docholliday said:
Gnizmo said:
docholliday said:
Nomad Blue said:
"computer security researchers" - so that's the term hackers go by these days is it?
|
My thoughts exactly, not like the article sounds biased or anything right?
|
Actually that is the name they have always gone by. Without them there would be no such thing as security. The term hacker is a label come up with after the fact for various actions those people choose to use. Most people you would label a "hacker" though is little more than a kid using scripts someone else created. In this case you are blaming Geohotz for the actions of others when he was simply poking at a machine he legally bought.
So to summatize in the style of your cohort: you are saying someone should have legal repricussions for using a device he legally owns? Or are you saying corporations have the legal right to dictate what your actions should be with your own property?
|
We could go back and forth about this all day. Sony is a company that has to protect their assets and their security has been breached. And on the other side you have ppl who own physical property and have to the right to do with it as they see fit. I'm not arguing consumer rights here, I agree with you. But where exactly is the line drawn, at what point do you believe the companys have the right to fight back? Instead of just saying Sony is wrong and there are other ways, tell me what do you suggest would be a better course of action for them to take?
|
To go after the pirates not the hackers? Seems pretty logical to me. Not remove features they tout and advertise would also be a good start. Trying not to hurt their real customers while they try to fight the pirates?
