fart town usa
Gold Member
kamorra said:
I've seen posts with people making it seem like Sony took out the otherOS function for no reason whatsoever. There was ample reason and it sucks for those who were using Linux in it's intended way.
-
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.
Sony given power to seize Geroge Hotz's computer, Twitter and Youtube request denied
- Thread starter Mama Robotnik
- Start date
I've seen posts with people making it seem like Sony took out the otherOS function for no reason whatsoever. There was ample reason and it sucks for those who were using Linux in it's intended way.
Blueblur1 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
But hey, fines and/or federal prison can be fun.
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
Don't continue to let people fool you into the idea that the ATT monopoly was the reason for the exemption. It was not, but was merely a minor point in the whole issue. More like all of these other things AND monopoly just to throw one on top. If you look at the exemption, the monopoly is such a minor point in the reasoning. Fair use was the major point and addressed in several different ways.NullPointer said:
That's a flawed argument because a lot of homebrew would be designed specifically for the PS3. Furthermore, just because it would be available for possibly another device, does not mean it didn't have to be recoded specifically for the PS3. That's kind of like saying if Apple denied the COD game from the iPhone, it's ok because you could get it on another device.
First, you paid for a device which includes firmware for free. If you want to argue that you own the device, but not the software, this is not debatable. The firmware is always free, so no idea why you would try to debate this.Raist said:
Also, people keep getting hung up on removing a feature. It does not matter if they removed a feature or not, the idea of removing a feature just gives more reason for fair use. Apple never removed a feature, what they did do is have a closed system in which they determined what would be allowed to run on a device you owned.
onken
Member
Psychotext said:
No this is a glorious example of history being rewritten. He never said that he was hacking to get otherOS into the slim.
It was only after trouble started brewing and it was in his direct interest, he started to go along with this Robin Hood dialog created by the homebrew community (and various other groups salivating at the concept of piracy) about how he only hacked the PS3 in the first place because the slim didn't have otherOS. Gee, if that was his primary motivation it's funny he didn't mention that at the time he released his original exploit, but did find time to mention about how he hoped it would open up the scene like on iPhone.
Don't get me wrong, I think the whole lawsuit is awful and I truly hope he wins (no easy feat with laws like DMCA), but this retcon just doesn't sit right with me. Support the guy for the right reasons, not some bullshit dialog created by various groups with their agendas.
yeah... repeating the thing i object to wont suddenly change my mind.Opiate said:
there's no need to go ino specifics of adding functionality, the example was merely a means to illustrate the fallacy in your argument that a person on official firmware should expect to retain full functionality of future titles solely on the grounds that his firmware iteration was official sony software.
if we have now established that games can be segregated between firmware types for any reason at all, you lose your argument that a closed platform implies full support for future official titles at the point of sale.
when the choice became easy and you sacrificed nothing, you happily acknowledge that firmware is a requirement for future title support. from this i would presume that you object to the otherOS removal because you want both otherOS and continued official support, not because you were promised both at the time of sale.
The Faceless Master said:
If he really uses TrueCrypt this could be interesting. I know that courts in most jurisdictions can compel a defendant to surrender a password, but I've always wondered how they could conceivably do that with no way of knowing how many passwords there are, what form they might take, and whether any passwords so surrendered are even meaningful.
Could be exciting.
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
Pandaman said:
Removing OtherOS just gives more reasons why it should be ok to jailbreak the system, but is not the only reason. Apple never "removed" anything and that argument is not necessary for those wanting jailbreaking of the PS3.
Does anyone else think that the best thing Sony could have done is hire this guy? The damage is out there. The Internet is like a Pandora's Box for everything in existence. You're not going to recover. Best thing they could have done is higher this guy and make a big hubbub about it. That is assuming he would want to work for your company. Otherwise, I would just leave it. You're lucky enough to find the one guy who broke down your hardware security and you're suing his ass into oblivion? Offer him a job.
Can't wait for a company to do this and bask in the positive PR light. I'm sure it's been done many times actually.
Can't wait for a company to do this and bask in the positive PR light. I'm sure it's been done many times actually.
FINALFANTASYDOG
Member
YYZ said:
Yeah, that's really just a pr stunt. Microsoft's windows phone 7 team has been doing that, giving out free shirts and having meetings with people who jailbreak their devices, even so much as twittering to geohot this message
But no, in my personal opinion it isn't the best to offer jobs to people doing what you don't want to your devices. particullary ones that come off like Geohot does.
What used to be called "tiger teams" have been around for years. These days you use Core Impact or Immunity Canvas (for network stuff) and achieve pretty much the same thing.
