Sony finds "proof" Anon was involved in PSN hack

[robobengt]

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).

It's because of people like Anon and their ilk that this is even on the board. This is why I hate them.

 

[rmb1983]

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.

The idea is flawed whether people see it that way or not; not simply anyone is part of their quota. I could claim to be part of Anonymous until I'm hoarse. I don't frequent their circles, participate in any of their activities, or really have any sort of loose association with them whatsoever. Their slogan works much like you portray big corporations: It's a spin on fear-mongering, because that's the extent that it's perceived. Intent matters little, in the end...perception tends to win out, there.

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.

No, my "personal prejudice" against hackers leads me to believe hackers are behind it. I did not suggest if I believed Anonymous' members were the culprit. I did, however, in previous posts, argue that I didn't believe they were, despite how convenient the timing and situation was.

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.

Not necessarily so. They are commonly known for this association, based on the manner in which they tend to protest against those they see opposing their ideals. I said identifying them as hackers isn't meaningless; I didn't say that's all they do. Just like anyone else, anyone within their community is bound to have interests beyond a singular focus.

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 scapegoats 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.

I never proclaimed you as any of the above; there's no need to put words in people's mouths.
I simply cited quotations from their members, and countered your points with a differing perspective.
While I agree that speculation isn't admission, all the puzzle pieces fit far too well into place. It's indeed possible that it was an outside source, but it's hardly unreasonable to think that one (or several) of their members would be the most likely culprits, given the circumstances.
That being said, it still doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was or was not them. Only time will tell.

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.

Again, I'm presenting a strong possibility. I never mentioned anything about my beliefs of whether or not it was their members that committed this act, and never ruled out the plausibility that it's actually possible it wasn't them.
You're only doing what you're accusing me of; speculation and extrapolation of what you think may be my beliefs. Whether or not it's to vindicate your own, I honestly can't say, as I have no idea what goes on in your head.

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.

And, once again, "official leadership" from AnonOps have very heavily hinted at precisely what I presented: Given the circumstances and timing of everything in plain view, it's unlikely it wasn't someone along for the ride that felt they were acting for AnonOps' betterment during the DDoS attacks.

I'm not scared of anything, relevant to this situation. Major agoraphobia? Yes. Worried about an over-limit credit card or someone stealing the identity of someone with a less-than-ideal credit rating because of being an idiot as a young adult? Hardly.
Given that I barely touch any online play with the games I do own, I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that I'm not all too concerned about that, either; you're still doing precisely what you're accusing me of, here. Seriously, if I were "addicted" to online play, I'm going to wager my posts would be more along the lines of "OMG I NEAD MAH BLAKOPS!!1!", but I digress.
The preceding "quotation" has been a generalization brought to you by rmb1983© [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/rmb1983], and is not to be misunderstood that he believes anyone who plays Call of Duty: Black Ops is an over-the-top multiplayer addict with little-to-no patience.

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.

So I mean to say? If that was the logic I was presenting, or what I believed, that's what I would have said. I didn't hint at anything even remotely related to what you presented.
Decrying this as some sort of grandiose conspiracy theory really isn't going to get many to follow your logic or agree with you. While it remains to be seen if you are, in fact, right, investigations take time, and all that extra time is costing their business money they simply don't want to lose. Nevermind that Sony is shouldering far more of the blame than anyone else, because their customers are
A) Becoming impatient, and
B) Losing whatever faith they had in SCEI/SOE's competence and accusing them of lying.
Logically, if they're enacting some sort of conspiracy against hackers/pirates/etc, it's one that's financially unfeasible to them in the most extreme of degrees (and may even result in their company sinking, regardless of what ends up playing out).

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).

You are also putting words in my mouth. I mentioned that the very possible risk is present, and is far more likely to be at the fore of people's minds than "Oh no! I can't play online!", provided they've an ounce of sense.

Even if this is some idiotic façade (that could very well demolish the whole of Sony, let alone specific branches of its corporation), it isn't unreasonable to be a little more cautious with the possible risk.

