-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Anonymous hacking group to target Sony? [PlayStation.com Goes Down]
- Thread starter surly
- Start date
- Status
plagiarize
Banned
you're presuming George is able to pay his lawyers all the way until the end of the trial... and even then, i don't know that it's automatic that Sony would have to pay his legally costs.ClosingADoor said:
in the mean time they run him into the ground for months and potentially years.
it might all turn out okay at the end, but 'they have to pay his bills if they win don't they?' kind of ignores that he has to pay his bills NOW.
TheBanditKing
Member
Jax said:
just goes to show you how childish they really are. They could use their talents to actually defend people against true tyranny and greed and yet they choose to waste their collective efforts defending some whinny zit faced looser with too much free time who bit of more then he could chew. All at the expense of the general public like us.....thanks, we always needed another savior who screws us and tells us to look at the bigger picture.
Magic Mushroom said:
I literally spit on my monitor. lol
Morn said:
They're overrated, they couldn't hack this account in a thousand years. The sad thing is people associate their attacks with some sort of legitimate fault in society. "If security was only better we wouldn't have these problems..." If a guy with a gun shoots you on the street, that's not a fault in society, that's a problem with the gunman. Anonymous are criminals, and not particularly amazing ones either.
ClosingADoor
Member
What talent and how? DDOS Kadafi's website or something? They can do nothing but get a bit of attention for while.TheBanditKing said:
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
We're gonna have to agree to disagree here. The LoC plainly stated that the firmware is provided for free, thus there could be no claim that the jailbreak was losing them money. Then, there can be no discussion about it hurting sales of the device because one must own the device to jailbreak it. What you are arguing for is legal protections for a loss leader business model, claiming that someone purchasing the system is damaging Sony. That's ridiculous at best. Your only stance for that would have to be that each system sold would have to be for piracy and never purchase anything, not even BD movies. Otherwise, someone purchasing a PS3 and never buying a game, or anything on PSN, but using it solely as a good BD player, has been harmed Sony and that should be protected.staticneuron said:
First, see above. Second, the same exact argument could be made for any device that is hacked. Again, it has been found and is the reason the LoC would not entertain piracy discussion, that just because something could lead to piracy, does not negate its use.
The LoC found that modifying to run apps "legally obtained" was fine. They found that the modification of the firmware was fair use because it was modified to operate just as intended, but to allow software not approved, but legally obtained. Your argument appears to hinge on this idea that piracy happens on the PS3 and not phones and modifying firmware on phones is different than consoles because of piracy. The LoC did not look at the "business model" of phones as you say, that looked if sales of the device would be hurt (which they correctly noted was impossible). That's absurd, because you're saying if phones were sold as loss leaders, this exemption would likely have been different. Not the case at all. The LoC did not care about the "business model", but that the firmware was provided for free and in order to jailbreak a phone, you had to purchase it. By purchasing the phone, you did exactly what the manufacturer hoped for. If they sold said phone for a loss, that's their own poor business model.
BTW, does the phone exemption allow for jailbreaking the iPhone or ALL phones? Now, realize most phones never had any illusion of ownership of the software or even being remotely an open type of platform. The reason we keep talking about the iPhone was because Apple was the main party against the exemption.
What? XBMC has extremely robust codec. What are you looking for that isn't supported?
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Lol no you're not.MoogPaul said:
Freyjadour
Member
low-G said:
You know approximately shit about "hacking". The majority of you in this thread need to stop playing hacker extraordinaire. You may not think it suits Anonymous, but it sure as hell does not suit you.
TheBanditKing said:
They have, and they will. Take a look at so many of their other agendas. Unfortunately, the world isn't Ghost in the Shell and Anonymous are no Laughing Man, but they find things they disagree strongly in: i.e. corruption, spurious legal battles over technologically important issues that extend beyond petty concerns like piracy and "why can't I play CoD for 3 hours", hateful religious groups, and they set out to do what they can against them. You may not agree with vigilante justice in this case, but the day that Anonymous declares itself truly against Gaddafi, WBC, or the like, you'd all be behind it. This is because your problem with all of this doesn't lie in Anonymous, their methods, or their philosophy, but rather than someone, anyone is preventing you from accessing your video games for a matter of hours on a given day. If anything, I'd say that overwhelming concern is more childish a viewpoint than I could possibly fathom in this situation.
