Tony_Stark said:
Reasonable said:
NJ5 said:
Reasonable said:
RROD was purely self created issue, a result IMHO of MS rushing the 360 to market instead of taking longer and producing a better piece of electronics.
PSN is a purely external issue (FYI I don't hold with all the "asking for it" crap. Hacking anything is a choice) and no down to Sony directly themselves.
|
RROD - Possibly MS's fault for rushing hardware design.
PSN hack - Possibly Sony's fault for rushing network design.
While I agree that the PSN hack is not only due to Sony, I don't think the distinction is as big as you painted it.
|
Nope. While Sony may or may not have had good enough security that's beside the point. As I noted "they were asking for it" doesn't count in principle. Even if Sony had no security that wouldn't excuse a malicious hack of their systems.
The fault is 100% on the hackers. That's the way it has to be legally. Sony's fault is a customer service fault but they take no blame for the hack. There is no evidence on rushing PSN and even if their security was lax that doesn't allow for any tolerance of someone deciding to hack their systems.
|
Nope, legally Sony is responsible for handling PSN user's data. Those whos data was comprimized very well could sue Sony. Sony in turn, can go after the hackers.
|
You're not reading my point correctly. There are two elements not one which is the mistake most people - sorry to sound arrogant - are making in this thread.
Sony ARE responsible for the data - as a I clearly noted. But no matter how poorly they handle the data it doesn't mitigate the responsibility on the hackers.
If Sony had poor security the hackers aren't only 60% to blame. The hackers are 100% to blame for hacking no matter what Sony's security was like.
So again, as I clearly noted Sony may well have failed from a customer service/data point of view - but that doesn't directly change the situation regarding the legallity of the hack.
Also, to be blunt, given Sony did have security and passwords were not in plain text and CC details were encrypted while they could be deemed to have had issues I doubt they are legally at fauly in a clear way - as opposed to the hack. No doubt they could be - probably are - sued from a civil perspective, but they haven't broken any laws I'm aware of in this matter.