U.S. Senator Praises Sony's PSN Response

[RvLeshrac]

Protection against identity theft should not be a privilege at the company's discretion, or a commodity if the price is right. It should be mandatory by the law, and forced until no longer necessary. (Which means, forced until PSN no longer exists.) If PSN allows for someone to break into somebody else's account, they are accountable. Not the consumer.

The PSN didn't allow anything. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+hacker

But if you consider the fact that not being 100% secure makes the company accountable, then you hold every website ever accountable. If it's online, it can be hacked. Microsoft, Facebook, and a bunch of other popular whatevers have had a problem with this in the past, too. (Not on as large a scale, but yeah.)

Not being 100% secure makes every company and site accountable, yes. If they aren't held accountable, what motivation do they have for spending to increase security?

 

[Kopikatsu]

Protection against identity theft should not be a privilege at the company's discretion, or a commodity if the price is right. It should be mandatory by the law, and forced until no longer necessary. (Which means, forced until PSN no longer exists.) If PSN allows for someone to break into somebody else's account, they are accountable. Not the consumer.

The PSN didn't allow anything. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+hacker

But if you consider the fact that not being 100% secure makes the company accountable, then you hold every website ever accountable. If it's online, it can be hacked. Microsoft, Facebook, and a bunch of other popular whatevers have had a problem with this in the past, too. (Not on as large a scale, but yeah.)

Not being 100% secure makes every company and site accountable, yes. If they aren't held accountable, what motivation do they have for spending to increase security?

Because no security is flawless? Most aren't even that good. You can hold the company/website accountable all you want, but they can't increase security beyond 'best available', which still isn't safe by any definition of the word.

 

[mogamer]

Well, I guess somebody just got a large campaign donation from Sony...

Hey, you might want to can it. We gamers can only benefit from a stronger video game lobby.

This is so true.

BUT, if Sony did send this guy a campaign contribution it would be for Sony and not for any gamers.

 

[Sabinfrost]

I've posted in a lot of these threads by now as it is a hot topic of interest for me as a fairly devout console fan who used PSN. I believe Sony are trying, some might claim they have no alternative, but honestly at the core I believe they care for their customers. I'll still take my pound of flesh when it is due, but I appreciate the thought that Sony feel sorry for someone other then themselves.

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

COWARD! Sorry but this guy turned out to be another cookie-cutter politician.

 

[Grimrider6]

...and I hope cyber terrorist groups like Anonymous feel what it's like to be in the hands of Federal Agents.

Seriously, can people stop using this term? It doesn't really mean anything except "people with computers doing things we don't like".

 

[theultimateend]

Well, I guess somebody just got a large campaign donation from Sony...

Hey, you might want to can it. We gamers can only benefit from a stronger video game lobby.

That's only if gamers ever see themselves as being all in the same boat and quit dividing themselves into fanboy camps.

Just unify all achievement systems. BAM.

Or let multiplayer cross platforms like steam did.

Basically the less lines that are visible the less 5 year old ***** fitting will be found. People naturally look for ways to sensationalize their importance through difference.

...and I hope cyber terrorist groups like Anonymous feel what it's like to be in the hands of Federal Agents.

Seriously, can people stop using this term? It doesn't really mean anything except "people with computers doing things we don't like".

Yeah being terrorized and being annoyed are substantially different things.

Terrorists will murder or torture you or someone related to you in some fashion to strike fear into your heart.

Most Cyber terror will temporarily inconvenience you. (Of course there are avenues for cyber terror to cause dramatic problems but so far the news I've read has been more of an inconvenience).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Similar "please forgive us" packages for European customers have been promised but are still in the works [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109832-Help-Is-On-The-Way-For-European-PSN-Customers].

And STILL no word on when Station will be up or what happens to all the PC owners affected by the outage.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

This guy made an almost suspicious turn from bashing Sony to praising them.

I mean i give Sony some credit for at least admitting they fucked up but that fact they took so long to say something like "someone may have stolen your credit card information" just loses them some points in my book.