 

[Astoria]

This still doesn't make me think it's them. 1) This is a pretty serious deal so I doubt Anonymous leave anything behind linking them to the hack. 2) It could be a set up. 3) Sony could be lying just because they need someone to blame.

 

[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.

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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

 

[BlueMage]

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.

Then said individual may wish to make such a distinction clearer. After all, no non-verbal cues to go off of, hmm? So yes, I've no doubt you're right, but our mutual friend here needs to learn to convey meaning a bit better through text.

 

[distended]

Then said individual may wish to make such a distinction clearer. After all, no non-verbal cues to go off of, hmm? So yes, I've no doubt you're right, but our mutual friend here needs to learn to convey meaning a bit better through text.

Well, the distinction between a hacker and a cracker is lost on the general population. Which is somewhat understandable because most crackers are hackers. But really, if you consistently expect your average joe to understand the difference, you're in for a lot of misunderstandings.

 

[Da_Vane]

The idea is flawed whether people see it that way or not; not simply anyone is part of their quota. I could claim to be part of Anonymous until I'm hoarse. I don't frequent their circles, participate in any of their activities, or really have any sort of loose association with them whatsoever. Their slogan works much like you portray big corporations: It's a spin on fear-mongering, because that's the extent that it's perceived. Intent matters little, in the end...perception tends to win out, there.

This is why the idea that anyone can be Anonymous is flawed, which is my point. Not everyone is Anonymous, only some people are, and that means there is a group, and identity, and an official moniker that can be used. You can't just pick up Sony trappings and be Sony - likewise you can't just pick up Anonymous traits and be Anonymous. This is the only way that the current arguments for or against Anonymous even have any logical relevance at all - the only way Anonymous can logically be blamed for anything. This means that there has to be an official Anonymous means - which means things like going through their official chat, press releases, and the like. People who speak on their behalf in an official capacity.

There is no "Anonymous did this without official sanction from Anonymous leadership," because by definition, it's the Anonymous leadership that makes Anonymous, Anonymous. Without it, without that sanction, it's nothing to do with Anonymous in anyway. Whether the people who did this support Anonymous or otherwise assist in Anonymous operations is irrelevant - they were NOT doing this as Anonymous for Anonymous, and therefore this was not an Anonymous action, otherwise it would have sanction from key figures within Anonymous.

No, my "personal prejudice" against hackers leads me to believe hackers are behind it. I did not suggest if I believed Anonymous' members were the culprit. I did, however, in previous posts, argue that I didn't believe they were, despite how convenient the timing and situation was.

Yet you asserted that Anonymous had admitted the act - you even went so far as quote what you thought were pertinent areas from the article I linked to as evidence that Anonymous admitted the act. Thus, in doing so, you had inadvertently hinted that you do indeed believe that Anonymous is to blame.

Saying that a hacker did this is stating the obvious. Nobody is going to deny this was done by a hacker, any more than a person who puts out fires is a firefighter. There may be some debate over whether they do this professionally, but given the skills it has taken, there's little doubt that this was done by a skilled Hacker.

Not necessarily so. They are commonly known for this association, based on the manner in which they tend to protest against those they see opposing their ideals. I said identifying them as hackers isn't meaningless; I didn't say that's all they do. Just like anyone else, anyone within their community is bound to have interests beyond a singular focus.

There is something else to consider - not everyone in Anonymous is a hacker. There's quite a few members of Anonymous who barely have the technological skills to handle forum posting, let alone hacking. That's why they commonly use simplistic brute-force DDoS techniques - there's an open-source program called the Low-Orbit Ion Cannon which allows non Hackers to target websites to overwhelm them with requests. Do it in enough numbers, and you inconvenience websites. They also use a number of low-tech protest techniques, such as black-faxing: The use of a looped solid black fax designed to run fax machines out of toner. They are inconveniencing, but not exactly sophisticated or what you would regard as hacking.

