r505Matt said:
Games4Fun said:
r505Matt said:
Games4Fun said:
Well im no legal expert in fact when it comes this kind of stuff you can say I know next to nothing on the laws. I also know from reading on the forums that people spin both sides in order to make them a bigger thing then what they probably are. Funny enough the site that posted what I underlined has since changed the title and said that line is a isolated case with no endorosements from the leaders of the leaderless group. Still that means at least one person with some know how is targeting kids, or in the very list would like too. That is something that should never happen and according to wiki its not the first time a kid has been targeted by them or a group linked to them.
Anyways, Got off subject there some. Find what I read on these boards the big issues with Sony is he released the how to and some codes. Im not for what Geohot did, but im also not for how Sony has be handleing it. Example getting donatoin money information and the like when really it is not there buisness. Both sides are being ..........
|
They targetted that other kid because he was promoting censorship. Anon HATES censorship.
And who knows, Stringer's kids could be 18 , so while they're still his children, they may be adults themselves. If they are actually kids (under 18 years of age), then I'm not so sure most of Anon would think of targetting them.
Yes, re-read the source, there was an update.
Update: After further research into this it seems we need to point out a little more strongly that the comment concerning “Stringer’s kids” was an isolated comment and has not been endorsed by any of the leadership of either Anonymous or SonyRecon (such that they are). The headline has been altered to reflect this.
|
This would be one of the things I dont get. They fight censorship with trying to censor another person or company. You can be against cernsorship all you want, but if you are doing it too then you are no better,
|
You know, this is something I've been trying to think through myself. Are they, in a sense, attempting to censor Sony for Sony's attempt at censoring? And is that okay? I think so. I'm not totally sure, but I do believe it it okay. I mean, Sony is attempting to censor Geohot and other hackers from their free speech right to share information. So I think fighting fire with fire is okay here.
Now, sure, it's not so black and white to say that the hackers actually have that right to share that information. Legal precedence says yes, but with the way this judge really seems to favor Sony, it can turn out either way.
Also, the whole subpoenaing for IPs for anyone who's visited the site since 2009 is very very anti-privacy. I mean, 2009? Is that when this recent hack was first released? That part of that really bothers me. Just visiting a site can get you put on a list. That just doesn't seem fair/right/just/legal to me.
|
Well I was more referring to the 15yr old kid part on the whole censorship thing, but the same logic applies to the Geohot case I suppose. But the getting information on who donated visted the site and such is actually part of my problem with the Sony side. Which is one of the many reasons I cant agree with a side. Its abunch of politics and quite frankly it drives me nutty. You end up voting for the lesser of two evils, but in the end you are still going to be screwed somehow. Im am all for free speech and the right to bear arms and everything else. In fact, I hate guns I dont own one I dont trust myself with one. However, if you try to say all guns are illegal and no Joe's and Janes can have them I would be on my front porch with the best one I could fine daring them to come get it,