So I guess Geohot could've been hired. Until his model was cracked. Then he's booted out the door for the new kid in town.
So I guess Geohot could've been hired. Until his model was cracked. Then he's booted out the door for the new kid in town.
somuchwater
Member
Sorry to interrupt this serious discussion, but has 'Geohot raps a message to Sony' been posted yet?
http://www.9to5mac.com/51776/geohot-raps-a-message-to-sony
Direct Youtube link here:
http://www.9to5mac.com/51776/geohot-raps-a-message-to-sony
Direct Youtube link here:
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Balphon said:
Well, the information on his computer wasn't always considered evidence. He could have deleted it before Sony sent him a single response.
I have two main issues with what's happening here:
1) I don't like the way corporations lately seem to be pushing for the ability to prosecute someone by law if they break a EULA/ToS. They should sever the agreement, ban the person, and move on. If his posting of the keys online somehow violated an actual IP law, fine, charge him with that, but you can't prosecute everyone who witnessed a crime just because they now know how to repeat it.
2) I don't think Sony should be searching the man's computer. A qualified agent of the government should be assigned to find the relevant evidence on his computer and extract that as evidence. To me, this is a bit like letting Sony search his entire house because none of the local detectives are quite sure what the evidence looks like. I'm sure there's some technicality in the law that allows this because a computer is "one" object, but I think a new precedent needs to be set whereby digital evidence can be acquired without compromising someone's privacy on such a large scale.
1) I don't like the way corporations lately seem to be pushing for the ability to prosecute someone by law if they break a EULA/ToS. They should sever the agreement, ban the person, and move on. If his posting of the keys online somehow violated an actual IP law, fine, charge him with that, but you can't prosecute everyone who witnessed a crime just because they now know how to repeat it.
2) I don't think Sony should be searching the man's computer. A qualified agent of the government should be assigned to find the relevant evidence on his computer and extract that as evidence. To me, this is a bit like letting Sony search his entire house because none of the local detectives are quite sure what the evidence looks like. I'm sure there's some technicality in the law that allows this because a computer is "one" object, but I think a new precedent needs to be set whereby digital evidence can be acquired without compromising someone's privacy on such a large scale.
squatingyeti said:
actually it is very debatable as you are very wrong here... in europe, people have been able to successfully sue sony and get court to rule that otheros had specific monetary value and get their money back. definetly not free.
you can not claim that sony damaged users with otheros removal, as it had specific monetary value, and at the same time say that firmware is free... otheros is just one small specific part of firmware... if otheros is seen as having monetary value attached, then firmware will be as well as otheros is just part of firmware.
it is bogus reasoning.
Windom Earle
Member
This is bullshit. Fuck you Sony!
Well, if he's a douchebag then don't hire him like any other potential employee. My point is that you could have someone with valuable skills on your side and you've spent zero money looking for him/her. This solution isn't perfect, but Sony is handling this like a stereotypical bumbling corporation. So you're throwing money at teams of lawyers to what end?
boiled goose
good with gravy
phosphor112 said:
How can you make 'hacking' illegal???
That is the problem. It is a very slippery slope. You buy a camera, but you are prohibited from modifying it? You buy kinect, but it is illegal to crack it open and modify it for research purposes?
If hacking the PS3 made it easier to do illegal things like piracy, then sony should make the PS3 harder to hack. They should crack down on the people actually using their PS3s for piracy. Even cheating online is fine from a legal standpoint. If sony doesnt like cheaters, dont let them use the online services you provide, but you cant prevent them from trying.
I cant believe people are siding with Sony.
I am all for banning cheaters.
I am all for punishing piracy.
If all this guy did was hack the PS3 and show others how to do it he did nothing wrong. It is as if someone posted a video on youtube of how to turn your ps3 into a plane. Some people then use the plane to distribute drugs, kill people, etc.
Are you going to punish the guy who put the video up?
Kurtofan said:
In case no one else has discussed this, he would have two issues on his hands if he destroyed his computer/HD. (1) Is that he would obviously be in contempt of the judge's order. (2) Destroying his computer (or HD) would be textbook spoiliation of evidence, which, depending upon the particular laws of his jurisdiction, can result in criminal/civil penalties as well as (and this is the biggie) the inference that his computer did contain the evidence that Sony alleges it contains. Hotz would have no defense to this inference and would basically be fucked in the current civil action.