Pathetic Basement Virgin
Banned
Magic Mushroom said:
No need to mock the GAF man.
Freyjadour said:
You need to get off your high horse.
People are free not to support the shady tactics employed by this group no matter what the cause is. Whether they agree with the cause or not is irrelevant as the real point of contention here are the methods used, not the causes supported.
And by the way, no self respecting hacker would approve of a DDoS attack.
Freyjadour
Member
Massa said:
I could have stopped reading here.
Massa said:
People are sure, GAF apparently isn't. Read the thread. Read the WBC thread from a few weeks back. There were so many people crying out at the use of vigilante justice in defense of the WBC! Give me a break, this lawsuit has been nothing but a mix of biased arguments in favor of sustaining a console choice from day one.
Massa said:
Pastry said:
Childish behavior is not a singular attribute to be given to one particular group or people. Nor is it limited to one level or degree of such behavior. The attitude that Anonymous conveys in their statements is more or less their MO, what's your excuse?
plagiarize
Banned
i don't support someone using illegal tactics in the name of a cause i support because it tars the entire cause with a negative brush.Freyjadour said:
i mean, sure, it's a logical fallacy for someone to start saying 'the only people that don't like this are law breaking hackers' but unfortunately that shit plays.
anonymous aren't helping anything. they're doing something to make THEMSELVES feel better about all this. 'i can't just stand by and watch this happening' but they're ignoring that their choice of action is going to have a detrimental effect on anyone else standing on the same side of the debate as them.
i'm not asking them to stand by, but they could do something positive, that doesn't effect innocent people in a negative way (however minor that inconvenience may be).
i haven't been effected by this. i doubt i will be, because i'm playing mostly SP games on the PS3 at the moment. if my PS3 doesn't turn on when i get home i have loads of other things to play games on.
it isn't about any inconvenience i have suffered, it's my honest belief that you can't fight douche with douche. things like this are only going to make sony push harder.
Sony's argument is that Geohot 'attacked' them in some way, with the intent of doing them harm. if you think they aren't going to point to these subsequent attacks and use them as justification for that belief, even if logically that doesn't follow, then you haven't been paying attention.
people will believe it. they'll lump George in with the anonymous group. just as people lump homebrew users in with pirates.
Freyjadour
Member
brentech said:
Here's me not responding to atrociously exaggerated analogies.
What some people think this will accomplish: Oh man PSN and playstation.com went down, this will surely make people either A. magically take notice of this lawsuit, especially joe bro gamer who plays madden once in awhile! or B. people will be so super mad at Sony for PSN being down that they're gonna stop buying Sony products and supporting their evil ways!
What it'll actually do: Dude turns on PS3, tries to go online, sees he can't, scratches balls and goes and does something else.
But it's hard not to think its adorable that some of you think this is some big statement. Keep fighting Freedom Fighters!
What it'll actually do: Dude turns on PS3, tries to go online, sees he can't, scratches balls and goes and does something else.
But it's hard not to think its adorable that some of you think this is some big statement. Keep fighting Freedom Fighters!
NullPointer
Member
And this is why even multiplayer games need well crafted singleplayer modes. (Lookin at you BF3)
You know, just in case hackerz take down PSN for our protection.
You know, just in case hackerz take down PSN for our protection.
Freyjadour
Member
Revenant said:
I see this as less of a problem with the methods and more of a problem with the ball-scratching masses, as it were. People aren't informed enough about the long-ranging consequences of things like this (note: not just whether or not I can put CFW/Homebrew on my PS3), or they simply don't care. That's truly a shame.
UntoldDreams
Member
Speevy said:
I used to believe in something similar until I realized that many people are perfectly happy growing old and dieing in ignorance.
