-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Eidos hacked by rogue Anonymous
- Thread starter Luckyman
- Start date
Totobeni said:Evil?
these Anon guys should go after something real bad and actually hurt people like Libya, Syria or Iran regimes instead of game companies
Attack the dictatorship/governments in the already messed up poor countries? Really?
Grinchy said:I want new legislation that says even a DDoS attack is a minimum of 5 years in prison. People who steal personal info like this should spend their lives in jail.
DDoS don't give you access to peoples personal information, derp.
Well at least the website is back up, it's a shame that these attacks on websites seem to be getting more and more common.
Laputan machine
User33 said:Um...no. That's not how it works. Sites don't store ASCII passwords. They create hashes of them using a unique key for each site. These keys are usually 128bit and pretty hardcore (makes cracking them basically impossible).
Also, these "hackers" uploaded a torrent with all the information they gathered. Its been verified by people who downloaded it, all that was there were the 350 resumes and email addresses (oh, and their IRC chat log)
Your posts in this topic are just theorycrafting that frankly don't make a whole lot of sense. Give it a rest.
Laputan machine
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Totobeni said:Evil?
these Anon guys should go after something real bad and actually hurt people like Libya, Syria or Iran regimes instead of game companies
Anon already did, in Tunisia.
VisanidethDM
Banned
boris feinbrand said:Tell me you're not serious.
Why should BP be responsible for the Oil Spill. I mean we can't expect them to prevent all oil spills or being prepared for a disaster like that by employing state of the art technology.
There's a massive difference here - responsability for your own behaviour is one thing, responsability for someone else's behaviour is another.
That's the crux of the argument in a nutshell: translating the (sane) concept that a company needs to do all that is its power to make sure his operations are safe and so are the interests of those they work with into the idea that if any reason something goes wrong the company is automatically responsible is insane.
It's absolutely batshit insane.
However, my point here was more along the lines of: why are we blaming corporations for something they may or may have not done instead of focusing on the fact that perfect internet security is damn expensive and thus assuming any company who doesn't make colossal investments into it is responsible (or co-responsible) in case of hacking means that a large amount if not the majority of indie companies and distributors aren't supposed to be in the business? Because the crux of this assumption is that basically nobody who's a giant megacorporation should be running online businesses, and even them should think about it.
Why should Tepco be responsible for handling the aftermath of the tsunami taking out the auxilliary power generator at their Fukushima Plant. We can't expect them to have state of the art security to run their business.
Are you aware that natural disasters are, for the most part, considered events out of your control in terms of responsability in almost if not every common and civil law systems?
I don't wanna start a too technical discussion, but legally the relevant word is "negligence". What you're trying to find out is: was the guy doing everything that was reasonable in order to prevent or face events that could be somehow predicted?
"Reasonable" doesn't mean "everything possible". There must be a relationship of proportionality. Some civil law systems call it the "family father's goodwill", but it generally boils down to the idea that there's a balance to strike between doing what you can to prevent hazards and not making your activity or business an excessive burden because of such requirement.
In short, it's not sufficient to be able to imagine a scenario where the hazard would have been prevented or resolved to assume it was the responsability of the involved party to provide for that scenario.
Hell, why should a bank have to secure their online transactions.
You're failing to understand the core point here: a bank MAY or MAY NOT be responsible if the data are stolen. If there's no negligence proven, they won't pay a penny (but they probably have insurances who will pay to avoid litigations and consumer backlash, not to mention the fact that most government force them to have insurances through law to avoid consumer damage). There's no mandate to have 100% security. It's an insane requirement.
He knows this. That's why they have two different penalties.Shambles said:DDoS don't give you access to peoples personal information, derp.
VisanidethDM
Banned
jim-jam bongs said:The tendency of many gamers to feel empathy with corporations over their peers is remarkable.
It's simply rational. I've got an interest in seeing Sony prosper because I like their goods or their games or it generally has in impact in my life.
If tomorrow the hacker who's hacking Eidos was struck by lighting, it would have no effect on my life.
Why should I feel empathy for a guy who's hurting me to prove his point, even if his point is that he wants to "help" me? And why should I hate a company made of evil moneyhatters and soulless businessmen if what they do is useful to me?
It's simply common sense. Between two identically unlikeable sides, you pick the one that affects your life somehow. You'll see people sympathize with hackers the moment hackers start doing something people cares about, or that at least doesn't damage them in some way.
jim-jam bongs
Member
VisanidethDM said:It's simply rational. I've got an interest in seeing Sony prosper because I like their goods or their games or it generally has in impact in my life.
If tomorrow the hacker who's hacking Eidos was struck by lighting, it would have no effect on my life.
Why should I feel empathy for a guy who's hurting me to prove his point, even if his point is that he wants to "help" me? And why should I hate a company made of evil moneyhatters and soulless businessmen if what they do is useful to me?
It's simply common sense. Between two identically unlikeable sides, you pick the one that affects your life somehow. You'll see people sympathize with hackers the moment hackers start doing something people cares about, or that at least doesn't damage them in some way.
No it's not common sense, and you still completely fail to see the point which people have been beating you around the head with. I'm not suggesting that people should feel empathy with hackers, I'm asking why you feel the desire to absolve corporations of their duty of care for the private information of their customers.
All of the comments where you and others try to downplay the culpability of the companies being hacked are irresponsible and dangerous. The "there is no 100% secure system" comment, while true, is being used as a dangerous strawman, because it either totally absolves companies of their privacy obligations which would be terrifying, or it implies that people shouldn't trust their private data to corporations which would be immensely detrimental to the ability of many companies to operate.
civilstrife
Member
apana said:I wonder is it possible that Steam could get hacked and credit card information could be seized like with PSN?
Possible.
But probable?
Graphics Horse
Member
I'd imagine after what happened with HL2 Valve are pretty damn paranoid about network security. Never say never though.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
what if they turn out to be good looking, with sporty cars, huge salaries, and hot mistresses?kitch9 said:I just wish these small dicked, virgin, spotty cunts would suffocate on their own neckbeards.
In the end won't all these hacks mean less free internet, and more control, and less freedom to its users?
low-G said:Absolutely, and people are going to gobble it up. Thanks a lot criminal fucks, you're ruining a good thing for everyone!
You know..first I thought you were wrong, but then I look back on AOL and today, Facebook, and you're right. Lock it down and give it to everyone in a box, and it becomes a huge hit. That's weird.