By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Anon attacking Sony employees and their children?

Garnett on 07 April 2011
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness". 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Around the Network
Porcupine_I on 07 April 2011
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Garnett on 07 April 2011
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?

Did you not read what i put? That would be harming me... 

If i learn the secret ingredient that makes Coca Cola taste good, should i spent the rest of my life living in a cold russian prison? No...

As long as the knowledge doesnt harm anyone, it should be free to share. Now if there was a hack that would make all PSN accounts effed up then that should be illegal, but just knowing and sharing how to hack the PS3 should not be illegal.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Porcupine_I on 07 April 2011
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?

Did you not read what i put? That would be harming me...

If i learn the secret ingredient that makes Coca Cola taste good, should i spent the rest of my life living in a cold russian prison? No...

As long as the knowledge doesnt harm anyone, it should be free to share. Now if there was a hack that would make all PSN accounts effed up then that should be illegal, but just knowing and sharing how to hack the PS3 should not be illegal.

i wonder if you are aware of the irony



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

r505Matt on 07 April 2011
kitler53 said:
r505Matt said:
kitler53 said:
r505Matt said:
kitler53 said:
r505Matt said:
Porcupine_I said:
 

are you opposing the free flow of information? shame on you!

There's a difference between censorship and privacy. You should learn about that fine difference before you notice your own shame, if you ever do. Also, update the OP. As ssj12 and I have pointed out, there was an update.

you can't have it both way son, either your for the complete uninhibited flow of information on the internet of you're not.  as ssj12 said yesterday, "internet should be free, no enforcement at all."  either your onboard with the anon movement of you're a hypocrit ... i'm guesing you're a hypocrit.

Open internet does not mean no privacy. Websites would still probably want to keep their users and visitors information private. Open internet doesn't mean you could just load up anyone's facebook page and see all their information. Users would still be able to block people and keep information private, assuming Facebook doesn't want to go out of business. Free speech and privacy are very different.

I don't see what kind of connection you're trying to make between open internet and lack of privacy. If there is a connection, if anything, open internet would support privacy, since corporations like Sony would have a harder time than ever getting something like IPs of people who have visited a site. Free, open internet would mean that the law has no place there (hence the no enforcement) and subpoenaing for IPs would be useless. Then it would be up to specific websites and ISPs if they would keep their users information private, and the sites who don't might be less frequented because of it.

Before you jump to conclusions and name calling, please think things through more first. I don't care if you disagree with me and want to have a thoughtful discussion, but when you just jump in to call me a hypocrit, it just shows that you don't care to have a discussion. That makes me wonder why you're even here.

i'm not the one advocating for a lawless unenforced internet...

but anyways, you're now telling me that privacy should matter.  that an open internet doesn't mean you can just have access to anyone/everyones private information.  that some things should be blocked from the view of other and not distributed to the entire world to see.     ....and on that point i 100% agree with you. 

but let's not forget what we're all arguing about here.  failoverflow figured out to extract sony's super secret private security key and geohotz distributed it on the internet for everyone to see.  what about their privacy? their copywrites? they work?   why does sony deserve to be exploited any more than you do?

and by the way, the subpoena strickly limits the viewing of acquired IP address to attorney's eyes only and strickly limits the use of this list to providing grounds that the trial can be held in california.  in other words...your privacy isn't anywhere near as comprimised as you'd like to cry foul on.


That's not what open internet means. It means the internet itself is open and deregulated. It doesn't mean that every person in the world has access to all information, it's just that governments have no say in how the internet runs itself. So if someone wants to set up a private site for themselves and some friends that requires passwords and logins just to view anything but the front page, that's fine. Open internet doesn't mean anyone can go anywhere and do anything they want, it just means governments have no say in what happens. Granted, even with an open internet, there would still be illegal things that can be done through the internet, but the internet itself would be completely unregulated.

That aside, in terms of the PS3 and Sony's privacy, the thing about all that is why would it completely legal to do the same exact thing (crack a device and send out instructions to everyone) with mobile devices but not the PS3? Yes, the PS3 is not quite as mobile, but one can easily argue that both a PS3 and an iPhone are really just computers. If other computer-type devices that you can purchase can be modified to your heart's desire, why not the PS3? What's so different about the PS3?

Until we get an actual ruling on this case, I'll hope that they'll still be regarded the same. And if that's the case, then maybe Sony shouldn't have been trying to keep that information private in the first place. Now if Sony wins, then it means that the law agrees that Sony and other corporations should be able to keep those codes private and keep their devices locked down.

People don't usually like ANY invasions of privacy, even small ones. You say it's attorneys' eyes only, but that doesn't really help considering the stigma attached to lawyers in general. But more importantly, some people REALLY care about even that smallest bit of privacy. Who are you or I to say they shouldn't care? It's their right to care, and the laws of this country have been molded in such a way to allow the rights of minorities to flourish.

we're obviously on opposite sides of this issue so we'll just have to agree to disagree overall.

