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.

You are right, but so is he. Or at least he raises a good point, knowingly or not. If you want something from someone, even if they should want it themselves, you should be polite in asking for it, especially if you barely know the person.

And even if it were true (and it isn't) there's a difference between "x's children" and "children". Stringer is almost 70, and I'll wager that his children are adults. I think they're old enough to handle the rude emails they'd have got if anonymous were "targeting" them.

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.

I wonder whether Sony said please to George Hotz?

they are fighting for our rights to free games what the fuck is wrong with you people?? Microsoft and Nintendo let us play our games for free on their systems why the fuck Sony won't do the same?! greedy bastards (angry face angry face) I hope all you Sony fanboys die of hunger because you spend your hard earn money on games that should be free in the first place

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.