Support NeoGAF

[darkpower]

You're being ridiculous. TIG is a neutral forensic company. Their job is to read the drives. They can't read the drives in the condition Hotz sent them. It's not their job to go out and buy two more identical hard drives, swap the cards, and hope they don't fuck it up and destroy the data in the process. They are almost certainly irritated that Hotz is wasting their time. What's so difficult here?

Actually, the hard drives were all that he was asked to give to them. He was never told that he had to give anything else to them. That's what the defense is arguing. And you would think that, as a firm that deals with this sort of thing, that they would have the capabilities to know what the hell they're doing and have some parts to do this stuff without needing the additional resources and with knowing how to do this in a way that doesn't screw things up on the HDD. It just makes it seem as though they're not as neutral as they should be.

And, according to PSX-Scene members, the court already knew about his trip to South America some weeks in advance, so this "oh, he fled" business is just someone trying to score a political point here. How can you flee from a civil case? If it was a CRIMINAL case in which he was ordered to remain within the country or whatever, then they would have a case, but they never said that. Until someone says that, he can actually go wherever he wants as long as he's in touch with his lawyers somehow.

 

[jcm]

Actually, the hard drives were all that he was asked to give to them. He was never told that he had to give anything else to them. That's what the defense is arguing. And you would think that, as a firm that deals with this sort of thing, that they would have the capabilities to know what the hell they're doing and have some parts to do this stuff without needing the additional resources and with knowing how to do this in a way that doesn't screw things up on the HDD. It just makes it seem as though they're not as neutral as they should be.

And, according to PSX-Scene members, the court already knew about his trip to South America some weeks in advance, so this "oh, he fled" business is just someone trying to score a political point here. How can you flee from a civil case? If it was a CRIMINAL case in which he was ordered to remain within the country or whatever, then they would have a case, but they never said that. Until someone says that, he can actually go wherever he wants as long as he's in touch with his lawyers somehow.

He gave them hard drives with no controller. If you bought a hard drive on ebay, and it had no controller card on it, would you feel like you got screwed?

 

[hirokazu]

Actually, the hard drives were all that he was asked to give to them. He was never told that he had to give anything else to them. That's what the defense is arguing.

I can't believe this is being argued, seriously. I'd like to see what the courts think of this action.

I guess his legal team may just be as moronic as he can be sometimes.

 

[Pagusas]

are they maybe referring to a raid controller card? Perhaps he had a raid setup and was using an expansion card for the interface (PCI-E 1x raid controller card). If thats the case they would need that card to setup the raid array again at there shop. If it was an onboad/chipset raid card like an intel ICH setup, then they'd need the whole computer to rebuild it.

 

[Cheerilee]

He gave them hard drives with no controller. If you bought a hard drive on ebay, and it had no controller card on it, would you feel like you got screwed?

From Geohot's lawyer's response, it seems that Geohot didn't remove the PCB's from the hard drives, the hard drives were connected to his PC via a raid or other system that used a PCI controller card.

He was ordered to send in his hard drives, so he removed them from his raid case and sent them. He complied fully with no tampering.

The forensic analysts can't make heads or tails of what's on the drives though, so now they want his raid case, his PCI card, his fucking case screws, his cables, his MOBO, and his PC case/power supply. He might as well send his monitor/speakers/keyboard/mouse just to be an ass. Maybe offer his computer chair.

 

[Robobandit]

That makes sense.

They wanted his hard drives, he breaks the array and doesn't label the drives (parity lost)... if the files are encrypted in addition to being spread over an array it'll take them months to pull the files. (which is probably the point)

 

[Cheerilee]

That makes sense.

They wanted his hard drives, he breaks the array and doesn't label the drives (parity lost)... if the files are encrypted in addition to being spread over an array it'll take them months to pull the files. (which is probably the point)

According to the other thread, Geohot even told them they would need his entire rig intact, but they refused his suspicious offer and demanded that he send only the drives by themselves.

 

[Zoe]

According to the other thread, Geohot even told them they would need his entire rig intact, but they refused his suspicious offer and demanded that he send only the drives by themselves.

And as I said in the other thread, no, that is not what he was saying.

 

[jcm]

From Geohot's lawyer's response, it seems that Geohot didn't remove the PCB's from the hard drives, the hard drives were connected to his PC via a raid or other system that used a PCI controller card.

He was ordered to send in his hard drives, so he removed them from his raid case and sent them. He complied fully with no tampering.

The forensic analysts can't make heads or tails of what's on the drives though, so now they want his raid case, his PCI card, his fucking case screws, his cables, his MOBO, and his PC case/power supply. He might as well send his monitor/speakers/keyboard/mouse just to be an ass. Maybe offer his computer chair.

