Sony finds "proof" Anon was involved in PSN hack

[Hive Mind]

It's not your fault someone broke the law and stole your belongings. You just could have done more to perhaps prevent it, but that isn't what fault means. Sony isn't at fault because someone decided to hack them. They just failed in security.

I think it depends on the extent which you fail you safeguard against the theft. If, for example, you leave a MacBook Pro on a park bench and wander off I'd say its pretty much your fault if it gets stolen. Similarly, failing to take the necessary steps to prevent being hacked means that you are at fault if you get hacked. This is less so if you're a private citizen with very little sensitive information, but very, very true of a large, multi-national corporation. If they had every single safeguard in place and up to date and still got hacked, then they wouldn't be at fault because they would have taken every necessary step to prevent the theft. Simply by failing at security, something they should have had as a top priority, Sony are at fault and could well be liable for any money lost by its customers.

Take a real life example. A well known TV personality in the UK called Jeremy Clarkson published his bank details in a newspaper column so as to disprove the threat of identity theft. he subsequently had money stolen from his account (and donated to charity). It is his own fault that his money was stolen, he was so brazen and reckless with his security that he virtually invited people to steal from him. This is not true of Sony, but goes to show that. depending on the circumstances, you most definitely can be at fault for being the victim of a theft.

If someone steals your stuff due to your own negligence or recklessness, then you are at fault. if, however, your stuff gets stolen despite your having taken every precaution against it being stolen, or even reasonable precautions, then you are not at fault.

You are misunderstanding the definition of fault. Being an idiot doesn't force people to steal from you. If you were asking someone to take your things, then you are half to blame (the other half being the person that agreed, as without them, it couldn't have been stolen). If you simply don't lock your door, leave your car unlocked or drop a watch on the floor, you aren't the reason the crime took place (the definition of fault) the person who chooses under their own will to take the car or watch is at fault.

 

[Furious Styles]

You are misunderstanding the definition of fault. Being an idiot doesn't force people to steal from you. If you were asking someone to take your things, then you are half to blame (the other half being the person that agreed, as without them, it couldn't have been stolen). If you simply don't lock your door, leave your car unlocked or drop a watch on the floor, you aren't the reason the crime took place (the definition of fault) the person who chooses under their own will to take the car or watch is at fault.

I'm not saying they were the active cause of what happened in each case, just that their actions meant that they were at fault. Fault is not the reason for the crime taking place, it doesn't have a particular legal definition. Fault is, and can be, anything you do wrong. If I fail to prevent a crime by my own negligence, I am at fault. I am not necessarily culpable for that crime, but I am still at fault. You seem to think that fault is an actual legal term when it isn't. Faults relate to mistakes or flaws, such as leaving an expensive laptop on a park bench. You haven't committed a crime, but you have made a mistake or error in judgement and you are, therefore, at fault. You may not be the most at fault, but you are still at fault. It is not an absolute thing like culpability, you are not either at totally at fault or not at fault at all, there are shades of... faultiness.

To take the sort of thing you're talking about to its extreme. If you walk past a lake and see someone drowning within easy reaching distance and choose to ignore them, their death is at least partially your fault. You may not be the reason for their drowning, maybe they decided to go for a swim and got tired before they could reach the other side, but by your very inaction you are at fault. You would not be culpable in such an event, omissions are not crimes (generally, and in this case) and their drowning may be mostly their own fault, but you had a hand in it too, you could have easily, and by taking reasonably foreseeable measures, prevented it but didn't and that means you are at fault for their death. Much like someone who negligently leaves their house unlocked at night is at least partially to blame for failing to ensure the security of their house, so failing to even attempt to help a drowning person is a fault.

And free will has nothing to do with it.