UntoldDreams
Member
Freyjadour said:
Endorsing vigilantism is akin to saying that you don't believe people need to follow the law.
It must be nice to arbitrarily ignore laws you don't like. Laws like "no stealing" or "no damaging other people's property" always gets in the way of my fun.
ClosingADoor
Member
Why's that a shame? Buy a few games a year, play them and be done with it. I don't see a problem with that. Most people don't really care if they can or can not modify their console, since they won't anyway. Most people don't care if they buy a game er technically license it as long as it works.Freyjadour said:
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
I can't help but continue to laugh at nerds on GAF talking about some supposed other nerds and their basement dwelling.
Errrr...nope, totally proves GAF is not nerd, but cyborg.
That's from the gaming side and I'm not pointing out the poster as it's not a personal attack, just showing GAF is every bit the nerd and shouldn't throw stones from their glass houses.
Errrr...nope, totally proves GAF is not nerd, but cyborg.
That's from the gaming side and I'm not pointing out the poster as it's not a personal attack, just showing GAF is every bit the nerd and shouldn't throw stones from their glass houses.
Princess Skittles
Prince's's 'Skittle's
That's not a shame. Most people have better things to worry about in their lives over their little video game toy.Freyjadour said:
EricHasNoPull
Banned
ITT: We associate lack of knowledge in computer programming/hacking with general ignorance.
ITT: We discuss who is more nerdier: Annonymous hackers or people with hobbies in video gaming.
I'm enjoying all this, keep it going guys.
ITT: We discuss who is more nerdier: Annonymous hackers or people with hobbies in video gaming.
I'm enjoying all this, keep it going guys.
staticneuron
Member
squatingyeti said:
That is fascinating. I didn't say that at all. If you purchase a PS3 only to do what was advertised as sold, you wouldn't need to hack it. Therefore no exemptions or protection arguments would be up in case like that. What can actually happen though is the hack could still be viewed as a negative simply because it circumvents protections. It could allow the user to create back ups of BD's, and games, that are in their possession and maybe those that are not.
In those specific cases, they can be considered loss of potential sales, and also the hack can further facilitate copyright infringement.
I am not sure how you are trying to craft the discussion into "every device that is sold" instead of "every device that has been hacked".
Not entirely. Some of the very issues I mentioned above have no equivalent in the Iphone/cellphone discussion. And that is why I pointed out the devil is in the details. The LoC DID discuss potential harm and that would include piracy but if you think about what can be done on an Iphone, the responsibilities either lie with the consumer protecting their own information or Apple protecting their own service. There is no other medium in between that can be at stake.squatingyeti said:
squatingyeti said:
There is no way you can legally attain an "app" for the PS3 without it going through sony in some capacity. If it doesn't, then it isn't legal. Again the LoC asked about what harm could be done to the company and to the market. If the "business model" wasn't taken into consideration, they wouldn't have brought it up as a point of consideration. Protecting content for business related matters is exactly what Copyrights are about. So what are you trying to contest here?
squatingyeti said:
It applies for all phones because the method of making money and the restrictions are the same.
squatingyeti said:
I use it on my HTPC, and because it is only limited to FFDshow codecs some of the media I have have some odd glitches while outside of the application my other media players work fine, using k-lite codecs which contains FFD and more.
Freyjadour said:
lol. Considering I did real hacking back in my day, not relying on DDOS attacks, I would say I know more about hacking than a good 95% of Anonymous...
If your knowledge of 'hacking' comes from Anonymous or the guy that hacked Stepto's account (both similar in that they required very little actual technical knowledge or talent), your knowledge of hacking is very limited.
blaccat said:
People that hack their consoles are knowledgeable. Most owners don't hack and don't feel any consequences from the hacks unless their money is actually stolen. One can say they are not fully aware of whats going on, but its because they don't care enough to. Like I don't care enough to follow soccer, it not a bad thing, just that interests differ.
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
beast786 said:
They shall truly inherit the Earth?