Thus, it's not just about acknowledging that Anonymous are more than just Hackers, it's also about realising that Anonymous aren't the bunch of elite cyber-hackers that you are being led to believe. Only a few handfuls actually possess the required technical skills to actually do anything. The rest are just a bunch of protesters.

I never proclaimed you as any of the above; there's no need to put words in people's mouths.
I simply cited quotations from their members, and countered your points with a differing perspective.
While I agree that speculation isn't admission, all the puzzle pieces fit far too well into place. It's indeed possible that it was an outside source, but it's hardly unreasonable to think that one (or several) of their members would be the most likely culprits, given the circumstances.
That being said, it still doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was or was not them. Only time will tell.

I never proclaimed those things. I was speaking hypothetically. The fact is, however, that if the logic that anyone can be Anonymous is true, then you are inadvertently making those claims about me, because I am anybody. This is the consequences of such a logical fallacy. Likewise, I am not making these claims about you, but if the idea that anybody can be Anonymous is you, there's nothing stopping me making those claims - in fact, the very existence of the idea as a given truth is making those claims for me, and there is very little I can otherwise that is logical - There is isn't a justifiable exception for you that logically reasonable.

Thus, this is logical proof of the flaw in the logic - it makes us both Anonymous and removes all meaning to being Anonymous at the same time. Thus, we would both be accountable for this attack - even though we may both know we are not, there would be no way to prove this to each other. Saying Anonymous did this is like saying anybody did this - but both of us are anybody. Therefore, logically, it is like saying we did this. That everybody did this.

Again, I'm presenting a strong possibility. I never mentioned anything about my beliefs of whether or not it was their members that committed this act, and never ruled out the plausibility that it's actually possible it wasn't them.
You're only doing what you're accusing me of; speculation and extrapolation of what you think may be my beliefs. Whether or not it's to vindicate your own, I honestly can't say, as I have no idea what goes on in your head.

Like I said, you did more than present a strong possibility - you asserted that Anonymous admitted responsibility for these actions bases on something coming from Anonymous about the idea that anybody can be Anonymous. An idea that is already proven to be flawed.

And, once again, "official leadership" from AnonOps have very heavily hinted at precisely what I presented: Given the circumstances and timing of everything in plain view, it's unlikely it wasn't someone along for the ride that felt they were acting for AnonOps' betterment during the DDoS attacks.

I'm not scared of anything, relevant to this situation. Major agoraphobia? Yes. Worried about an over-limit credit card or someone stealing the identity of someone with a less-than-ideal credit rating because of being an idiot as a young adult? Hardly.
Given that I barely touch any online play with the games I do own, I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that I'm not all too concerned about that, either; you're still doing precisely what you're accusing me of, here. Seriously, if I were "addicted" to online play, I'm going to wager my posts would be more along the lines of "OMG I NEAD MAH BLAKOPS!!1!", but I digress.
The preceding "quotation" has been a generalization brought to you by rmb1983© [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/rmb1983], and is not to be misunderstood that he believes anyone who plays Call of Duty: Black Ops is an over-the-top multiplayer addict with little-to-no patience.

The hardest part of all this is Anonymous is Anonymous' own worst enemy. They stubbornly believe in their own flawed ideology that simply doesn't exist - that anyone can be Anonymous - and then go around acting like any other group or organization. Sure, they don;t have any criteria for actually joining - ANYBODY can post their website, and many do, often as Anonymous. Yet they bicker and fight amongst each other - not over ideology and whether they are doing the right things, but what Anonymous is all about. They bicker about what counts as being Anonymous.

All it takes is one person to write "We are a bunch of fags" as Anonymous, and the fact is that Anonymous has now issued a statement that Anonymous are a bunch of fags. I mean, seriously, there's no legitimization there, because the overarching principle is anarchy. That means that Anonymous is really nothing - there's no group, no hive mind, nothing. This makes them an easy target and an easy scapegoat.

