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).
Of course Sony will be fixing the security on all their networks. The attacks have cost them millions, have put a dent in their share price and did some damage to their greatest asset; their brand name.
I understand Sony can be imcompetent on some issues quite frequently, but I assure you the company is not full of retards. You need to be very good to get a job with Sony these days.
As for your other points: You really need evidence to say consumers have been harmed by this whole incident? People didn't get to play their online games for a month and developers lost money - that is harm.
You were out of line being such as smart ass to me, sir. I'm not one of the worst posters here, although of course I have my preferences (as do you).