Freyjadour
Member
UntoldDreams said:
Not that what you quoted had any relevance to your response whatsoever, but I'll answer it. My point earlier was not to endorse vigilantism in the sense that you imply, but rather to point out that Anonymous has targeted universally disliked organizations, and the majority of the passion in the responses here has less to do with the methods and philosophy and more to do with the target. Sony is a controversial target, understandably, and it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with Anonymous on their choice of this target, but at the very least admit that rather than cover it up with a rant about the methods.
Princess Skittles said:
That narrow-minded perspective on this entire issue is what will slowly rip rights away from consumers entirely. There is a reason why I mentioned the "long-ranging" consequences of this lawsuit that go beyond "their little video game toy". This (should) set a standard for so many different platforms and their usage.
The shame is the same shame that comes from the general populations' lack of care about issues such as COICA. Put the issue in front of them when it isn't affecting them (i.e. CFW on a PS3) and they do not care. Later, when the issue is law or precedent, and it does affect them, they suddenly do care. Or they just learn complacency and accept whatever is put in front of them.
Regardless, the old "forest for the trees" adage has been a constant problem in the discussions of this lawsuit on this forum, and nothing I say is going to stop it. If one continues to view the case merely in terms of Sony and GeoHot, the issue remains a simple one. Understanding the implications of the end results of this lawsuit is a different matter altogether.
ClosingADoor
Member
In America.Freyjadour said:
WrenchNinja
Member
And what if I'm laughing at those nerds? Have I created some kind of singularity where every nerd laughing at another nerd ends up destroying all of reality as we know it?squatingyeti said:
Freyjadour
Member
ClosingADoor said:
Granted.
EricHasNoPull
Banned
Freyjadour said:
You sure make it sound like this is a serious issue for consumer rights (I am not being sarcastic )
You try to explain a lot above with three paragraphs, but can you give one good example say...from the past three decades that a large electronic corporation such as Sony with a very similar case took over consumer rights and changed the way the general public use their devices for the worst since then? (First thing comes to my mind is DRM? And I'm not even sure if that could be compared to this)
You sure make some bold statements, we can even argue some fear mongering going on there, but I am afraid you do not touch base with history or reality with your points, if you can at least reference similar cases from the past that I could relate this "Sony vs. Geo Hot" case to, that would be great.
From my experience of begin a nerd and following technology closely for the past decade and a half, I'd like to think that the advancement of technology has actually lead to some amazing places where the end user (consumer) of a product can easily and conveniently do more and get more from their device. And if not he or she can move on to something else that allows them to be more flexible, it's just been better for us the consumer really.
So I ask again, is this issue really as serious as you make it out to be? Are we as consumers "The little guy" are totally screwed if a corporation such as Sony wins this? Or all this talk is just an excuse for a certain sub-culture/community to be noticed and heard and to get on the good side of the general public? And this is just a company trying to protect and secure their business investment by taking precautions?
Maybe we need to step back and look at the bigger picture. But I guess I am also one of those "narrow-minded zombies" that will soon have all my consumer rights striped from me, and go cry in the corner because I can no longer enjoy my favorite hobby.
UntoldDreams
Member
Freyjadour said:
Actually, what I said makes perfect sense in the context that I don't condone vigilantism.
Do you? You readily imply that by targeting "universally disliked" things vigilantism is justifiable.
I am not debating whether "Sony is a noble target" I am saying I disagree with their methods period.
Are you ok with their activity as long as it matches your personal world view of who gets punished?
Freyjadour
Member
UntoldDreams said:
Taking things out of context makes it difficult to answer any of this honestly. I didn't imply that universally disliked things make vigilantism justifiable, I implied that in the perspective of GAF's community, Anonymous attacking an organization like the WBC is acceptable to a far larger range of people than Sony. This seems to imply that many have issues with the target, not the methods, regardless of what they say.
If you truly disagree with vigilantism, by all means do so. I'm not out to attack anyone who says that Anonymous's methods are wrong, as you seem to believe.
painful fart
Member
/ThreadCrewnh said:
- Status