That's not what the neutral forensic company said.
All,
We took the drives out of our evidence locker and the evidence bag to image them in their current encrypted state as stated in the order and agreed to on our phone call yesterday. We have determined that the controller cards which are screwed onto the hard drives were removed prior to them being given to us. Therefore we are unable to operate the hard drives in their current state. Keep in mind that we need two days to image these drives as we have to image two 1TB drives

And then later:

Yasha,
Your client has not provided a “hard drive” but rather parts of the hard drive. A “hard drive” must contain all the parts that make it a working device which include the enclosure, platters, heads and attached controller card. This controller card is installed at the factory and not normally removed or handled by an end user.
Regards,
Mike

 

[Cheerilee]

So he did remove a hardware component from the hard drives? Who the hell would do that when ordered to hand over the hard drives?

The same guy who wanted to bring his whole setup to the third party vendor and only show them "all" of his files personally.

Sure looked like it.

That's not what the neutral forensic company said.

Yeah, there are two conflicting stories here. One says Geohot tampered with evidence. The other says the analysts might be incompetent and that lawyers have difficulty with technical terms.

Edit: And the second version explains the odd new request for Geohot's rig.

 

[Zoe]

Sure looked like it.

Initially, during the parties‟ teleconference with TIG, counsel for Mr. Hotz agreed to the
imaging of the decrypted storage devices on the condition that any such images be “wiped” after
the circumvention material had been segregated and removed from the original devices. He
would not agree to any imaging of the encrypted storage devices as originally delivered to TIG.
Counsel for SCEA disagreed, stating that images of the storage devices (both encrypted and
decrypted) must be preserved for the duration of the lawsuit, not only to ensure the forensic
integrity of the impoundment procedure, but also for evidentiary purposes and for any potential
discovery permitted by the Court. Counsel for SCEA further explained that if the images are
wiped after removal of the circumvention devices and data related thereto, no one, including Mr.
Hotz, will have a forensically intact copy of his storage devices – key evidence in this case – as
they originally existed. See Exhibit 2 (February 25, 2011 emails among counsel and TIG).
Counsel for SCEA also directed the parties to the Court‟s evidentiary preservation requirements
as set forth in the TRO and Preliminary Injunction. See id; Docket Nos. 50, 84.

Several hours after the teleconference, counsel for Mr. Hotz contacted counsel for SCEA
to inform them that Mr. Hotz would not agree to any imaging of the storage devices. Instead,
Mr. Hotz proposed that he go to TIG and decrypt the storage devices using the original devices, his own computer and keyboard. Mr. Hotz offered to then show TIG the circumvention devices
and data related thereto contained on the storage devices using his computer. Additionally,
despite having previously represented to Judge Illston that he needed these devices for his work,
Mr. Hotz now has offered to leave his storage devices with TIG for the duration of the lawsuit in
an attempt to avoid the imaging of those devices.
1
Mr. Hotz also proposes that he provide a
declaration attesting that the impounded storage devices are the only storage devices that contain
any devices or data relating to circumvention of the PS3 System.

He was seeking to control what TIG has access to and to circumvent the standard forensic process. There's a reason that TIG, the neutral third party vendor agreed upon by both parties, did not agree to these terms.

 

[Version 3.0]

There's an amazing amount of sideline analysis going on here, all of which just makes it obvious that nobody knows what the real deal is here. All I see is a bunch of assumption...indeed making asses of all involved, as the old saying goes.

edit: like the post above. I see a bunch of arguing and disagreement, shocking in a legal case, isn't it? You assume one party is being evasive, others assume the other party is incompetent. The truth is not evident.

 

[phosphor112]

He was seeking to control what TIG has access to and to circumvent the standard forensic process. There's a reason that TIG, the neutral third party vendor agreed upon by both parties, did not agree to these terms.

Don't even bother with them, both Ruby and blu are having a hard time of understanding anything.

 

[Massa]

He was seeking to control what TIG has access to and to circumvent the standard forensic process. There's a reason that TIG, the neutral third party vendor agreed upon by both parties, did not agree to these terms.

He's absolutely right there.

He's not proposing destroying the hard drive/evidence as SCEA suggests. He volunteered to create an image of the hard drive for the sole purpose already granted by the judge, while Sony wants to make sure an image exists for any other future nonsense they may convince a judge to grant them access to. geohot would be a fool to give that up in advance.

 

[Zoe]

He's absolutely right there.

He's not proposing destroying the hard drive/evidence as SCEA suggests. He volunteered to create an image of the hard drive for the sole purpose already granted by the judge, while Sony wants to make sure an image exists for any other future nonsense they may convince a judge to grant them access to. geohot would be a fool to give that up in advance.