Sony wouldn't be the first to exploit Anonymous' anarchistic tendencies for their own gain. The Westborough Baptist Church is claimed to have done the same thing - to have faked a threat by Anonymous to shut down their websites, which the Westborough Baptist Church publicy responded to. This led many in Anonymous to believe the faked letter was real, enough that it might as well have been real, and sure enough Anonymous attacked the Westborough Baptist Church AFTER the response. A spokesperson for the Westborough Baptist Church simply countered any argument that Anonymous was not responsible for the initial letter with the argument "How can you prove it? You are Anonymous." They countered it with the very flawed ideology that Anonymous thinks protects them.

Anybody can pretend to be Anonymous, or claim Anonymous done something, and bingo - case solved. But this is like replacing science with the handwaving of Magic or Divine Intervention. It's not finding answers - it's burying them. If Sony get away with blaming Anonymous - then it's a dangerous precedent for a lack of accountability by anyone.

Screw what Anonymous actually intends to do - they are a bunch of idiotic children in the great scheme of things: Rebels without a Cause. It's like having a bunch of cyber-protesters for hire, just because they think it provides them with lulz. When they get bored, they troll each other - anonymously, as Anonymous.

The "what are you scared of?" - That wasn't directed at you personally - that was a shift to a general audience that I obviously didn't make as clear as I should have done. The simple fact is that for many, getting back to gaming on the PSN is their primary concern, and nothing else matters, and for Sony, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same.

Sony must not be allowed to handwave the blame away by saying it was Anonymous. In fact, by saying it is Anonymous, they are impeding their own investigations. While I understand such investigations take time - getting things up and running again simply isn't enough. If Sony is to blame, they need to be held accountable - otherwise they need to try and track down the hackers responsible and bring them to justice, not believe them to belong to some mythical group of cyber-hackers that simply does not exist. You might as well say this was Justice, Karma, or Fate if you are going to do that.

 

[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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

 

[Da_Vane]

Quick question for everyone saying Sony is lying. Why? What do they have to gain from this?

A diversion of the blame and a scapegoat for responsibility.

If Sony did this from negligence, they will lose business and could fall out of the console race completely through sheer incompetence, if not contempt for their customers. But if they have someone to divert the blame to, to make a scapegoat, then they can claim that despite their best efforts, they were deliberately attacked by someone who knew what they were doing and bore a grudge, that had worked to undermine the otherwise competent Sony security systems.

The thing is, when people are dedicated, even the best systems will eventually fall. All people can hope for is to try and be on the ball and be able to react to prevent things from getting too out of hand before something bad happens.

Sony does have something to gain from lying - not being held fully responsible if they can find someone else to pin it on.

How would you feel if it was later revealed that Sony clumsily crashed the PSN and accidentally spread personal information all over the internet in the equivalent of sending a massive spam email? Or worse, if it was revealed that someone at Sony deliberately sold your personal information for some cold hard cash - credit card information for the majority of users of the PSN is worth quite a bit. Even if they syphoned just $5 from every account, that's still a lot of cash.

These are genuine fears, and even if Sony has no idea what has happened, they should and they really need something to cover their arses if it looks like they might be held responsible, and they've already been handed a scapegoat - Anonymous. A simple phrase ("We are Legion.") and a gif is all that's needed to make anything official by Anonymous's standards, so to "find" it left in the wreckage of their servers is fairly easy.

 

[Nieroshai]

So wait, the people who hacked a multi-million dollar company did so while staying anonymous?

Stop the fucking presses.

I mean, people do get anon isn't actually and organisation right? It's just a term to describe an amorphous group of people?

They BECAME an organization to attack Sony among other things, and there's an internal revolt because of it. OVER THE SONY ATTACK.


SO LISTEN THE HELL UP THREAD

Anon ADMITTED TO IT
Anon HAS A STRUCTURE AS ADMITTED BY THEMSELVES
Anon IS TEARING ITSELF IN HALF OVER THIS
ANON IS GUILTY, GET OVER IT
/THREAD, STOP THIS PISSING CONTEST ESCAPISTS

 

[BlueMage]

Then said individual may wish to make such a distinction clearer. After all, no non-verbal cues to go off of, hmm? So yes, I've no doubt you're right, but our mutual friend here needs to learn to convey meaning a bit better through text.