 

[rmb1983]

In much the same way, people want Anonymous to be "emotionally satisfying" - the idea and belief that Anonymous represents everyone, and therefore is in fact no-one is emotionally unsatisfying. Everything else is just as case of subjectively mixing your logic - defining Anonymous as everyone and then giving Anonymous an identity is illogical, because of how identities work. If Anonymous is anyone, they are everyone, which means that we are ALL responsible - we are all Anonymous. The moment someone steps up and says "I'm not Anonymous", the idea that Anonymous is anyone breaks down to nothing.

I'm not Anonymous.

The logic breaks down, leaving Anonymous as the modern-day bogeyman that we all want to dehumanise because it's easier to hate them that way than to think that another human being, just like us, broke into the PSN and stole all that personal data for personal gain. The key point there is "just like us."

Whether or not people dislike Anonymous or their agenda for such arbitrary reasons is beside the point, here. I hate hackers, whether they're human beings, dogs, crocodiles or aliens. This mess goes to show why a pretty startling amount of people now agree with me. Anonymous being behind it or not, the network was hacked and data was stolen.

Yet every attack against Anonymous is designed to shake this ideal, even while it is based upon it. Every attack against Anonymous is designed to show how they are NOT "just like us." This may be true, to a certain extent, because Anonymous clearly has an identity, a brand - something which would be very difficult to sustain if they were "just like us," since this would be like identifying as human - we are all human (however delusional some of the species may seem about this fact) rendering the identity meaningless.

I'd hardly qualify identifying anyone who participates in their "activities" as a hacker as a meaningless identification. It is, after all, what they do.

You say it yourself - it's an Anon attack, just not an official one by all of them. You do realise that it's the very act of being an official Anonymous operation that makes it an Anonymous operation. If it's not official, it's not an Anonymous attack. It is an attack done by anyone who may or may not have been affiliated with Anonymous at some point.

Let me repeat that bit for you, in case you missed it:

IF IT IS NOT OFFICIAL, IT IS NOT AN ANONYMOUS ATTACK.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Anonymous themselves state that if a member does something that is not an official attack/etc, it is still perpetrated by Anonymous. Simply being them qualifies it.
Several from AnonOps have come forward and said that it's pretty damned likely that people participating in the DDoS attack against Sony hacked in and stole data, though they still refute customer data was stolen.

There's a bunch of people pointing the finger at Anonymous, but as of yet nobody in Anonymous has said this was an Anonymous attack. All it takes is for a single person in Anonymous to say this was an Anonymous attack. If they did this, they would have said this was an Anonymous attack by now. They haven't.

Yes, in fact, they have. That's even exactly what Nieroshai told you; several came forward and admitted that given the mentions of security flaws in their chat before the attack, and the sheer coincidence of it all, it's far more likely that it was done by members of Anonymous as opposed to some random hacker(s).

All the theory and rationale and off-topic generalizations of your post aside, all you're basically saying is the following: Anonymous attacks are not made by Anonymous unless someone within Anonymous claims they are official.
And yet, straight from the article you yourself linked (bolded for emphasis):

This appears to mean that a "member" of Anonymous could have carried out the attacks, but without "official" sanction from Anonymous "leadership." The reason for all the quotes is that Anonymous doesn't have a membership per se, but is made of a group of people that agree to carry out certain operations in certain situations.

Another member explains, as has been explained many times before: "If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it. Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn't mean Anonymous didn't do it."

 

[Hive Mind]

You are misunderstanding the definition of fault. Being an idiot doesn't force people to steal from you. If you were asking someone to take your things, then you are half to blame (the other half being the person that agreed, as without them, it couldn't have been stolen). If you simply don't lock your door, leave your car unlocked or drop a watch on the floor, you aren't the reason the crime took place (the definition of fault) the person who chooses under their own will to take the car or watch is at fault.

