Sony Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over PSN Breach

Emergent

New member
Oct 26, 2010
234
0
0
JDKJ said:
Putting aside the fact that whether or not Sony was indeed "derelict" (I believe the better word may be "negligent") is a legal conclusion that I don't think can be drawn at this time and assuming they were, what "resources" would you have to invest in safeguarding your information?
As best I can tell, this is where JD started trying to jump the shark. People don't have to prove criminal negligence to sue, only that their consumer rights were violated (a civil matter). My statement that what is, and is not, a legal standard for "negligence" is meaningless in this context still stands. I'd reply to the rest of your post, but since they're so off topic as to be not even wrong I'll just leave them be.

Have fun with your ensuing wall of text, though.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Emergent said:
JDKJ said:
Putting aside the fact that whether or not Sony was indeed "derelict" (I believe the better word may be "negligent") is a legal conclusion that I don't think can be drawn at this time and assuming they were, what "resources" would you have to invest in safeguarding your information?
As best I can tell, this is where JD started trying to jump the shark. People don't have to prove criminal negligence to sue, only that their consumer rights were violated (a civil matter). My statement that what is, and is not, a legal standard for "negligence" is meaningless in this context still stands. I'd reply to the rest of your post, but since they're so off topic as to be not even wrong I'll just leave them be.

Have fun with your ensuing wall of text, though.


Didn't I already explain to you that you can't say one thing yesterday and then try to change your story today -- not when the words you typed are unchangeable and quotable? You stuck yourself right between the conversation stinkychops and I were having thusly:

Emergent said:
JDKJ said:
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 [not] knowing the particulars of that legal standard. You're not an attorney or a lawyer.
That isn't entirely accurate, in either spirit or letter. Your personal requirements for a statement to be "meaningful" or not do not, in and of themselves, make a statement meaningful. Nor does a legal standard, since those change over time and in different contexts (jurisdiction is really important as well).

I wouldn't feel too bad about it. This is typical. Lots of folks confuse their subjective opinions with objective axioms.
I had already advised stinkychops:

JDKJ said:
stinkychops said:
CM156 said:
Don't worry guys, Phoenix Wright is on the case!

OT: I really hope they catch the hackers in this case, and sue THEM to oblivion
So if Sony were criminally negligent you don't think they deserve to be sued?

Why the hell not?
Because you can't be "sued" for criminal negligence. You can be "prosecuted" for it. You can be "sued" only for civil negligence.
so I don't know why you're attempting to tell me something that I already told stinkychops a long time ago or suggesting that I'm "jumping the shark." The conversation between stinkchops and myself (the one into which you officiously inserted yourself) had long ago and long before you inserted yourself clarified the difference between criminal and civil negligence and had moved on to the point at which you inserted yourself.

It's all there in black and white for all to see. Why you can't see it is beyond my comprehension skills.
 

Emergent

New member
Oct 26, 2010
234
0
0
JDKJ said:
ensuing wall of text
Right. You invalidated your own argument when you previously pointed out a charge of criminal negligence is not even currently on the table (thus making discussing the merits of it meaningless, which is precisely what I stated) - I don't have to (nor would I bother - gibberish need not be countered).

That you take the simple obvious fact as some sort of victory is endearing in the way a child who just won the Special Olympics is touching: heartwarming on some level but still mostly just sad.

Feel free to continue, it's like watching a slow motion trainwreck: I don't really want to be anywhere near it but I can't make myself look away.



P.S. Please stop sending threats to my inbox. Thanks!
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Emergent said:
JDKJ said:
ensuing wall of text
Right. You yourself even invalidated your own argument when you previously pointed out a charge of criminal negligence is not even currently on the table (thus making discussing the merits of it meaningless, which is precisely what I stated) - I don't have to (nor would I bother - gibberish need not be countered).

That you take the simple obvious fact as some sort of victory is endearing in the way a child who just won the Special Olympics is touching: heartwarming on some level but still mostly just sad.

Feel free to continue, it's like watching a slow motion trainwreck: I don't really want to be anywhere near it but I can't make myself look away.



P.S. Please stop sending threats to my inbox. Thanks!
You're repeating the "wall of text" thing. Kinda like you did the "emotional appeal" thing. Neither of which are winning counter-arguments. Talking in circles isn't any kinda way to make a winning counter-argument.
 

Emergent

New member
Oct 26, 2010
234
0
0
JDKJ said:
Talking in circles isn't any kinda way to make a winning counter-argument.
What counter arguments? You point at something I say, then shout "THIS PROVES I WIN!" in an insulting fashion. It isn't an argument, it's ranting. I'll listen, as and when I happen to otherwise visit the site, since it's easy enough to respond to quoted posts here, but you aren't making any traction through the random protestations of victory.

It feels like I'm arguing with Charlie Sheen.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Emergent said:
JDKJ said:
Talking in circles isn't any kinda way to make a winning counter-argument.
What counter arguments? You point at something I say, then shout "THIS PROVES I WIN!" in an insulting fashion. It isn't an argument, it's ranting. I'll listen, as and when I happen to otherwise visit the site, since it's easy enough to respond to quoted posts here, but you aren't making any traction through the random protestations of victory.