Well, the distinction between a hacker and a cracker is lost on the general population. Which is somewhat understandable because most crackers are hackers. But really, if you consistently expect your average joe to understand the difference, you're in for a lot of misunderstandings.

Nah, I hold them to no higher a standard than I hold myself.

Incidentally, I'm awesome, so I'm kinda used to the disappointment.

 

[BlueMage]

Anon ADMITTED TO IT

Anon 1 admits, Anon 2 denies. Anon 3 records and distributes. Anon 4 masturbates.

Anon HAS A STRUCTURE AS ADMITTED BY THEMSELVES

ALL HAIL MOOT. I MEAN SNACKS. NO, DEFINITELY MOOT. WAIT WAIT. Clearly this was done by Ebaumsworld.

Anon IS TEARING ITSELF IN HALF OVER THIS

Oldfags vs newfags; Moralfags vs oldfags; everyone vs furfags.

What you describe is nothing new.

ANON IS GUILTY, GET OVER IT

And Anon 5 decides to hold a protest, while Anon 6 makes a few prank phone calls. Anon 7 watches Anon 4 masturbate. Anon 8 tapes that.

/THREAD, STOP THIS PISSING CONTEST ESCAPISTS

And so, pool's closed.

Captcha: fur yourivin. Aka fuck you captcha, I'm not a furry.

 

[rmb1983]

Yet you asserted that Anonymous had admitted the act - you even went so far as quote what you thought were pertinent areas from the article I linked to as evidence that Anonymous admitted the act. Thus, in doing so, you had inadvertently hinted that you do indeed believe that Anonymous is to blame.

Except that I don't. I believe there's a possibility that one of their members pulled the "Carl scenario" that was posted in an earlier page, but I really don't believe it was them.

There is something else to consider - not everyone in Anonymous is a hacker. There's quite a few members of Anonymous who barely have the technological skills to handle forum posting, let alone hacking. That's why they commonly use simplistic brute-force DDoS techniques - there's an open-source program called the Low-Orbit Ion Cannon which allows non Hackers to target websites to overwhelm them with requests. Do it in enough numbers, and you inconvenience websites. They also use a number of low-tech protest techniques, such as black-faxing: The use of a looped solid black fax designed to run fax machines out of toner. They are inconveniencing, but not exactly sophisticated or what you would regard as hacking.

And this is a good chunk of the reason I don't really think them capable. I'm sure there may or may not have a few skilled hackers that call themselves part of the club, if you will, but the majority are nothing more than script-kiddies.

Like I said, you did more than present a strong possibility - you asserted that Anonymous admitted responsibility for these actions bases on something coming from Anonymous about the idea that anybody can be Anonymous. An idea that is already proven to be flawed.
I asserted that AnonOps admitted that they believe it very likely some of their own took advantage of the situation (being a) the Network's supposed security flaw, and b) the distraction caused by their DDoS attack), simply if for no other reason than the puzzle pieces fitting.

Sony must not be allowed to handwave the blame away by saying it was Anonymous. In fact, by saying it is Anonymous, they are impeding their own investigations. While I understand such investigations take time - getting things up and running again simply isn't enough. If Sony is to blame, they need to be held accountable - otherwise they need to try and track down the hackers responsible and bring them to justice, not believe them to belong to some mythical group of cyber-hackers that simply does not exist. You might as well say this was Justice, Karma, or Fate if you are going to do that.

That's the thing, though; they are investigating the matter (with the three security firms they initially hired and the FBI), so they really aren't trying to sweep anything under the rug. They simply presented evidence of a file that was put there. They didn't actually lay blame on Anonymous for anything.
Yes, yes, it'll automatically implicated them in the public's mind, and because the public is out for blood, they'll make the jump to wanting Anonymous' blood.
In short, though, they are making good on being accountable (goodies; an identity protection service, free-of-charge; etc.) for the situation while continuing to work on getting PSN back and finding those responsible for the intrusion.