I'm not saying they were the active cause of what happened in each case, just that their actions meant that they were at fault. Fault is not the reason for the crime taking place, it doesn't have a particular legal definition. Fault is, and can be, anything you do wrong. If I fail to prevent a crime by my own negligence, I am at fault. I am not necessarily culpable for that crime, but I am still at fault. You seem to think that fault is an actual legal term when it isn't. Faults relate to mistakes or flaws, such as leaving an expensive laptop on a park bench. You haven't committed a crime, but you have made a mistake or error in judgement and you are, therefore, at fault. You may not be the most at fault, but you are still at fault. It is not an absolute thing like culpability, you are not either at totally at fault or not at fault at all, there are shades of... faultiness.

To take the sort of thing you're talking about to its extreme. If you walk past a lake and see someone drowning within easy reaching distance and choose to ignore them, their death is at least partially your fault. You may not be the reason for their drowning, maybe they decided to go for a swim and got tired before they could reach the other side, but by your very inaction you are at fault. You would not be culpable in such an event, omissions are not crimes (generally, and in this case) and their drowning may be mostly their own fault, but you had a hand in it too, you could have easily, and by taking reasonably foreseeable measures, prevented it but didn't and that means you are at fault for their death. Much like someone who negligently leaves their house unlocked at night is at least partially to blame for failing to ensure the security of their house, so failing to even attempt to help a drowning person is a fault.

And free will has nothing to do with it.

I will have to disagree completely with you there.

 

[Furious Styles]

I will have to disagree completely with you there.

Ditto

This is why law's such a hard subject to do, words are just too flexible.

 

[Hive Mind]

I will have to disagree completely with you there.

Ditto

This is why law's such a hard subject to do, words are just too flexible.

Doesn't help that English is the worst language ever, lol.

 

[Harbinger_]

This just in: Sony's character witness is none other than the boy who cried wolf.

 

[rmb1983]

You are misunderstanding the definition of fault. Being an idiot doesn't force people to steal from you. If you were asking someone to take your things, then you are half to blame (the other half being the person that agreed, as without them, it couldn't have been stolen). If you simply don't lock your door, leave your car unlocked or drop a watch on the floor, you aren't the reason the crime took place (the definition of fault) the person who chooses under their own will to take the car or watch is at fault.

I'm not saying they were the active cause of what happened in each case, just that their actions meant that they were at fault. Fault is not the reason for the crime taking place, it doesn't have a particular legal definition. Fault is, and can be, anything you do wrong. If I fail to prevent a crime by my own negligence, I am at fault. I am not necessarily culpable for that crime, but I am still at fault. You seem to think that fault is an actual legal term when it isn't. Faults relate to mistakes or flaws, such as leaving an expensive laptop on a park bench. You haven't committed a crime, but you have made a mistake or error in judgement and you are, therefore, at fault. You may not be the most at fault, but you are still at fault. It is not an absolute thing like culpability, you are not either at totally at fault or not at fault at all, there are shades of... faultiness.

To take the sort of thing you're talking about to its extreme. If you walk past a lake and see someone drowning within easy reaching distance and choose to ignore them, their death is at least partially your fault. You may not be the reason for their drowning, maybe they decided to go for a swim and got tired before they could reach the other side, but by your very inaction you are at fault. You would not be culpable in such an event, omissions are not crimes (generally, and in this case) and their drowning may be mostly their own fault, but you had a hand in it too, you could have easily, and by taking reasonably foreseeable measures, prevented it but didn't and that means you are at fault for their death. Much like someone who negligently leaves their house unlocked at night is at least partially to blame for failing to ensure the security of their house, so failing to even attempt to help a drowning person is a fault.

And free will has nothing to do with it.

I will have to disagree completely with you there.

I'm with Hive Mind on this one. Leaving my door unlocked doesn't give someone license to steal from me. Sure, it may have been a bonehead move, and I'll be kicking myself in the ass over it, but I didn't force someone to consciously make the decision to commit a crime.