 

[punipunipyo]

Gaming going politics! Yey! can't wait to see what comes next! Game as religion? Wait, already done that!

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

...and I hope cyber terrorist groups like Anonymous feel what it's like to be in the hands of Federal Agents.

Seriously, can people stop using this term? It doesn't really mean anything except "people with computers doing things we don't like".

I would, were it not for this.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cyber-terrorist

Noun 1. cyber-terrorist - a programmer who breaks into computer systems in order to steal or change or destroy information as a form of cyber-terrorism

The whole PSN debacle shows what kind of people anon are. A cyber terrorist cult.

OT: Wow, talk about a 180. I bet a Sony rep sat down one-on-one and made about 150,000 good points.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm guessing Senator Blumenthal doesn't actually own or use any Sony products effected by the intrusion.

 

[CosmoK]

In light of recent events, I hardly think Sony gave the guy a donation.

First thing I thought of after reading the article was "concrete shoes" and "sleeping with the fishes"...

 

[StarCecil]

...and I hope cyber terrorist groups like Anonymous feel what it's like to be in the hands of Federal Agents.

Seriously, can people stop using this term? It doesn't really mean anything except "people with computers doing things we don't like".

These bastards have a political agenda, and they attempt to achieve it via criminal means. Is that not what a terrorist is? My credit card information was on the network, and very well could have been stolen. Sony stands to lose billions. All because some yahoos decided it would be a good idea to break the law. Even if it wasn't Anonymous who did this, they openly admitted to having planned an attack on Sony to achieve political ends in violation of the law. They are terrorists.

 

[Atheist.]

...and I hope cyber terrorist groups like Anonymous feel what it's like to be in the hands of Federal Agents.

Seriously, can people stop using this term? It doesn't really mean anything except "people with computers doing things we don't like".

I'm not a fan of the term either. But a terrorist could be described in a similar manner. "People with explosives doing things we don't like". That would basically cover it. Or airplanes. Whatever they're sporting at the time.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Protection against identity theft should not be a privilege at the company's discretion, or a commodity if the price is right. It should be mandatory by the law, and forced until no longer necessary. (Which means, forced until PSN no longer exists.) If PSN allows for someone to break into somebody else's account, they are accountable. Not the consumer.

The PSN didn't allow anything. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+hacker

But if you consider the fact that not being 100% secure makes the company accountable, then you hold every website ever accountable. If it's online, it can be hacked. Microsoft, Facebook, and a bunch of other popular whatevers have had a problem with this in the past, too. (Not on as large a scale, but yeah.)

Not being 100% secure makes every company and site accountable, yes. If they aren't held accountable, what motivation do they have for spending to increase security?

Because no security is flawless? Most aren't even that good. You can hold the company/website accountable all you want, but they can't increase security beyond 'best available', which still isn't safe by any definition of the word.

And the "best available security" would have prevented this attack, or at least mitigated it.

 

[Grimrider6]

...and I hope cyber terrorist groups like Anonymous feel what it's like to be in the hands of Federal Agents.

Seriously, can people stop using this term? It doesn't really mean anything except "people with computers doing things we don't like".

I'm not a fan of the term either. But a terrorist could be described in a similar manner. "People with explosives doing things we don't like". That would basically cover it. Or airplanes. Whatever they're sporting at the time.

Terrorism, by most definitions, is the use of violence to generate fear in the population, usually to manipulate government policy towards a certain point of view (religious, ideological, etc), in addition to a disregard for harming civilian targets. As far as I can see, a DDoS and/or illegal system entry doesn't cause physical harm or lasting property damage, so it can't fall under the definition of "terrorism". You can call it criminal, yes, but 'cyber terrorism'? Drama much?

Seriously, the term "terrorism" itself has so many different definitions. Nobody is even sure what it means, exactly. The kind of semantic stretching the word has seen for the past ten years is really kind of upsetting. It's become a catch-all term to vilify whoever the speaker doesn't like. Call Anon criminals, if you want, or vigilantes. But let's put this ridiculous "cyber terrorist" label to bed, please.