Read it again. He agreed to TIG creating an image initially, but then he backed out and said that he wouldn't. Then he would only personally show them the data they were looking for.

Kind of negates the purpose of a third party agency, don't you think?

 

[Massa]

Read it again. He agreed to TIG creating an image initially, but then he backed out and said that he wouldn't. Then he would only personally show them the data they were looking for.

Kind of negates the purpose of a third party agency, don't you think?

I don't read it as he backing out. He and SCEA didn't reach an understanding, so he then made a second offer which was also denied.

Originally anyway, he didn't propose limiting access to the hard drive to what he would allow. He proposed that once SCEA got everything they were given the right to get the image would be wiped out. That's a perfectly reasonable demand.

 

[MrPliskin]

So are you saying 'recommend' should not be interpreted the way you just told me I should. I'm confused now. Let me quote once again the paragraph that is being discussed:



So, according to your superior reading, 'recommend' refers only to the bolded part after the 'and' conjunction. The part before the conjunction is actually needed. Gotcha, doc. I'll never look at English the same way again.

Are you really going to "herp derp" in this thread trying to defend this silly shit based on semantics? Clearly Hotz was being a dick intentionally to disrupt the legal process he got himself into.

The fact that you're trying to pick it apart speaks volumes to your mind set.

 

[Zoe]

I don't read it as he backing out. He and SCEA didn't reach an understanding, so he then made a second offer which was also denied.

Originally anyway, he didn't propose limiting access to the hard drive to what he would allow. He proposed that once SCEA got everything they were given the right to get the image would be wiped out. That's a perfectly reasonable demand.

What do you call this?

Instead,
Mr. Hotz proposed that he go to TIG and decrypt the storage devices using the original devices, his own computer and keyboard. Mr. Hotz offered to then show TIG the circumvention devices
and data related thereto contained on the storage devices using his computer.

The drives would only be operable under his hands.

 

[Massa]

What do you call this?


The drives would only be operable under his hands.

That was his second offer. His first was much more reasonable and was rejected:

Counsel for SCEA disagreed

 

[Zoe]

That was his second offer. His first was much more reasonable and was rejected:

That's not very reasonable when it's not following proper forensic process. Because TIG was tasked with removing the infringing data from his drives, that's not unlike permanently destroying evidence.

As it is, Sony does not have access to the data that TIG will be deleting. But what if there is a point in this case or later in another case where they are granted that access?

 

[Cheerilee]

Are you really going to "herp derp" in this thread trying to defend this silly shit based on semantics? Clearly Hotz was being a dick intentionally to disrupt the legal process he got himself into.

The fact that you're trying to pick it apart speaks volumes to your mind set.

What semantics? The forensics team "requested" the "missing parts" with the exact same level of force that they "requested" Geohot's entire rig. The "missing parts" were mentioned in the exact same breath as screws.

This suggests that the problem is not controller PCB's that that been deliberately removed from the drives themselves as the forensics team has directly stated, but that it's a more simple problem with the drives being removed from a raid array that was used with a PCI controller board, as Geohot's lawyer seems to have suggested.

Blu didn't like the request for Geohot's rig as a matter of principle (before the raid theory became apparent). Phosphor is the one who (based on his certainty that experts always know what they're doing and never go too far) said that they didn't ask for his rig. That them asking for "missing hard drive parts" was an ironclad demand, and them asking for his case and mobo and any PCI cards in the exact same sentence was some kind of throwaway comment.

Don't even bother with them, both Ruby and blu are having a hard time of understanding anything.

I've never been deliberately obtuse when I obviously knew better, unlike you and Zoe. I laughed at Zoe's quote because it fit perfectly with the theory Zoe was actively ignoring.

If Geohot deliberately sabotaged his drives, he's a complete idiot. But right now I think there's reason to doubt that's what he did. I'd like to know for sure, but apparently the forensics team won't say any more on the subject since the problem was solved and the point is now moot.

 

[phosphor112]

What semantics? The forensics team "requested" the "missing parts" with the exact same level of force that they "requested" Geohot's entire rig. The "missing parts" were mentioned in the exact same breath as screws.

This suggests that the problem is not controller PCB's that that been deliberately removed from the drives themselves as the forensics team has directly stated, but that it's a more simple problem with the drives being removed from a raid array that was used with a PCI controller board, as Geohot's lawyer seems to have suggested.

Blu didn't like the request for Geohot's rig as a matter of principle (before the raid theory became apparent). Phosphor is the one who (based on his certainty that experts always know what they're doing and never go too far) said that they didn't ask for his rig. That them asking for "missing hard drive parts" was an ironclad demand, and them asking for his case and mobo and any PCI cards in the exact same sentence was some kind of throwaway comment.


