I fear you may be assuming facts that haven't yet been established beyond all doubt and are actually still up for grabs. There is a lurking possibility that a splinter group of Anonymous did precisely what you say would satisfy the definition of "terrorism." That is, they targeted Sony and it's customer data not for pure financial gain but, rather, to make some political point. If so, the theft of the data isn't the end. Rather, it is the means to the end and is therefore, given your own definition, an act of "terrorism."John Funk said:No, it's crime. If someone broke into, say, Bank of America and stole money from millions of accounts, would you call it terrorism? No, it's theft - on a huge scale, yes, but it's still not terrorism. Terrorism is means to an end; from what we can tell this attack was the means and end itself.FloodOne said:So, putting the financial well being of millions of consumers at tremendous risk isn't an act of terrorism? You're joking, right?
It would be like terrorism if, say, they kept breaking in and stealing bits and pieces of user data - a few thousand here, a few thousand there - in an intentional campaign to break the public trust with Sony and drive customers away from PSN lest their data be compromised. That would be cyber-terrorism. This is just cyber-theft.
I completely agree, Sony's response to the hack was inadequate and slow, and the fact that PSN is still down only reinforces that notion. Putting all the blame on Sony is a mistake, but that doesn't mean we should let them of the hook.thebobmaster said:On-topic, I do blame the hackers who did this. Attacking user info on PSN was just not right. But giving Sony a pat on the back and saying "there, there" is not all right, either. Sony had poor security, and the fact that PSN has been down almost a month with no date on when it will be back up is not a good sign, either. Think of it like this. If a museum was broken into, the thief was in the wrong, to be sure. But would you give the museum a pass if it was only using one security guard, then decided to shut down for a month to "restructure its security"?
You get to buy music for a month for free.drowboy said:No one is arguing that Sony dropped the ball, but if you go to the website they have promised that they are giving complimentary Identity Protection services and help to psn members as compensation in the from of free Playstation plus/qrocity services for 1 month plus however long the network is down. This is them saying OK we're sorry, now we'll fix it and here's something for the inconvenience. As long as them admit guilt and cover for any losses due to this issue I feel that they should be forgiven for their mistakes.Whoracle said:Disclaimer: The PSN hack and theft of personal data was a crime. I don't want to argue this point.
That said, what does he propose we'll (or rather you, I don't have a PS3...) do? Happily continue buying Sony products?
By all accounts that I have read, this whole fiasco happened because a) some asshats wanted to hack Sony and b) Sony did not take the neccessary precautions against data theft, namely intrusion prevention and, first and foremost, keeping only as much data stored as absolutely needed.
The hackers will be dealt with when they are found. But holding Sonys hand now would send the wrong signale, namely: "It does not matter how much you f*** up, we'll forgive you!" Sony (and really most if not all of the big corps that want to have our data) needs to learn that they have to protect this data. They have to get shafted for this one so that in the future they'll think twice on "Is this data really needed? If yes, how do we secure it?"
Think of it like this: If someone breaks into your house, he's a burglar. But if you leave your door wide open and your precious family jewels clearly visible behind it (hyperbole, but bear with me), all this while living in a bad neighborhood in the slums of StealTown, you'll rightfully be partly blamed for the break-in. And this is what currently happens to Sony.