 

[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.

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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

So basicslly, you're defending the hackers because, and I quote, "Sony is evil"? Is that the summed up feeling of your post?

 

[Da_Vane]

Except that I don't. I believe there's a possibility that one of their members pulled the "Carl scenario" that was posted in an earlier page, but I really don't believe it was them.

Well, that was what your argument led me to believe, and without your clarification that this was not your personal belief or claim, there was no indication otherwise. Were you playing devil's advocate on this one, presenting a point of view that was not your own but did not make it clear it was not your own, or was this part of a set up for a counter-argument?

Either way, since it seems that we both agree on the same thing at this point, this is a rather moot point to argue other.

And this is a good chunk of the reason I don't really think them capable. I'm sure there may or may not have a few skilled hackers that call themselves part of the club, if you will, but the majority are nothing more than script-kiddies.

Aye. This is something that even Anonymous themselves have identified as a weakness - most of their Legion don't have the technical abilities to pull off what they are being blamed for. This makes them useful as a smokescreen though - a few technically proficient people could easily hide within a legion of Anonymous members who can't do anything, but simply support Anonymous and their stated ideals.

I asserted that AnonOps admitted that they believe it very likely some of their own took advantage of the situation (being a) the Network's supposed security flaw, and b) the distraction caused by their DDoS attack), simply if for no other reason than the puzzle pieces fitting.

Yet, how can it be "very likely" - the very nature of Anonymous means that they have no idea whether or not any given person in AnonOps is actually a member of Anonymous. Anonymous has no idea who exactly Anonymous is, so the only thing that is "very likely" is that someone came in, and used the information to their advantage. Their actual affiliation would be unknown, but since there's no check at the door, assuming they are affiliated with Anonymous is rather naive, since they could literally be anybody.

That's the thing, though; they are investigating the matter (with the three security firms they initially hired and the FBI), so they really aren't trying to sweep anything under the rug. They simply presented evidence of a file that was put there. They didn't actually lay blame on Anonymous for anything.
Yes, yes, it'll automatically implicated them in the public's mind, and because the public is out for blood, they'll make the jump to wanting Anonymous' blood.
In short, though, they are making good on being accountable (goodies; an identity protection service, free-of-charge; etc.) for the situation while continuing to work on getting PSN back and finding those responsible for the intrusion.

Well, let's hope that Sony actually manage to sort this out. Although, presenting evidence before the investigation is complete is a good way to skew a jury, and bias the media. This may work in Sony's favour, since everything they are doing is more about damage control than anything. As long as Sony don't think pointing the finger at Anonymous is going to be enough to satisfy people, then they'll get the time they need for their investigation. Anonymous is not a valid answer - it's a scapegoat. You might as well call it an "act of God" if that's going to be their attitude.

 

[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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

So basicslly, you're defending the hackers because, and I quote, "Sony is evil"? Is that the summed up feeling of your post?

No, I'm countering your gross overgeneralisations without any evidence to back up your claims. If that happens to mean that I am "defending hackers", then so be it. Just because you've labelled them "Hackers" doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that standards of proof should be waved just because of your word.

I'll gladly defend the hackers and the jerks and the trolls of Anonymous to defend the ones that aren't, rather than condemn those members of Anonymous who don't hack, pirate, or engage in anything other than simply sharing their opinions, just because they contain those who do.

I don't know about you, but I disagree with punishing the innocent to make sure that we've got the guilty, because with that logic, you might as well go out and start punishing everyone right now, just to make sure you've got everyone.

 

[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.

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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

So basicslly, you're defending the hackers because, and I quote, "Sony is evil"? Is that the summed up feeling of your post?

No, I'm countering your gross overgeneralisations without any evidence to back up your claims. If that happens to mean that I am "defending hackers", then so be it. Just because you've labelled them "Hackers" doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that standards of proof should be waved just because of your word.

