawsuit", or farce thereof, is going nowhere. People are idiots.
No matter how good the security, nothing is unbeatable. Eventually, someone's going to learn how to climb your fence and steal your priceless tea-cup collection.

 

[JDKJ]

If it's one thing americans like more than bombing poor people, it's suing for a quick buck. I for one want no part of it.

This is a world wide event, I'm sure this is just the beginning. If anything you should applaud these guys for being so on the ball.

Being on the ball? They're trying to sue for damages that didn't occur, and demanding compensation for downtime to a service that is offered free of charge.

Sure, Sony was a little evasive before a couple days ago, but with the situation at hand, far worse shit would be hitting far bigger fans if they'd have just come up right off and said "A hacker procured sensitive information from our servers. We are looking into nailing this shit-head to the sun." Information would have been nice, but we got the gist, and they didn't want to give details they didn't have/couldn't say without hard evidence to back it up (unless they wanted to deal with serious legal ramifications).

This "lawsuit", or farce thereof, is going nowhere. People are idiots.
No matter how good the security, nothing is unbeatable. Eventually, someone's going to learn how to climb your fence and steal your priceless tea-cup collection.

And it's shit-head attorneys like him who clog up the court system with their bullshit lawsuits and make it that much more difficult for legitimate attorneys like myself to get their clients the multi-million dollar judgments to which they are clearly entitled (and my 33.3% cut off the top).

Just kidding. Kinda. Sorta.

 

[aaronobst]

What length of time would have been 'acceptable' before they told us? You want to know 'day one'? I'm sorry if investigations in to a huge network containing tens of millions of users takes time but would it have really been so much better if they had released bits of information that they couldn't be sure of?

 

[JDKJ]

Because the 15 minutes it takes for any smart person to go cut up their card to make sure their identity is not stolen as a result of this, is not worth running a company into the ground, with the reprecussions of their absence in this industry being far worse.

You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, burglar stole a copy of a game you borrowed from a friend. That friend is now sueing you for your whole fucking house.

Let me fix that.

"You promised a friend you wouldn't lose his game, as it is important to him, in fact you signed a legal contract. You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, a burglar stole potentially 78 million games you borrowed from 78 million friends. Those friends are now sueing you for your whole fucking house."

I'm far more concerned that this could set legal precedent allowing companies to fuck over their consumers and lose information with no legal repercussions. I didn;t hear people crying about ruining peoples lives when Sony and other big businesses were suing individual people into poverty.

You really think that this little "incident" isn't going to already hit Sony where it hurts? Losing trust in the company will cost them money in sales. Alot of money. A decent chunk of that 78 million you've been throwing around have probably already migrated to the 360 and won't look back. They've been "punished."

But hey! let's file a lawsuit for identity theft!... before ANY cases of identity theft have been reported.
And frankly, now that we all know what's at risk here.... if someone doesn't take steps to prevent things from going from bad to worse... it's their own damn fault. Not Sony's.

Nope it's Sony's.

I agree that it would be better if people had waited for a few cases to show up.

However that doesn;t change the fact that when/if they do Sony is accountable.

Punishment cannot be dictated by the market. Otherwise theres no point of having a judicial system. Punishment=/=justice. In fact all the people who had to move from PS3 to Xbox have lost money as well. If their details are stolen it doesn't help them that Sony is hurting. Sony has to pay for its mistakes properly. You'd expect the same of me.

Actually, under American tort law, punishment is dictated by the market. This is reflected in the concept of "reasonable care." For example, it is entirely possible for automakers to design and produce an automobile that can withstand most collisions without causing fatalities or major injuries. Such an automobile would resemble a Sherman tank or a Brink's armored truck. But tort law does not impose that requirement on automakers. To do so would be economically unreasonable. Such an automobile would cost more than the average consumer of automobiles would be capable of affording. So instead the law requires of automakers a lesser standard of care in the design and production of automobiles, a standard that isn't "100% certain to never cause death or injury" but, rather, one that is merely "reasonable under the circumstances."

Torts law is a great example of why Sony should be held accountable.