Whether Sony's security was up to par or not really is a trivial case-in-point, here. They were using, if nothing else, the industry standards, and someone committed a crime. Yes, their security could have been better. We all know that...but nothing is unhackable. All it takes is a bit of time and a measure of dedication (depending on how secure a network is in question). They didn't control the hacker(s)'s mind(s) and force them to commit a criminal act.

 

[SyphonX]

"Anonymous" isn't an organization. I'm so tired of this f-ing shit. Every time something happens, some media hack tries to up blog ratings by claiming it was "Anonymous" that was responsible.

Anonymous doesn't even exist, that's why they call it "anonymous". It's a bunch of idiots from all corners of the Earth that spend their time being sociopaths on places like 4chan. Then every now and then, along comes a spider, and asks them to press a button here or there, then <0.1% of them oblige the spider, and we may or may not see results.

"Anonymous" has become a sort of corporate scapegoat and it's starting to stink like propaganda, because every time something like this happens, they play the whole "faces of evil" crap and brand 'Anonymous' for reasoning why we need to pull a 1984 Orwell on the internet and have everyone live in a digital bubble.

Though they are really halfway there, as the offenders were probably quite anonymous, and belonged to no organizations or affiliations whatsoever. It's like a corporate version of the "War on Terror". The enemy is everywhere and it is no one in particular, but we're convinced we need to spend trillions of dollars and waste thousands of lives in order to combat it whenever and forever. Also, don't forget to surrender all your liberties and freedoms to us whenever we do so ask, as it's important for your protection and safety.

I'm really, really tired of the astounding amounts of ignorance and vitriol. As if no one ever stops to think if they are being manipulated, or played like fools. Corporations actually spend millions on advertising fear and propaganda, to convince people they need to be "protected". So basically, it's happening all over again over something stupid like PSN, and of course the past month has been nothing but children saying they want to see "the hackers" get hanged, shot, jailed for life, severe consequences etc.

Manipulation for political, financial and legislative gain for a select few. That's all this is at this point.

This whole event miraculously coincides with some of Obama's "Cyber Security" plans, and the latest FBI and Dept. of Homeland Security crackdowns on various web domains. Oh it is just oh so convenient. "Oh, hey, US government here... we heard you're having security problems. It just so happens we have this really, really Huge task-force on standby for this sort of thing, and tons of legislation ready to be signed and shoved through the door. Trust us, it's totally random we've invested all this manpower and money into cyber-dominance."

 

[Pendragon9]

Hmm, should I believe the corporation that has made a few mistakes in the past, but overall provided me with a solid gameplay experience? Or should I believe the random people online who STEAL games for a living, lie about it, and have a superiority complex big enough to make them DDOS game servers?

I'll be taking Sony's word on this one.

Right there is all that's wrong with this argument.

Can you PROVE Anonymous members "steal games for a living?" because if you could, you're doing a lot better than the world's leading cyber-crimes divisions.

Perhaps you should send your resume, because I'm pretty sure with your amazing deductive skills having managed to do what the law enforcement agencies of the world have not managed as yet, makes you a definite candidate for heading up their new Global Internet Justice League...

You've yet to give me any evidence as to why I shouldn't support Sony.

 

[rmb1983]

I'm really, really tired of the astounding amounts of ignorance and vitriol. As if no one ever stops to think if they are being manipulated, or played like fools. Corporations actually spend millions on advertising fear and propaganda, to convince people they need to be "protected". So basically, it's happening all over again over something stupid like PSN, and of course the past month has been nothing but children saying they want to see "the hackers" get hanged, shot, jailed for life, severe consequences etc.

So, it's now wrong to wish that perpetrators of a criminal act (whether they have a specific affiliation or not) are treated to justice for putting millions at risk to identity theft and an unwarranted headache? Personally, I'd tote that as "ignorance", but that's hardly up for debate.

Someone/several people committed a crime. A pretty severe one, in fact. Justice should be served, regardless of who or what they call themselves. People naturally cry out for blood when they've been wronged; especially to such a dramatic degree (I'm referring to the possibility of absurd financial loss; not the lack of being able to play online).

