But your reason to add internet controls was to track hackers who protest corporate rape. That's the equivalent of following individual protestors back to their home and arresting them. They're easier to control when you deal with them one at a time, right?

Don't make me laugh about free speech outside of the internet. Both sides of your policital spectrum are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate interest, the news is nothing more than bought-out opinion, phones are being tapped, real journalism is being pursued for imprisonment, and while you can have a say on things, your life can be made a living hell from it.

You're not living in a democracy. You're living in a corporate oligarchy, where the wealthy are the only ones with the REAL free speech, and your free speech consists of such decisions as "paper or plastic?"

My reason wasnt to solely control hackers who invade others property. If it were just that, it wouldnt be that much of a deal. Heres what I said "I know its not just related to this issue but we need to globally enforce the internet, fast. Its becoming more and more disconnect to what we accept and defend in our society."

Luckily, its part of our freedom to be able to go against the freedom of speech of someone else in our judicial system.

You mean protests aren't what you accept and defend in society? Things that disrupt corporate workings so they actually pay attention? Wow, where do you live, again?

Surely, by accept I mean legal, and by defend I mean societal values and jurisprudence. Im all for protestation, as long as the protestant doesnt do anything illegal. As far as I know, manifestation and protestation are permitted in most developed countries, personally im in Canada.

Distributed Denial of Service is the equivalent of blocking the shop entrance of a store, and that's if the website they're DDOSing is a shop or not.

Once again:

"I know its not just related to this issue...".

"My reason wasnt to solely control hackers who invade others property. If it were just that, it wouldnt be that much of a deal."

Even then, I'd be inclined to be persuaded based on the circumstances. Why? Because I believe that corporations should be made to be transparent along with government. For instance, if a hacker made their way into BP's network, and found information relating to deliberate negligence towards maintenance in the gulf that led to the large spill, and distributed it all over the internet, how would you rule on that?

Giving the right to anyone and/or the police to look into what we define as private on the basis we might find something illegal is hard to defend. What is private isnt legally accessible without a subpoena and it should remain that way. Now, if you ask me if companies and governments should have less privacy, my answer is yes. I think we should work toward that way. For examples, laws like the "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" we have in Canada and getting rid of the switzerland bank privacy policy are both good things that was done toward this way.

I'm pretty sure the majority of PS3 owners weren't online all at the same time to notice it. Once again, no facts, no persuasion.

They HAVE reacted. These are the consumers you are telling to quote "piss off".

Yeah, Sony are the big, innocent corporation here crying out buttrape. How about this? Instead of banning homebrew PS3s from PSN with extreme predjudice, why not enforce regulation of those consoles who DO cause damage to others? Why not? Because Sony do not wish to spend the money on doing procedures the right way, and are sending their brainwashed followers in to do their lobbying.

There is more than one way around this. Sony chose the 'cheaper, but hurt more of their base' path. And you're complaining when those consumers make a stand against this? That is pathetic.

And why don't hackers ban other hackers that do things go bad??