I 100% agree with your third paragraph though, it's up to the courts to decided.  once decided that is that and i'll have to live with whatever it is even if i disagree.

but on a side note -- there is a ton of stupid, irrational statments from both sides of the issue on these forums lately (myself included i'm sure).  I just want to say i do appreciate your honest but reasonable (not sure if that's the right word) responses.  it's really a breath of fresh air on the subject.   Also, if i was a dick to you in that first response i apologize -- i think i was taking my frustration with ssj12 out on your statement.


Indeed, agree to disagree =)

And your last paragraph is pretty much exactly how I feel.

"there is a ton of stupid, irrational statments from both sides of the issue on these forums lately (myself included i'm sure).  I just want to say i do appreciate your honest but reasonable (not sure if that's the right word) responses.  it's really a breath of fresh air on the subject."

And it's okay, we all get a little jumpy or involved at times and sometimes we say (well type) things without really thinking about it. That's why being understanding is so important on these forums. So bravo to you!



Around the Network
thranx on 08 April 2011
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?

No, but if you hack your own bank account that is fine. Did you forget geohot owned the ps3 he hacked?



Porcupine_I on 08 April 2011
thranx said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?

No, but if you hack your own bank account that is fine. Did you forget geohot owned the ps3 he hacked?

so, what you are saying if i hack my own account and tell everyone else how to hack the account at my bank that would be ok? nobody gets hurt, right, because i am sure everyone would only ever hack their own account!

 



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

thranx on 08 April 2011
Porcupine_I said:
thranx said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?

No, but if you hack your own bank account that is fine. Did you forget geohot owned the ps3 he hacked?

so, what you are saying if i hack my own account and tell everyone else how to hack the account at my bank that would be ok? nobody gets hurt, right, because i am sure everyone would only ever hack their own account!

 

You can tell them how to hack their own account. Thats what Geohot did. He did not tell people how to hack other people ps3's only how to hack their own.

But besides that. I would stll say yes thats ok. I mean if we are allowed access to information on how to make bombs, why not hacking? Infact it may be legal already to tell people how to hack things. (Now theft is still illegal so they would of course get in trouble for that if they did do it)



Porcupine_I on 08 April 2011
thranx said:
Porcupine_I said:
thranx said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
Porcupine_I said:
Garnett said:
 

Information regarding how to hack the PS3 should be able to be distributed, but anyone who has an hacked PS3 should not be able to connect to PSN.... this is just stupid, its like MS saying "ok you got an hacked 360, no xbox live for you and we're shutting your system down....Corporations > all"

why?

Because its not causing harm to others and freedom of knowledge is part of "pursuit of happiness".

so, if i hack your bank account and tell everyone else how to do it, that would be freedom of knowledge and pursuit of happyness too?

No, but if you hack your own bank account that is fine. Did you forget geohot owned the ps3 he hacked?

so, what you are saying if i hack my own account and tell everyone else how to hack the account at my bank that would be ok? nobody gets hurt, right, because i am sure everyone would only ever hack their own account!

 

You can tell them how to hack their own account. Thats what Geohot did. He did not tell people how to hack other people ps3's only how to hack their own.

But besides that. I would stll say yes thats ok. I mean if we are allowed access to information on how to make bombs, why not hacking? Infact it may be legal already to tell people how to hack things. (Now theft is still illegal so they would of course get in trouble for that if they did do it)

You sir have written "i want piracy" in in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the mouths of Anduin.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Rpruett on 08 April 2011

This would be like if you worked for a bank and figured out how to open the safe.  Then you went around and told everyone the combination, address and location  to access the safe.  You, didn't access the safe or take any money but other people did (Using your instruction).   

You don't believe there would be  consequences for these actions?  Or legal battles waged by the bank?  Even if it came out that you were innocent and allowed to distribute this information,  the bank would be combing for any wrong doing that you did that they could legally slap you for because you full-well understood the consequences of your actions.

Essentially Sony is going to do the same to Geohot to see if he benefitted financially, connected to the PSN (Another clear indication of his desired purpose),  or did anything else that could be construed as criminal.  The issue is not what he did to his PS3 in his own home, on his own terms.   The issue is what did he do after he cracked the PS3 (Or what he had to do during cracking the PS3 in order to crack it and what functions did he attempt on his cracked PS3).  

We know he released the codes to the public (Strike One) (Not necessarily punishable by itself, yet easily could be linked into proving intent) ,   We don't know if he committed other offenses (Potentially Strike Two and Strike Three).  

  If he did commit Strike Two and Strike Three type offenses,  then he deserves what Sony is attempting to do to him because he broke the law and went beyond the 'Harmless Homebrew'.