Quantcast
Anon takes down Sony website!

Forums - Sony Discussion - Anon takes down Sony website!

Doobie_wop said:

Old PR quotes from ex employees doesn't change what I said, the PS3 isn't a computer. The Wii isn't a computer just because it has a browser.

A computer is a programmable machine designed to sequentially and automatically carry out a sequence of arithmetic or logical operations. The particular sequence of operations can be changed readily, allowing the computer to solve more than one kind of problem.

Conventionally a computer consists of some form of memory for data storage, at least one element that carries out arithmetic and logic operations, and a sequencing and control element that can change the order of operations based on the information that is stored. Peripheral devices allow information to be entered from external source, and allow the results of operations to be sent out.

 

The PS3 is a computer. Any state machine that allows binary arithmetic is a computer. Sorry t burst your bubble, but whether Sony or you say it's not a computer, the courts will have a completely different take on it.





Around the Network

The solution to piracy isn't prosecution. The solution is to find a better business model. The music industry tried the prosecution route. It didn't turn out so great for them.



Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.

Doobie_wop said:
fordy said:

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.

It doesn't matter if they were all online at once, if the problems persist and continoue to go on, then the consumers will be pissed. 

No, a few people have reacted, hell, most of the people arguing for Anon in this thread don't even have a PS3. Everyone else has shown they don't care by showing their lack of reaction.

Sony don't have to do anything, it's their service, they own it and you have to agree to their terms to use it. Why should they take the time and effort into creating even more circles around hackers on their service, when they could use just stop everyone all together. They have the right to protect their interests, my interest as a normal consumer and the interest of the millions who have agreed to their terms and conditions. You have the right to ignore their service and just mod your PS3, they aren't after you for putting homebrew on your console, they just don't want you using their services if you do, because you might be a potential threat. They let Other OS slide for a while and then Geohotz came along, claimed he cracked it, bragged about it and Sony have decided that they'd rather be on the defensive instead of allowing any similar hacks to happen in the future.

I'm complaining because when the group that screams for 'consumer rights' attacks the very consumers they're apparently protecting, then they can piss off. Anon and their followers are hypocrits who just want what they want and damn the consequences that could harm anyone else.


It does matter, since those who never experience the problems would never be affected. And how do you know that the majority aren't willing to allow a little interruption for their rights to modify their console and stil use the online service?

There may be some here arguing for Anon wh don't have a PS3 but keep in mind that this court ruling against GeoHot will affect all similar electronics devices. i could also state that I've been to several other sites covering this news, with little to no support for Sony at all. The only two places I've seen with major fanboy butthurt is here and Sony's forums.

So yeah, Sony should be mmune from consumer backlash? They shouldnt have to waste the money on proper security for their online service, even though their competitors already have, and shown that it works? Should Sony be allowed to waste taxpayer's money using the courts as their lapdogs to enforce security on their system that they were too lazy to do the proper way? That IS pathetic, and you know it!



fordy said:
Icyedge 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.


Yes, let's subject the internet, the last true bastion for free speech, and subject it to the same brainwashing bullshit that happens to all other forms of our media.

You DO realise that once a control on the internet is implemented, it WILL be abused. And good luck reversing it when you see the damage is done. Whoever gets the control of it, whether it's corporate or government, will hold on to dear life to ensure that control is not going anywhere.

Do you REALLY want the internet to be overlooked by ome kind of shady regulator (possibly government controlled or heavily lobbied for corporate interest) to watch people's activity, and say "Who said that? Let's make his/her life miserable because of it". Let's see the free flow of information and opinion happen after that.

You didnt get it. All the laws that "restrict" internet are already there. The same laws that apply to you every where else. Distributing others material, making death threat, frauding people, doesnt have a damn thing to do with free speech. Anyway, free speech is permitted outside the internet. (unless your country doesnt allow free speech)



Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge 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.


Yes, let's subject the internet, the last true bastion for free speech, and subject it to the same brainwashing bullshit that happens to all other forms of our media.

You DO realise that once a control on the internet is implemented, it WILL be abused. And good luck reversing it when you see the damage is done. Whoever gets the control of it, whether it's corporate or government, will hold on to dear life to ensure that control is not going anywhere.

Do you REALLY want the internet to be overlooked by ome kind of shady regulator (possibly government controlled or heavily lobbied for corporate interest) to watch people's activity, and say "Who said that? Let's make his/her life miserable because of it". Let's see the free flow of information and opinion happen after that.

You didnt get it. All the laws that "restrict" internet are already there. The same laws that apply to you every where else. Distributing others material, making death threat, frauding people, doesnt have a damn thing to do with free speech. Anyway, free speech is permitted outside the internet. (unless your country doesnt allow free speech)

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?"



Around the Network
fordy said:
Icyedge said:

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.



Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
 

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?



fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
 

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.



Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
 

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.



fordy said:
Icyedge said:
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
 


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."