Anonymous Says It's Not Finished With Sony
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What I don't get is what happened to all the ones they were gonna "bring down" here recently, Gene Simmons and such. Still around as far as I can tell. They may have moved on, but that would just show how ineffective they are.
Obviously most of the posters here know that Anon can be anyone and therefore send out any message(Although there are more powerful members). I do not approve of these attacks and it seems like a desperate attempt when there are more important things at hand especially since the Sony case is over.
You think anybody at Anon is actually smart enough to know history?Celtic_Kerr said:
Seriously though guys. Why can't companies protect their Intellectual Property anymore? Hackers use this guy's techniques to play for free - and last I checked, pirating was illegal.
So if Sony uses the Law to crack down on pirates... What's the problem, exactly?
Okay. Point taken. I am not fond of my information being out there for others to get. But it is. How is somebody else going to get it?Plurralbles said:
1) Legally: I have agreed in the Terms & Conditions somewhere (that I never read) that they can give it away. There's nothing I can do about it.
2) Illegally: Somebody hacks in and takes it or they give it without my permission. I have recourse to sue for the latter. The former, they are probably legally protected against. I honestly won't know if I have legal right to sue because I didn't read the damned T&Cs in the first place.
If what Sony did to farm that data was illegal, then PayPal and YouTube would not have released it. Of course this is opinion. I'm talking out my ass here because I clearly have not read the entire history on this data release. (Nor do I plan to.) Know that going in before flaming.
p.s.
Be very careful if you respond here Plurralbles. Try to maximize your hate toward my statements and minimize potshots at Sony. I notice that SonyOnline is one of your Twitter followers. They are probably reading your comments here and storing your negative feedback for future use.
Yes, as a matter of fact:JDKJ said:
A "subpoena duces tecum" orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment.
Sony is not a judge or law enforcement, they have no authority to demand personal information from another company themselves and they have the authority to take it from them. Only government authorities have that right through due process and only government authorities can aquire it or make the person or business bring the information directly to a court authority.
Sony has no right to demand to see records of who watched that video and donated to him, none at all.
So are you saying you are OK with sony's demands to see private data with no court order, or that you're ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?Clankenbeard said:
No court order? You sir, or madam, have fallen victom to Annon's propaganda.Nurb said:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psu.com%2FSony-granted-access-to-GeoHotzs-PayPal-account---a011023-p0.php&ei=l4GnTby6EIG4sQPthqz6DA&usg=AFQjCNHh8eKm5sNm6xI5KvtCRZ-UgcC0pA
OK, I see that it's the "how they operate" part that you don't understand.Nurb said:
Before Sony could have sought by subpoena any information from any third-parties, they first had to go before the Magistrate in the case responsible for deciding matters related to discovery and be granted his authorization to seek by subpoena the information they wanted to discover. That's the "ordering authority" your definition above makes reference to and in this case that "ordering authority" was the Magistrate. It was not, as I suspect you think it was, Sony.
1. So are you saying you are OK with Sony's demands to see private data with no court order?Nurb said:
Yes. Absolutely. This is a good business decision to keep tabs on potential future troublemaker for your company. The information probably won't be of much value, but you never know down the road. Maybe you might even get some leads on people who are part of Anonymous. Those guys are definite troublemakers for Sony right now. I sure as Hell don't think they should get the information, but--from a business standpoint--it's a great idea to ask for it. Hey, you never know until you ask.
2. Am I ok with people who viewed his video or donated Suing Sony for demanding and taking your personal information without your consent or a warrant, and Youtube for violating their part of the terms and conditions because they gave up the information to a private company and not to law enforcement with warrants?
Yes. I am perfectly fine with people suing Sony for it. You never know until you sue. What information did they get I wonder? Credit card numbers? I sincerely doubt that. Names? Maybe. Social Security numbers? Come on...really? Amount donated? Who knows. Somebody post me a link that tells me what data Sony got so I can dial up my concern to the appropriate level. (If it's my full name, birthdate, city, and occupation, they could have just read that from my profile here.) Wait...I can see it now. Sony is going to use everybody's names, SSNs and PayPal account information to make illegal charges to prosecute future PS3 hackers.
For the record, they didn't get my information. I didn't donate anything or watch his video. If I had, then I would probably still have the exact same opinion about my data being turned over. I would be all "Hey Sony! I watched GeoHot's video! I'm glad you know that I did it and who I am! What're you gonna do, ban me from PSN? Oh wait. I don't have a PS3. BURN!....Why did my digital camera just quit working?"
And unfortunately so far off that it would be completely irrelevant. Since Guy Fawkes is their general mascot, I say they save the 5th for something really big.TheIronRuler said:
Mmm. If part of the agreement that you signed with these companies is that they won't divulge your personal information, then they, at the very least, are in the wrong. If Sony somehow manipulated or threatened them into doing it, then Sony is also in the wrong. I agree that there isn't much Sony can do with such general information as your names (and I'd be really surprised if paypal actually released people's ssn), but still it isn't a good thing.Clankenbeard said:
If your argument is that you're fine with it because it benefits Sony from a business standpoint, then you've committed yourself to admitting that slavery is alright. Because let's face it, what can be better from a business standpoint than owning your workers? If you're just saying that it's fine for Sony to ask for the information, then I'll agree. If they just asked for it, then they aren't the ones who are in the wrong.
Actually, when you sign up for a Google blogsite or a PayPal account or the like, buried deep within all the legal "blah, blah, blah" is some "blah, blah, blah" that informs you of the possibility that they will have to disclose information about you if they receive a valid subpoena issued by a court of law and which compels them to disclose the information sought.ReiverCorrupter said:
The good news is that the Googles and Paypals usually fight tooth and nail in order to avoid having to cough up the information. They understand that willingly throwing their subscribers under a bus ain't exactly good for business.