 

[Tanfastic]

A friend of mine used to vandalize places (School mostly, like desks and bathrooms and random walls.) with "We are Anonymous, we are Legion" and everytime I saw that i'd facepalm. You see, its because one unknown person wants to try and get noticed by what most "members" would find awesome, when really most people try to be internet bad asses but the second they leave their computer they wouldn't think twice about doing it.

Anonymous isn't one big organization. It's a person who feels like doing something stupid, leaving their mark ("We are Legion") and then claim they're working for a "greater good". Then a few get together on an internet site and just start talking about some random stuff, if they feel like it they raid a place but don't plan giant heists of data or anything... I hate how people think its some secret organization hell bent of destroying the world..

 

[Nouw]

anon should just help sony catch them

I like the way you think. A brilliant idea, I'm sure there are some former Anonymous 'members' that are pissed off about this.

 

[distended]

Whether or not people dislike Anonymous or their agenda for such arbitrary reasons is beside the point, here. I hate hackers, whether they're human beings, dogs, crocodiles or aliens. This mess goes to show why a pretty startling amount of people now agree with me. Anonymous being behind it or not, the network was hacked and data was stolen.

Get the fuck off the internet right now then - why would you use something created by those you hate?

Ooh, don't every use any form of securely encrypted communication either - can't have you using something developed by folks you hate. Good bye internet banking, ebay, et al.

Moron.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that he's referring to the hackers who break into secure systems and steal credit card info, rather than the innovators who developed the internet.

 

[Da_Vane]

Hmm, should I believe the corporation that has made a few mistakes in the past, but overall provided me with a solid gameplay experience? Or should I believe the random people online who STEAL games for a living, lie about it, and have a superiority complex big enough to make them DDOS game servers?

I'll be taking Sony's word on this one.

Right there is all that's wrong with this argument.

Can you PROVE Anonymous members "steal games for a living?" because if you could, you're doing a lot better than the world's leading cyber-crimes divisions.

Perhaps you should send your resume, because I'm pretty sure with your amazing deductive skills having managed to do what the law enforcement agencies of the world have not managed as yet, makes you a definite candidate for heading up their new Global Internet Justice League...

You've yet to give me any evidence as to why I shouldn't support Sony.

I am not going to either, because it's not my place to. That is Sony's job.

However, you have made a claim, without evidence, and I have called you on it, based on your assertion that Anonymous members "steal games for a living." It is now your place to back up that claim.

 

[Biodeamon]

That is highly likely but Sony would do anything to cover their tracks and Anon seems like the best scapegoat

 

[Da_Vane]

I'm not Anonymous.

There's this idea that anyone can be Anonymous. If this is true, then YOU can be Anonymous. You might be Anonymous now, but there's nothing stopping you from being Anonymous tomorrow. Thus, declaring you are not Anonymous is pointless, unless you are willing to spend the rest of your life declaring you a not Anonymous. This is why, if you buy into the idea that anyone can be Anonymous, you are effectively saying everyone is Anonymous. That includes you - you would have to be dead to get out of that group. The reverse is also true - since it's "can be", then you are also saying that nobody is Anonymous, since everybody can also choose not to be Anonymous. You can't pin something on a group that Nobody belongs to, or is it meaningful to pin something on a group which Everybody belongs to.

Thus, the idea that anyone can be Anonymous is flawed - people don't see it that way. There is an official Anonymous group, upon which there can be assigned responsibility and blame.

Whether or not people dislike Anonymous or their agenda for such arbitrary reasons is beside the point, here. I hate hackers, whether they're human beings, dogs, crocodiles or aliens. This mess goes to show why a pretty startling amount of people now agree with me. Anonymous being behind it or not, the network was hacked and data was stolen.

I'm not in a position to say whether the network was hacked or not, or whether data was stolen. This seems to be the case.