I'll gladly defend the hackers and the jerks and the trolls of Anonymous to defend the ones that aren't, rather than condemn those members of Anonymous who don't hack, pirate, or engage in anything other than simply sharing their opinions, just because they contain those who do.

I don't know about you, but I disagree with punishing the innocent to make sure that we've got the guilty, because with that logic, you might as well go out and start punishing everyone right now, just to make sure you've got everyone.

I'm not saying punish everyone. It's just that people who hack without the company's permission should know the risks involved.

 

[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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

So basicslly, you're defending the hackers because, and I quote, "Sony is evil"? Is that the summed up feeling of your post?

No, I'm countering your gross overgeneralisations without any evidence to back up your claims. If that happens to mean that I am "defending hackers", then so be it. Just because you've labelled them "Hackers" doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that standards of proof should be waved just because of your word.

I'll gladly defend the hackers and the jerks and the trolls of Anonymous to defend the ones that aren't, rather than condemn those members of Anonymous who don't hack, pirate, or engage in anything other than simply sharing their opinions, just because they contain those who do.

I don't know about you, but I disagree with punishing the innocent to make sure that we've got the guilty, because with that logic, you might as well go out and start punishing everyone right now, just to make sure you've got everyone.

I'm not saying punish everyone. It's just that people who hack without the company's permission should know the risks involved.

Then maybe you shouldn't have asserted that ALL members of Anonymous "steal games for a living." Because when you use a label without a qualifier, you are indeed asserting that the entire group takes part in this activity because of a stereotype.

Maybe you forgot the lessons about stereotypes, hm? They are useful for sharing ideas, since they can present a cluster of common concepts quickly, but they are never completely real. They are merely guidelines, a starting point, from which you can add or reject individual qualities. If you try to assert a stereotype as real, you have a low chance of reflecting any individual accurately, and zero chance of reflecting the entire group accurately, and you will get your arse handed back to you in any debate where you don't clarify that you are working with stereotypes - that they are not inherently meant to represent everyone.

Of course, your argument doesn't make any sense if you are using stereotypes, does it?

 

[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.

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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

So basicslly, you're defending the hackers because, and I quote, "Sony is evil"? Is that the summed up feeling of your post?

No, I'm countering your gross overgeneralisations without any evidence to back up your claims. If that happens to mean that I am "defending hackers", then so be it. Just because you've labelled them "Hackers" doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that standards of proof should be waved just because of your word.

I'll gladly defend the hackers and the jerks and the trolls of Anonymous to defend the ones that aren't, rather than condemn those members of Anonymous who don't hack, pirate, or engage in anything other than simply sharing their opinions, just because they contain those who do.

I don't know about you, but I disagree with punishing the innocent to make sure that we've got the guilty, because with that logic, you might as well go out and start punishing everyone right now, just to make sure you've got everyone.

I'm not saying punish everyone. It's just that people who hack without the company's permission should know the risks involved.

Then maybe you shouldn't have asserted that ALL members of Anonymous "steal games for a living." Because when you use a label without a qualifier, you are indeed asserting that the entire group takes part in this activity because of a stereotype.

Maybe you forgot the lessons about stereotypes, hm? They are useful for sharing ideas, since they can present a cluster of common concepts quickly, but they are never completely real. They are merely guidelines, a starting point, from which you can add or reject individual qualities. If you try to assert a stereotype as real, you have a low chance of reflecting any individual accurately, and zero chance of reflecting the entire group accurately, and you will get your arse handed back to you in any debate where you don't clarify that you are working with stereotypes - that they are not inherently meant to represent everyone.

Of course, your argument doesn't make any sense if you are using stereotypes, does it?

Oh, will you just get over it already?

I've had quite enough of people here defending hackers because "lol sony has no games". And now you're jumping on my back all because I don't wanna jump on the bandwagon.

Well, excuse me if I don't condone stealing games for a living. And yes, I reserve the right to accuse ALL of anonymous of this act unless they can prove me wrong.

So the burden of proof lies on them.

 

[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.

The majority of them are pirates, and if you want evidence, go to a certain imageboard and you'll see piracy threads constant. Infact, they get ANGRY if you don't pirate.

