By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Icyedge on 04 June 2011
Edit Thread
slowmo said:
Icyedge said:
slowmo said:
S____M____C____C said:
 

 


His post seemed pretty neutral to me

Number 1 he says that "It will die down. It always does. ", this is particularly true with consumers these days. This doesnt egual to "it doesnt matter if Sony was negligent" though.

Number 2 you cannot upgrade everything at the same time, thats true, particularly if you want it done well and in a coherent way. It could be countered with the argument that they should take down their server until they are though. Both option seems debatable to me.

Number 3 since it hurts their consumers as well as Sony image, its logical to assume they will fix their security issues. It cost a lot less to upgrade the security then to leave it like that, particularly considering they cannot use the "we didnt know" excuse anymore.

I had a particular issue with the following statement

"Yes, Sony did have poor security across all its networks. We've all learnt that. With each hack, we don't exactly learn that anymore. We get the point, the security was crap, now they are fixing it. They will fix, believe you me. And once the 'coolness' of hacking Sony dies away, we will be left with a platform with a secure network."

Nothing I have seen in this entire debacle makes me think the bolded will be true yet.  The burden of proof is on him making that claim to provide evidence this will be so.  It seems so far that is not the case hence why these breaches are continuing and should be broadcast to the public, until Sony do get their act together.  What other news should be censored and swept under the carpet because it's not what we want to hear.  I really don't understand anybody who says this shouldn't be reported, the attitude is most certainly not neutral and shows a heavy bias.  Lets put it another way, if you don't care about this news and are bored then don't enter threads and spout supposition and opinion as fact (this isn't aimed at you btw).

Ok, I understand where your coming from. What your asking him is impossible though, its not proveable until it happens. With that said, the logic is explanable: its less expensive to put everything up to date then to suffer the kind of attack they are suffering right now. Particularly considering they cannot say "we didnt know" anymore. Negligence is easy to prove for future cases if they do nothing. I agree we shouldnt downplay the results of this poor security management though, I even hope the judge make an example out of this case so that all compaies, not just bank, invest more on online security. I heard the public is only made aware of about 20% of this type of incidences, thats sad. In any case, while not downplaying the results of their security management issue  lets not forget what they do well too.