It's quite clear that everyone expected Sony to be able to protect their information, and so Sony is obligated to do as such.

Under tort law, the expectations of everyone are worth about as much as a freshly laid pile of steaming dog shit. What matters is whether the steps taken by Sony to safeguard the information were reasonable under the circumstances. That is the duty Sony owed their subscribers. That a subscriber subjectively thinks Sony should have put the information in a little plastic tube and firmly inserted it up their ass for safekeeping, secure from all possible attempts to hack that information, doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Sony did to safeguard the information was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

I have to ask you exactly where you've been.

I've been operating under the false assumption that you had the slightest idea of how ineptly sony have handled the security of their users information.

And you know this for a fact beyond all reasonable dispute because you work in Sony's IT Security Department? Do you frequently jump the gun and rush to draw factual and legal conclusions based on absolutely no firsthand knowledge of a situation? You, at best, are of the personal opinion that Sony's handling of the matter was "inept." That personal opinion doesn't magically transform itself into the legal conclusion that they were negligent. While you no doubt hold your own opinions in high regard, perhaps you shouldn't assume that anyone else does likewise.

Its common knowledge that it took them 7 days to inform anyone.

Geohot discovered and showed everyone major weakness/s in Sony's system. Giving them time to take some steps at preventing exploitation. The measures either weren't taken, or were not sufficient. People had the ability to install custom firmware for around a year, and its quite obvious Sony did nothing about it. Sony failed to have a system implemented to check the credentials of the people accessing PSN, which is common sense once you learn about the homebrew software/firmware being used. Then, they didn't even bother to encrypt the sensitive data they were storing.

So you'll have to excuse me, I'll admit I'm not part of Sony's IT department. If I were I'd be ashamed of myself. It is however clear that they were inept. Even if you aren't capable of comprehending what's right in front of you.

Fine. It took them 7 days. What does that fact in a vacuum mean? It means absolutely nothing until you contextual it with facts related to how hard they searched before they found anything worthy of informing their subscribers, the size and scope of the infrastructure and information within which they had to search, the technical limitations inherent to the search process, generally recognized best practices and policies in the industry and whether or not Sony employed those practices and policies, etc., etc., etc. Merely saying that it took them 7 days to inform subscribers doesn't, in and of itself, amount to a hill of beans. Seven days. So what? You can't simply substitute your own personal and scantly informed opinion for a legal conclusion drawn after a well-conducted analysis of all the facts. To do so is, charitably put, simple-minded.

 

[Kukakkau]

How will this help the situation?

Just what I was thinking - how are they going to try and find out solutions and how to fix things if they have to mess around with a lawsuit?

 

[Vrach]

Wow the problems are really starting to pile up for Sony, I wonder how long it will take before I start feeling sorry for them.

Mine still ain't budgin'

 

[Mark Leese]

can I just say i feel sorry for sony, there company has been massively effected by the earthquake in japan, so much so that they have already had to push back launch of the NGP until next year, I for one am just fucking sick of hackers, I dont give a fuck what "cause" they are fighting for, they are only hurting us, the users,

this lawsuit wont go anywhere, and sony will probs give something free on the PSN as a sorry and we will all have forgotten bout it in a couple months

 

[JDKJ]

I guess it all depends on the level of security Sony had in place and if that was high enough to be deemed useful to protect peoples credit card information. If its to low then they will be accountable. I am guessing companies like Microsoft and Nintendo are now going to increase their level of security incase the criminals move on to other consoles.

That's close but it doesn't get you the cigar. What it depends on is whether the steps Sony took to secure the information were "reasonable under the circumstances." This standard doesn't necessarily mean that low levels of security were not still reasonable. For example, let's assume that we're discussing Company "X" that has annual profits of $100,000. It is reasonable under those circumstances to require Company "X" to spend $150,000 taking steps to secure their customer's information? Clearly not. That would be bankrupting and unreasonable. The cost-benefit analysis forces the conclusion that the costs would outweigh the benefit. So, even though the security that Company "X" should have reasonably provided may be "low" compared to the security that other more profitable companies provided, that alone doesn't make their "low" levels of security unreasonable. Not under their particular circumstances.