It feels like I'm arguing with Charlie Sheen.
Where have I said a word in an insulting fashion? Or ranted? Or made random protestations of victory? I'm not seeing any of that.
 

Imat

New member
Feb 21, 2009
519
0
0
Is this a real thing? A court is suing Sony because they got hacked. Because some outside force broke into Sony's database, which is entirely possible in this day and age, Sony is getting sued. What is wrong with the legal system nowadays?
 

Coffinshaker

New member
Feb 16, 2011
208
0
0
good job Kristopher Johns... you're what's wrong with this country.

think of it this way; you had your friend hold on to a $5 bill, later he gets mugged, beaten and lost everything on him. you then sue your friend for a ridiculous amount and he loses his house.

it's kind of like that! Sony was HACKED! He's just some punk that thinks they owe him for his lost weekend of Halo. I will be very disappointed in the people of this country if one of your beloved game consoles goes out of business or, at least, is crippled immensely, because some folks feel slighted that they lost few days of game time.

I've said it before, and will say it again... SUE THE HACKERS! They are responsible! Don't sue a bank cause it's robbed, sue the robbers! The logic is so backwards and I hope the courts don't entertain this ridiculous charge. (ps, I know you cant sue the hackers, but I'm just saying...)
 

k0n9

New member
Apr 15, 2011
47
0
0
If there is proof that Sony was negligent on the PSN, then they will lose (if the courts aren't persuaded by money.) There hasn't been much info, so we don't know if Sony will win or lose.
 

rmb1983

I am the storm.
Mar 29, 2011
253
0
0
Mark Leese said:
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
This. A thousand times this; bolded for emphasis.

Whether or not this was an attack (as it wasn't only Sony that was targeted, other major companies got hit, too), or just a shits n' giggles expenditure to prove it could be done is hardly relevant...the problem is that no matter the "cause" that any hackers "fight for", it really mainly hurts the users, long-term. Yes, the companies themselves suffer losses (both directly and through shareholders, etc), and we get to enjoy the benefit of increased security -- which is moot; nothing is unhackable -- but it also results in service outages (such as this), more stringent DRMs, and a whole host of other factors that further and further destroy end-user freedom and enjoyment. While that's a whole other bag of marbles itself (and not really on-topic for this discussion), something like this really doesn't help matters, either.

That being said, I too, feel sorry for Sony and their host of employees, this year. Between the court issues, the earthquakes in Japan, and a handful of network attacks (particularly this one, which has a lot of impatient "OMG! I NEED TO PLAY MULTIPLAYER NOW!" users on their backs), they're really in a poor place this year, from a consumer standpoint. Irony being their console sales in respect to that, but I digress.
You think your job sucks? Picture being in Seybold's place, right now. The media is having a field day with every little scrap they can twist and spin, people are nit-picking every tiny thing he says, and he's got millions of people on his case, 24/7.

Could Sony have had better security implemented, especially after Hotz put up the rootkey? Yes, absolutely. Even still, that's really only another hurdle, though...like I (and various others have said), nothing is unhackable. It was really only a matter of time, and it wouldn't shock me to see XBL get hit, as well. Nintendo, not so much, because of the way their market works, but it's still a good possibility.
Did Sony deserve this shitstorm? I don't think so. Some may not agree, and sure, Sony doesn't have a spotless customer service record, but they really didn't do anything wrong to have this coming to them. The Hotz thing was a mess and changed the game, but if they hadn't pursued that, I'm pretty sure this would have been ten times worse for them, in the long-run; a company laying on their backs and taking it will put a target on their back they can never get off.

I may use my PS3 more often than the other consoles (hell, I haven't TOUCHED my Wii -- hahaha -- since getting my new TV a few years ago) or even my PC...but I just tend to prefer its controller and interface. That, and the majority of my friends own a PS3 exclusively, or use it more often than their other consoles themselves.

I have to agree with JDKJ: It's bullshit "I HAVE TO SUE EVERYONE!" cases like this that clog up the courts. The only crime committed was the hacker(s) breaking into their network. Yes, their security could have been better, but that's hardly the point; they did take the appropriate measures, someone just got around them. Leave the court system alone for real issues; it's already mired down with too much nonsensical crap as it is.
 

rmb1983

I am the storm.
Mar 29, 2011
253
0
0
Coffinshaker said:
He's just some punk that thinks they owe him for his lost weekend of Call of Duty: Black Ops.
Fixed.

Halo, PS3. Cute. I giggled. Like a little girl.

Don't judge me!
 

Littlee300

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,742
0
0
KiraTaureLor said:
If the law suit goes through, how will the money be divided?
will it only be USA users?
I expect it to mostly go to the lawyers and the guy suing Sony.
Edit: apparently, if the money was split up, 769 dollars would get to each person.
Edit 2: Nvm, 75 dollars.
Edit 3: Taking away the 30% lawyer split it is 53 dollars.
 

Coffinshaker

New member
Feb 16, 2011
208
0
0
rmb1983 said:
Coffinshaker said:
He's just some punk that thinks they owe him for his lost weekend of Call of Duty: Black Ops.
Fixed.

Halo, PS3. Cute. I giggled. Like a little girl.

Don't judge me!
LOL!!!! thanks for the edit there! my roommate plays the ps3/360... I'm kinda out of the loop as to what's on the ol tv now-a-days. XD