However, this does not indicate that Anonymous is behind it - and your personal prejudice against hackers is leading you to more readily believe they are, simply because you believe Anonymous are a group of hackers. You hate Hackers is equivalent to you hating Anonymous, and therefore you are inclined to blame Anonymous for virtually anything anyway. Even the remotest mention that they might somehow be involved has you vindicating your own judgements and mentally saying "I told you so."

This is called confirmation bias - you favour information that backs what you already believe, however illogical. If Sony said the Illuminati did this, would you believe them? What about if they blamed a Russian Crime Syndicate? You might be a little more sceptical in those circumstances. But if they blame Anonymous, it's reinforcing something you already believe - that Anonymous are scum, regardless of whether it's actually true.

I'd hardly qualify identifying anyone who participates in their "activities" as a hacker as a meaningless identification. It is, after all, what they do.

This is the point - you've equated Anonymous as meaning Hacker, and thus you are arguing against hackers, not against Anonymous. A fundamental logical flaw.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Anonymous themselves state that if a member does something that is not an official attack/etc, it is still perpetrated by Anonymous. Simply being them qualifies it.
Several from AnonOps have come forward and said that it's pretty damned likely that people participating in the DDoS attack against Sony hacked in and stole data, though they still refute customer data was stolen.

Speculation is not admission. Simply being Anonymous makes them Anonymous - but what makes them Anonymous in the first place?

It's easy to create skapegoats in this way - What's to stop anyone from calling someone else a member of Anonymous. Does this make it true? What's to stop me calling you a member of Anonymous? Is it true? Would I just turn you into a hacker by one simple assertion?

What about the reverse? What's to stop you from regarding me as Anonymous? It's an easy way to demonise me. You might as well call me a troll, call me unreasonable, call me a terrorist, or any number of other terms that are designed to make me appear less than reasonable, thus removing the need for you or others to take my arguments into consideration.

Yes, in fact, they have. That's even exactly what Nieroshai told you; several came forward and admitted that given the mentions of security flaws in their chat before the attack, and the sheer coincidence of it all, it's far more likely that it was done by members of Anonymous as opposed to some random hacker(s).

The security flaws of the Playstation Network are all over the Internet, and as I said previously - speculation is not admission.

Bear in mind that nobody in Anonymous knows who everyone else is Anonymous is, indeed it's unlikely they know more than a few members in any detail. Thus, Anonymous are in no position to actually say this in any quantifiable manner. This is why the idea that anybody can be Anonymous is flawed.

If anybody can be Anonymous, then everybody is Anonymous. Therefore, the chances of it being a member of Anonymous are quite high, since everyone is a member of Anonymous. After all, you are saying it was done by someone who was alive. What are the odds of that actually being false?

No, in order to be able to speculate on those grounds to formulate such an admission, there would have to be an official Anonymous group of some kind. And since even those within such a group don't know who's within a group, it's pure speculation based on a lot of overgeneralised unknowns.

Once again, you are taking the slightest scrap of it might be Anonymous and using it to vindicate your own beliefs.

All the theory and rationale and off-topic generalizations of your post aside, all you're basically saying is the following: Anonymous attacks are not made by Anonymous unless someone within Anonymous claims they are official.
And yet, straight from the article you yourself linked (bolded for emphasis):

This appears to mean that a "member" of Anonymous could have carried out the attacks, but without "official" sanction from Anonymous "leadership." The reason for all the quotes is that Anonymous doesn't have a membership per se, but is made of a group of people that agree to carry out certain operations in certain situations.

Another member explains, as has been explained many times before: "If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it. Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn't mean Anonymous didn't do it."

Yes, you got my argument more or less correct. It's not just anyone from Anonymous that claims them as official, though. It's the official "leadership" of Anonymous that has to make the admission to make them official. Otherwise, it's not an official Anonymous action.