 

[JDKJ]

Because the 15 minutes it takes for any smart person to go cut up their card to make sure their identity is not stolen as a result of this, is not worth running a company into the ground, with the reprecussions of their absence in this industry being far worse.

You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, burglar stole a copy of a game you borrowed from a friend. That friend is now sueing you for your whole fucking house.

Let me fix that.

"You promised a friend you wouldn't lose his game, as it is important to him, in fact you signed a legal contract. You left your front door unlocked last night. As a result, a burglar stole potentially 78 million games you borrowed from 78 million friends. Those friends are now sueing you for your whole fucking house."

I'm far more concerned that this could set legal precedent allowing companies to fuck over their consumers and lose information with no legal repercussions. I didn;t hear people crying about ruining peoples lives when Sony and other big businesses were suing individual people into poverty.

You really think that this little "incident" isn't going to already hit Sony where it hurts? Losing trust in the company will cost them money in sales. Alot of money. A decent chunk of that 78 million you've been throwing around have probably already migrated to the 360 and won't look back. They've been "punished."

But hey! let's file a lawsuit for identity theft!... before ANY cases of identity theft have been reported.
And frankly, now that we all know what's at risk here.... if someone doesn't take steps to prevent things from going from bad to worse... it's their own damn fault. Not Sony's.

Nope it's Sony's.

I agree that it would be better if people had waited for a few cases to show up.

However that doesn;t change the fact that when/if they do Sony is accountable.

Punishment cannot be dictated by the market. Otherwise theres no point of having a judicial system. Punishment=/=justice. In fact all the people who had to move from PS3 to Xbox have lost money as well. If their details are stolen it doesn't help them that Sony is hurting. Sony has to pay for its mistakes properly. You'd expect the same of me.

Actually, under American tort law, punishment is dictated by the market. This is reflected in the concept of "reasonable care." For example, it is entirely possible for automakers to design and produce an automobile that can withstand most collisions without causing fatalities or major injuries. Such an automobile would resemble a Sherman tank or a Brink's armored truck. But tort law does not impose that requirement on automakers. To do so would be economically unreasonable. Such an automobile would cost more than the average consumer of automobiles would be capable of affording. So instead the law requires of automakers a lesser standard of care in the design and production of automobiles, a standard that isn't "100% certain to never cause death or injury" but, rather, one that is merely "reasonable under the circumstances."

Torts law is a great example of why Sony should be held accountable.

It's quite clear that everyone expected Sony to be able to protect their information, and so Sony is obligated to do as such.

Under tort law, the expectations of everyone are worth about as much as a freshly laid pile of steaming dog shit. What matters is whether the steps taken by Sony to safeguard the information were reasonable under the circumstances. That is the duty Sony owed their subscribers. That a subscriber subjectively thinks Sony should have put the information in a little plastic tube and firmly inserted it up their ass for safekeeping, secure from all possible attempts to hack that information, doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Sony did to safeguard the information was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

I have to ask you exactly where you've been.

I've been operating under the false assumption that you had the slightest idea of how ineptly sony have handled the security of their users information.

And you know this for a fact beyond all reasonable dispute because you work in Sony's IT Security Department? Do you frequently jump the gun and rush to draw factual and legal conclusions based on absolutely no firsthand knowledge of a situation? You, at best, are of the personal opinion that Sony's handling of the matter was "inept." That personal opinion doesn't magically transform itself into the legal conclusion that they were negligent. While you no doubt hold your own opinions in high regard, perhaps you shouldn't assume that anyone else does likewise.

Its common knowledge that it took them 7 days to inform anyone.

Geohot discovered and showed everyone major weakness/s in Sony's system. Giving them time to take some steps at preventing exploitation. The measures either weren't taken, or were not sufficient. People had the ability to install custom firmware for around a year, and its quite obvious Sony did nothing about it. Sony failed to have a system implemented to check the credentials of the people accessing PSN, which is common sense once you learn about the homebrew software/firmware being used. Then, they didn't even bother to encrypt the sensitive data they were storing.