YYZ said:
well, they didnt do anything with PSP... and according to people who think like you:
a. sony should have gotten good rep from hackers, and hackers would not hack their shit anymore... did that happen, no?
b. psp would not be influenced by hacks and piracy would not influence its software sales.... right....
if anything, you can say sony looked at what happened with PSP, and decided that they should do exact opposite to what they did with PSP in order to save the platform.
phosphor112
Banned
Has nothing to do with this case and there is already a case pending regarding that.squatingyeti said:
phosphor112
Banned
amtentori said:
There are a few issues here. I never said make all hacking illegal, it's just giving everyone the private key allowing ANYONE to sign ANYTHING and blowing platforms that are based heavily on IP's and software should be regulated. Second of all, make the PS3 harder to hack? If that stupid mistake wasn't there, it would have been almost unbreakable. The PS3 was about 3.5 years old before it got hacked, which is probably the longest for a piece of hardware to be hacked. Another thing, it's like saying I should put bullet proof glass on my car to make sure my car doesn't get it's windows busted and would be my fault if I didn't put that there to protect my car. Doesn't make sense.
Also. "Some people then use the plane to distribute drugs, kill people, etc.
Are you going to punish the guy who put the video up?" No... just no. Don't use argument by comparison if you don't know how to make a proper comparison.
Every single piece of consumer hardware has been hacked or if it hasn't then there just aren't enough people who care about X item. What can they do besides build a more secure system? 4+ years of no viable way of playing burned games on the PS3, that's pretty fucking impressive to me. Bravo. 360 was a crack whore open for business compared to the PS3 up until recently.spwolf said:
Now they're just wasting money on lawyers...unless this whole ordeal with geohot somehow prevents their future hardware from being hacked? No, it doesn't.
Then you get into the bigger issue of the console business model being pretty stupid. It only exists because there's no other viable way of getting a fixed piece of hardware into the hands of millions of consumers without going through B&M stores. The hardware is in the consumers' hands and you're crying foul when it eventually becomes hacked? This has been going on way before the Internet and the easy propogration of information. Still trying to fight it with brute force methods.
What's their end goal with suing Mr. Hotz? Does he have money? Was what he did going to give him money that would have otherwise went to Sony? (aka IP infringement) Do they just want him to go jail where then someone else will take his place among thousands?
YYZ said:
I suspect their goal is for him to serve as a deterrent for future would-be hackers. Seeing the world of shit that this hack has gotten him into is liable to make at least some of the people who would otherwise be tempted to follow in his footsteps think twice, particularly if they end up winning.
YYZ said:
Sony already spent millions to get the DMCA approved, what they're spending on Geohot is peanuts compared to that. Besides, their goal is not to win against Geohot but to harass him and anyone trying to break their security systems. They figured doing that is better than simply building secure systems.
The DMCA allows you to circumvent the security of a video game system you own as long as that doesn't facilitate copyright infringement. It's a law that basically says that protecting possible copyright violations is more important than free speech, and geohot directly went against it.
FINALFANTASYDOG
Member
The psp point is a really interesting one: due to that and ds pirarcy shareholders and retailers are now more then ever really pushing on the companies to crack down on piracy, not doing anything would be worse as a business image for sony, lose faith with shareholders retailers.
This is no longer the 70's , where computer knowledge is so incredibly limited. Sony can find extremly highly talented security specialists by opening up a job posting, job fair, without having to go out looking for arrogant hackers with skillz,
YYZ said:
This is no longer the 70's , where computer knowledge is so incredibly limited. Sony can find extremly highly talented security specialists by opening up a job posting, job fair, without having to go out looking for arrogant hackers with skillz,
spwolf said:
But with TrueCrypt there are conceivably an arbitrary number of passwords to an arbitrary number of encrypted containers and even if you know of a container and a password that decrypts it, there could be another password to the same container that decrypts a completely different set of files. Furthermore, any password could be a regular password or could be a keyfile, or it could be both in conjunction. The password could be "password". It could be a 128-digit random string. It could be a .dll file in the Windows folder. It could be an MP3 of Lady Gaga. It could be more than one of those at the same time. And there's no easy way of knowing what containers exist, what decrypts them, and how many ways there are to decrypt each one without being the person who set them up in the first place.
It's more a practical matter than a purely legal one. How can a court demand a password to a volume that they don't know exists, and if they know a volume exists how can they know that any password they are given -- even if it correctly decrypts the volume -- is the only password for that volume?
But of course this all assumes that Geohot has encrypted everything with TrueCrypt, and that he's done so correctly. So if they compel him to reveal his passwords Sony is put in the position of needing to probe his security implementation to see if he's really given them all the passwords.
Which is kind of funny.
FINALFANTASYDOG: That's a valid point, yes. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If anything, people making money off the PS3 should be thankful that it was so secure in the first place.
And Massa, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but this won't deter anyone in the future. It was revealed that this ultimately came down to human error?