Why are you defending these hackers anyway? I'm curious. Does everyone hate Sony so much that they would gladly condone identity theft and credit fraud JUST to see them smitten?

Defending hackers? No, I'm pointing out your gross overgeneralization without any evidence.

Do you have a link to the imageboard, perchance, because I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. I know quite a few. They are quite popular.

Piracy threads on said image board - and this is proof that "Anonymous members steal games for a living?"

What a piece of deductive genius - you really should get that resumé out soon, before all the good spots are filled. Maybe they can use you to head the Sony investigation into the PSN hacking - I'm sure you'll know be able to spot exactly what imageboard the hackers come from...

Now, I've been in numerous piracy debates, and you know the main reason piracy advocates get angry at non-pirates? It's because non-pirates see piracy as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end, and naturally consider anyone that even considers piracy as hacker scum. It's easier to hate pirates that way, and it takes less thinking than actually having to put any thought into the ethics of piracy. The fact that piracy is only illegal because information and media companies back copyright law that make it illegal to force customers to buy their products. It's about control - and pirates seize their own control back for themselves. They get angry because non-pirates are largely mindless drones that have given up their control. It's actually and interesting debate when you actually have the intelligence to get rid of all the moral and ethical objectivity that people like to put into it to justify their own viewpoints. There will always be arseholes, of course, for for many piracy is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.

The majority almost certainly don't engage in piracy "for a living" as you so claim. That would imply that they steal media, and then sell it or run distribution websites, in order to gain a revenue stream from it. Something I don't think you have the means to prove in any sense, without financial transactions of the guilty parties. Do you happen to possess financial records for EVERY MEMBER OF ANONYMOUS? I don't think you do - like I said, if you have, then you really should be heading up the global cyber-crimes division...

So basicslly, you're defending the hackers because, and I quote, "Sony is evil"? Is that the summed up feeling of your post?

No, I'm countering your gross overgeneralisations without any evidence to back up your claims. If that happens to mean that I am "defending hackers", then so be it. Just because you've labelled them "Hackers" doesn't make it so, and it doesn't mean that standards of proof should be waved just because of your word.

I'll gladly defend the hackers and the jerks and the trolls of Anonymous to defend the ones that aren't, rather than condemn those members of Anonymous who don't hack, pirate, or engage in anything other than simply sharing their opinions, just because they contain those who do.

I don't know about you, but I disagree with punishing the innocent to make sure that we've got the guilty, because with that logic, you might as well go out and start punishing everyone right now, just to make sure you've got everyone.

I'm not saying punish everyone. It's just that people who hack without the company's permission should know the risks involved.

Then maybe you shouldn't have asserted that ALL members of Anonymous "steal games for a living." Because when you use a label without a qualifier, you are indeed asserting that the entire group takes part in this activity because of a stereotype.

Maybe you forgot the lessons about stereotypes, hm? They are useful for sharing ideas, since they can present a cluster of common concepts quickly, but they are never completely real. They are merely guidelines, a starting point, from which you can add or reject individual qualities. If you try to assert a stereotype as real, you have a low chance of reflecting any individual accurately, and zero chance of reflecting the entire group accurately, and you will get your arse handed back to you in any debate where you don't clarify that you are working with stereotypes - that they are not inherently meant to represent everyone.

Of course, your argument doesn't make any sense if you are using stereotypes, does it?

Oh, will you just get over it already?

I've had quite enough of people here defending hackers because "lol sony has no games". And now you're jumping on my back all because I don't wanna jump on the bandwagon.

Well, excuse me if I don't condone stealing games for a living. And yes, I reserve the right to accuse ALL of anonymous of this act unless they can prove me wrong.

So the burden of proof lies on them.

Incorrect - You are the one making the claim that ALL of Anonymous "steal games for a living," and therefore the burden of proof lies on YOU. It's a fundamental part of making an argument - without proof on your part, it is an unsubstantiated claim, which is why I pulled you up on it.