I've never been deliberately obtuse when I obviously knew better, unlike you and Zoe. I laughed at Zoe's quote because it fit perfectly with the theory Zoe was actively ignoring.

If Geohot deliberately sabotaged his drives, he's a complete idiot. But right now I think there's reason to doubt that's what he did. I'd like to know for sure, but apparently the forensics team won't say any more on the subject since the problem was solved and the point is now moot.

Do you know why they are called experts? Just wondering? Also, they would have called it a raid controller if it was a raid controller. They also mentioned that they needed the hard drive in its entirety. Raid controllers don't come ON hdd's.

This green board is what was missing.

 

[blu]

Are you really going to "herp derp" in this thread trying to defend this silly shit based on semantics? Clearly Hotz was being a dick intentionally to disrupt the legal process he got himself into.

The fact that you're trying to pick it apart speaks volumes to your mind set.

Erm, there's nothing for me to pick apart. TIG, in their infinite forensic wisdom, demand Hotz entire rig. Some gaffers, in their equally infinite reading comprehension, fail to see that. I'm not defending Hotz here, and the fact you think I am speaks volumes about your mind set.

 

[onken]

Yeah that's really gonna help your case...

 

[Loudninja]

Settlement in George Hotz Case

Sony Computer Entertainment America (“SCEA”) and George Hotz (“Hotz”) today announced the settlement of the lawsuit filed by SCEA against Hotz in federal court in San Francisco, California. The parties reached an agreement in principle on March 31, 2011. As part of the settlement, Hotz consented to a permanent injunction.

Both parties expressed satisfaction that litigation had been quickly resolved. “Sony is glad to put this litigation behind us,” said Riley Russell, General Counsel for SCEA. “Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property and our consumers. We believe this settlement and the permanent injunction achieve this goal.”

“It was never my intention to cause any users trouble or to make piracy easier,” said Hotz, I’m happy to have the litigation behind me.” Hotz was not involved in the recent attacks on Sony’s internet services and websites.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/11/settlement-in-george-hotz-case/

 

[Hanmik]

Settlement in George Hotz Case

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/11/settlement-in-george-hotz-case/

what does this even mean..? sorry but I need it written in plain(er) words..

 

[CrushDance]

wat

what does this even mean..? sorry but I need it written in plain(er) words..

.

Edit: Google says:

. A permanent injunction order is typically issued for the purpose of requiring a person or entity to permanently stop acting in a certain manner. A court can also hand down a permanent injunction for the purpose of compelling a party to perform in a certain way.

Permanent injunctions usually occur in civil cases rather than criminal cases. They are considered a type of equitable remedy, and they provide relief in circumstances where money damages are insufficient. For instance, if a disgruntled employee threatens to disclose a company’s confidential information, the company may seek an injunction prohibiting the employee from disclosing the information. In that circumstance, awarding the company monetary damages would be insufficient, and a court order prohibiting disclosure is necessary to prevent the company from being harmed

I think it's a fair compromise.

 

[TommyT]

what does this even mean..? sorry but I need it written in plain(er) words..

It means that it has been settled. Doubtful we'll ever know the terms of the exact injunction other than the obvious, but for all intents and purposes this is over.

 

[Hanmik]

I googled it too.. what I understood is that Hotz has a permanent injunction on him regarding the Keys...

but what does this mean..? people in this thread made it sound/look like the world would end if Sony won etc. .. I want to know what the result of this case means for US.

 

[CrushDance]

It means that it has been settled. Doubtful we'll ever know the terms

Spoiler

come work for us lulz!!!

, but for all intents and purposes this is over.

Probably something along the lines of "Never touch the PS3 again...or any Sony products". Which would be rather hard for anyone to prove if this guy goes about it anonymously like most other homebrewers.

I googled it too.. what I understood is that Hotz has a permanent injunction on him regarding the Keys...

but what does this mean..? people in this thread made it sound/look like the world would end if Sony won etc. .. I want to know what the result of this case means for US.

It doesn't mean anything because they settled. It wasn't a sweeping victory or loss for either side so no..."precedent" has been set for any change to occur either way. We're back where we started legally.

 

[TommyT]

Probably something along the lines of "Never touch the PS3 again...or any Sony products". Which would be rather hard for anyone to prove if this guy goes about it anonymously like most other homebrewers.


It doesn't mean anything because they settled. It wasn't a sweeping victory or loss for either side so no..."precedent" has been set for any change to occur either way. We're back where we started legally.

TOO FAST FOR MY STEALTH EDIT!! NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU