By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 07 May 2011
Edit Thread
M.U.G.E.N said:
Kasz216 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


I'm not putting them ahead of my personal interests (since I am a consumer) at all. I'm just being reasonable and realistic here. Hence why you will never find me cheering on idiotic hackers any situation. Before jumping to conclusion just try and understand there is a difference.

Not sure what you were trying to prove with that second statement of yours. Was it regarding the expenses comment I made? or about having to rebuild the psn? cuz if it's about the expense of compensating for many users, it makes no sense since it will still cost a lot which was the only point I wanted to get across.

and I might be a milliionaire in a year, nintendogamer might turn optimistic, who knows. And I am not naive enough to think Sony will go bankrupt or even leave the gaming scene. That's just silly, they are a stronger and bigger company for that to happen.

and again not sure why you are stating this? Of course they effed up. plain and simple, I never disputed that and OBVIOUSLY that's why they are rebuilding the system from ground up. better late than never and I'm grateful they are taking their time to do so at least now properly. But I never denied or was ignorant of the reasons behind why they were made to do so.

so again within reason, they are doing more than enough.

No, they're doing... about as much as any company would in this situation.  Though again... you are.  You are claiming that the size of the breach means they should be allowed to offer less then what's standard.  Which is a clear show of considering the company more then the individual.

I mean, seriously just stop and think about it for a second.  How does it matter to the end consumer how many users data sony lost?  All that matters is that they lost their data.

What Sony's offering is fine.  Claiming it's generous or something they didn't have to do however is wrong.

It's about industry standard for this kind of F-up.

Either you are misunderstanding what I'm saying or you are intentionally trying to miss the pov I'm coming from.

I'm not saying the size of the data breach justifies current actions or anything. I'm telling you what they have done so far is what anyone withing reasonable means should expect at this point. You have yet to even give me the examples I asked of you to show me anything that can be compared to this situation.

take a step back, maybe read what I typed again. Misinterpretation is strong with this one on your end.

What sony is offering is more than fine imo. And this is where out pov change. and again your misinterpreting and putting words on your own. I never said it's generous or any of that nonsense. I'm just saying they are doing great in making it up to the users and imo that a reasonable user can't expect anything more from at this point.

you bring in 'industry' standards yet you can't provide me with a single example from the industry. the scale of the problem is something completely new to this industry. Actually you know what, forget this industry, give me few examples of incidents like this from any industry and what they did to compensate for it, I just wanna learn.

As far as I can tell you contradicted yourself in this same post.  Your saying that you aren't using the size as a precursor to what was offered.  Then suggest that what they offered was more then fine according to the size.

You want an example?  Sure.  Countrywide for example ended up offering 2 years of monitering service and $50,000 grand for damages after that.

Heartland was $175, 1 year of monitoring and $10,000 for identity reclimation.


The reason why Sony is doing this, and why they have to, is to avoid as many lawsuits as they can.  Better to pay off via games that don't really cost you anything and keep people using their system and internet, then to be forced to pay real cash.

They're doing it so they can point to it in court and hope it's enough to persuade the judges to set aside the cases... and it's just about enough to do so... as it is about exactly what it breaks down to.

If they're lucky they'll be able to avoid government lawsuits.  The FTC is actually known to sue companies who's infrastructue they deem negligent in these cases. 

It's about Industry standard and it's constructed that way to avoid as much legal scrutiny as possible.  It's "about right" in the sense that it's the bare minium that will probably shield them from taking much harsher losses.