Look at why those quotes are there - if there is no membership, no officials, no leadership, then there is no group. There's a bunch of people who steal an image and a slogan - a meme - to hide their own actions behind a mask.

If you follow the logic of that final quote, Anonymous can be blamed for everything. All it takes is a single person to claim it was done by Anonymous, and suddenly Anonymous did it.

You know what this means right? it means there will never be an answer for anything, because it will ALWAYS be down to Anonymous. It means that people can do anything as Anonymous, and get away with it - if Anonymous can be anybody, then what makes you think that there are no members of Anonymous within Sony? For that matter, what is to stop Sony from claiming issues are due to Anonymous to cover up other things? How do we know Sony got hacked and the data was stolen - when it could just as easily have been sold, or lost, or the network become corrupted, or whatever. Whatever the truth of the situation, blaming it on Anonymous becomes a way to hide anything, because there is nothing stopping anyone from becoming Anonymous, and then taking the mask off.

These are all tactics that have worked well in politics, and now they are easily being adapted for other aspects of our lives. All because of a flaw in the logic that essentially removes any point in actually bothering to discover the truth at all, just because it's easier to accept what we are told rather than to actually think. Because it's easier to jump to conclusions and blame a bogeyman or anything else that isn't us, than to actually cry bullshit on all this and demand that the real culprits are discovered or Sony is held to account.

What are you really scared of - that Sony are going to take away all those games that they've sold you, but you can only play on their servers, because they haven't actually sold you anything. They've just got you hooked to Playstation Network like a bunch of crack addicts, and you're all crying because you really need your next fix - but you don't want to upset your favourite drug dealer in case they withhold your supply.

 

[Maddenfreak]

i dont really care who did it, i just want my account to work again

 

[SyphonX]

So, it's now wrong to wish that perpetrators of a criminal act (whether they have a specific affiliation or not) are treated to justice for putting millions at risk to identity theft and an unwarranted headache? Personally, I'd tote that as "ignorance", but that's hardly up for debate.

Someone/several people committed a crime. A pretty severe one, in fact. Justice should be served, regardless of who or what they call themselves. People naturally cry out for blood when they've been wronged; especially to such a dramatic degree (I'm referring to the possibility of absurd financial loss; not the lack of being able to play online).

Here's the thing, and try to bear with me on this one.

The corporate world, it isn't about justice, it never has been and never will be. Nor is justice a proponent for the mega-organizations, the "Alphabet Gangs" (FBI, DHS, etc) which are the enforcing arms of the government body the corporations lobby to.

You see, what we have here, as I tried to explain in my previous post, is a completely wide-open, 'free-reign' control operation. Basically, Sony, the giant corporation that it is, has completely shrugged off any responsibility for this so-called "attack". Furthermore, they literally claim to have no idea who the perpetrators are, and neither does the FBI/DHS for that matter.

Well, gee, ain't that a pickle. So you mean to say, this could be a developing conspiracy, where the government and it's lobbying corporate-body have decided to not mete out justice to the perpetrators, but instead might choose to paint with a very large broad-sweeping brush to everyone... ? Wait, I think I'm onto something! Maybe if they get everyone scared, and/or pissed off enough, they'll be able to get the digital-population to beg for some big digital prison bars. Asking everyone to give out all their personal information, and sacrifice anonymity and basic rights, for the common good and the "safety" of our digital selves. I'm sure it's a lot easier than say.. simply improving corporate infrastructure.. but nah.. let's go balls-to-the-wall right? Kinda like this:

Obama administration moves forward with unique internet ID for Americans, Commerce Department to head system up
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/09/obama-administration-moves-forward-with-unique-internet-id-for-a/

So all you crybabies and doomsayers can all just opt-in for something like that. Then we can all be closer to the way China operates their internet, it'd be swell.. and patriotic too! For justice! Never mind the fact I haven't met one single person to claim they've been affected by this financially or feel their "identity has been compromised" (lol).