So you'll have to excuse me, I'll admit I'm not part of Sony's IT department. If I were I'd be ashamed of myself. It is however clear that they were inept. Even if you aren't capable of comprehending what's right in front of you.

Fine. It took them 7 days. What does that fact in a vacuum mean? It means absolutely nothing until you contextual it with facts related to how hard they searched before they found anything worthy of informing their subscribers, the size and scope of the infrastructure and information within which they had to search, the technical limitations inherent to the search process, generally recognized best practices and policies in the industry and whether or not Sony employed those practices and policies, etc., etc., etc. Merely saying that it took them 7 days to inform subscribers doesn't, in and of itself, amount to a hill of beans. Seven days. So what? You can't simply substitute your own personal and scantly informed opinion for a legal conclusion drawn after a well-conducted analysis of all the facts. To do so is, charitably put, simple-minded.

You're desperately reaching.

It's cool, you don't have to admit when you're wrong.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, nor am I speaking objectively. To suggest that "SO WHAT ZOMG RELATIVITY" is nonsense. 7 days is easily long enough to demonstrate Sony didn't put the consumers first. I don't much care to hear any more from you, but feel free to mince words and argue over semantics with me if you want, I'll play along.

I'm the one desperately reaching? I think not.

In order for you to meaningfully say that Sony was negligent in their custody of subscriber information, you need to hold all the relevant facts of that matter against the legal standard of negligence. I'll excuse you for knowing the particulars of that legal standard. You're not an attorney or a lawyer. Fine. But what's inexcusable is not knowing all the facts and attempting to make them up outta whole cloth. That's inexcusable.

And what is there for me to admit to being wrong? I'm not taking a position either way on Sony's liability for negligence. You are the one saying that they are beyond all doubt negligent. My position is that you're in no position to draw that conclusion because you don't have sufficient facts upon which to draw that conclusion. My position isn't "wrong." I think it's a clear matter of fact that it is correct. You simply lack sufficient facts to draw the conclusion you attempt to draw.

 

[JDKJ]

Fine. It took them 7 days. What does that fact in a vacuum mean? It means absolutely nothing until you contextual it with facts related to how hard they searched before they found anything worthy of informing their subscribers, the size and scope of the infrastructure and information within which they had to search, the technical limitations inherent to the search process, generally recognized best practices and policies in the industry and whether or not Sony employed those practices and policies, etc., etc., etc. Merely saying that it took them 7 days to inform subscribers doesn't, in and of itself, amount to a hill of beans. Seven days. So what? You can't simply substitute your own personal and scantly informed opinion for a legal conclusion drawn after a well-conducted analysis of all the facts. To do so is, charitably put, simple-minded.

And where is that well-conducted analysis of the facts?

I expect that it will be conducted by the Court before which the class action has been filed. If it isn't summarily tossed long before it ever gets to that stage. Which I have a sneaking suspicion will be the ultimate outcome.

 

[kimba_lion]

Has anyone's credit card info actually been stolen? I haven't seen a single example as of yet that someone suffered from Identity theft, and to actually win a case like this you do need legitimate examples.

i think its more of a case that Sony didn't protect our important information enough for it, sure hackers do what they do and that is hack, but Sony has proven itself extremely Negligent in regards to keeping our private information "private" and not informing us properly of the situation from the moment it happened.

i believe it is partially Sony's fault for proving their negligence in privacy matters so soon to consumers, but also it is the hackers fault because hey they were clever enough to get through the code, and i for one don't believe that Sony would have a simple password i.e "password" for someone to simply crack into it so quickly.

yes Sony should be sued, but i (not a fangirl/boy) believe that they would have made sure that our private information was under some relatively heavy security before launching PS3.

OT: really sorry for the long post but i feel the need to say something, and believe me when i say i want this situation resolved as soon as possible, for many reasons including: DCUO, portal coop, staying in contact with family overseas, organising huge parties for ground war for CODBO. so i am thoroghly pissed off also.