The DS piracy is a bit different. For the average person looking for it, you need some kind of hardware that vendors sell. PS3 doesn't even need any special hardware except the PS3 itself?
And Massa, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but this won't deter anyone in the future. It was revealed that this ultimately came down to human error?
The DS piracy is a bit different. For the average person looking for it, you need some kind of hardware that vendors sell. PS3 doesn't even need any special hardware except the PS3 itself?
onken said:
Like any security or encryption implementation it's not flawless and is heavily dependent on the skill and paranoia of the person doing the encrypting. Generally speaking the lengths of encryption you can go to are limited only by how willing you are to subject yourself to a grueling gauntlet of password inputting and file locating any time you want to dink around with an encrypted file.
There are a couple of publicly documented vulnerabilities that I've heard of, but luckily for Geohot they all require unfettered physical access to the encrypted machine and... oh. Ha ha.
Oh dear.
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
That rap... was actually not bad
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
spwolf said:
No, firmware is provided for free. This is not debatable. If you own the hardware, but not the software (the firmware), then the firmware came included with the device. At this point, the firmware was provided for free. Even more so because one can legally download OFW for, guess what...free. This is established by the DMCA and the exemption for phones. There is no monetary value for the firmware.
Furthermore, you're trying to compare the removal of a feature that was advertised and could have convinced someone to purchase the product with the overall providing of the firmware. The firmware can be free and yet features have a value. I'm sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the two and why firmware is free.
Stop taking what I'm saying out of context and if you're going to keep replying to me, respond to my posts as a whole. You've already singled out a portion of one of my posts earlier, ignoring the whole point. Then, when I addressed your flawed argument about piracy and apple, you just move the goalposts.Phospor112 said:
YYZ said:
that really has nothing to do with what i posted.
- not going after hackers and community was proven to be worst possible solution for PSP - software wise, PSP is completely dead platform. On the other hand, unhackable PS3 sold more software in 2009 than Xbox, despite having considerably smaller install base.
- being nice company and designing most open console on the market did not do them any favors.
Sony is business... they employ hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly... their publishers add more to that number.
Instead of seeing Sony as big bad wolf, try to imagine 100,000 paychecks being paid every month.
They have responsibility towards their shareholders and their employees, publishers, etc, to maximize their sales. Letting it all as with PSP was not good decision - so they are not doing that this time around. I dont think they had any choice actually. They had to do what they are doing.
What do you mean? If they did nothing about the PS3 hack, I wouldn't expect their future stuff to not be hacked out of gratitude on the part of the hacking community.spwolf said:
Everything will be hacked so I'm not sure what your point is here. What could they really do to stop the PSP OFW movement? If you know how to stop it then congrats, you should work for Sony and make lots of money.
And the PS3's software success in 2009 was due to Sony doing a good job with security, but it was going to be hacked eventually.
squatingyeti
non-sanctioned troll
Massa said:
The DMCA allows you to circumvent the security of anything, it just has to fall in to the definition of fair use. The problem is, the DMCA is so broad, general, and overbearing, that some precedent must be set for every instance. Phone jailbreaking most certainly facilitates copyright infringement, but that issue was a non-issue because the fact that something could lead to piracy does not outweigh legitimate use.
spwolf said:
Well that's just super. But like I said, I'm not talking about the legal aspect of this. I'm talking about the practical fact that the only way Sony can know if they really have all his passwords (assuming that he really is using TrueCrypt) is to probe his security.
Sony. Probing Geohot's security. While they are suing Geohot for probing their security. It is incongruous with your expectations of which party is trying to crack security implementations.
It is funny.
squatingyeti said:
you dont get to own any software, you own license to use that software. just because you can download something for free, doesnt mean it is free. this is very common in software world. you can download a lot of trial software for free, it does not let you circumstance its copy protection. heck you can download open source software for free, but it specifically does not let you use it any way you want to use it.
your non debatable opinion of "i can download it for free hence i can do whatever i want with it" is simply not based on law.
BTW DMCA exemption does not apply to this case, if it did, lawsuit would have been thrown out immediately. Will they add exemption in the future? Thats for future. Right now, all the decisions of the judge will be based on DMCA, as is law.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
mre said:
Again, for the millionth time... the information on his computer wasn't always considered evidence and he could have deleted it at any time before.
kpop100 said:
of course this doesn't help his case, but can it hurt it? Legit question.
also, I've never seen somebody so cocky like this, especially when they are at the center case of a big court case. I.....I almost admire it. That little smirk he gives at the end, shows how genuine his confidence is for some reason. He must truly believe everything will work out for him at the end, I don't think that will be the case though.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
it tells you something when GAF is more doom and gloom than the dude actually going through it, lol.Afrikan said: