Lulz Security claims to be thr group that hacked Sony

[Korgeta]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13636704

i'm somewhat annoyed if it is them, considering the hassle this has caused to gamers worldwide and that Sony may have to raise prices to compensate for the loss and why are Lulz security doing this? apparently its for George Hotz who is facing legal action for his hacking of the PS3. How does all of this benefit the ordinary gamer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulz_security

[Sea Skimmer]

Of course it doesn’t benefit ordinary gamers in any way, why would it? This is idiots in a pissing contest. Hotz was a complete idiot and glory hog by hacking the PS3 and then publicly declaring that he did so. Of course that's going to get him sued, and hacking random shit wont change a thing about it ever.

[Wing Commander MAD]

The amusing thing from what I've heard, is that of course this famous hacking isn't the first time the PSN was hacked. Apparently Sony was hacked back in February of this year and did next to nothing about it. My understanding is that what motivated Sony to yank PSN for over a month, was that this time people figured how to get access to the free content that Sony makes available for the press via PSN.* Hence, consumer account and credit card information was compromised potentially as far back as February. In other words piss on our consumers information security, we don't care until WE lose money.

Also, their compensation for consumers was apparently laughable, in that it consisted of free content/games that are lost in a few months if the account in question isn't a premium paid for account. In other words, you have to pay Sony to really get their reconciliatory gift.

*Note: Take this as second-hand information from last month. I don't own a PS3 or have any SOE games, so I haven't paid too much attention to this whole issue.

[Molyneux]

Of course it doesn’t benefit ordinary gamers in any way, why would it? This is idiots in a pissing contest. Hotz was a complete idiot and glory hog by hacking the PS3 and then publicly declaring that he did so. Of course that's going to get him sued, and hacking random shit wont change a thing about it ever.

And no blame, of course, falls on Sony for suing him. They get a free pass.

[Simon_Jester]

Why would anyone blame the manufacturer of a console for suing people who hack the console?

I mean, large corporations aren't the greatest things ever, but they do have some right to try and protect themselves from other people making illegal use of their products that hurts their business model; they're not just supposed to sit there and do nothing while everyone dances around them and robs them blind.

Or am I missing something here?

[phongn]

Why would anyone blame the manufacturer of a console for suing people who hack the console?

I mean, large corporations aren't the greatest things ever, but they do have some right to try and protect themselves from other people making illegal use of their products that hurts their business model; they're not just supposed to sit there and do nothing while everyone dances around them and robs them blind.

Or am I missing something here?

So there are two issues at hand:

1. Playstation Network got hacked (repeatedly). Personal data was stolen. That's a pretty big deal.

2. Sony killed Linux-on-PS3 (ostensibly for security reasons, except that you can't access protected stuff on the 'OtherOS' side of the system). This annoyed a bunch of users, so they hacked their personal consoles so they could get it back. Sony got pissed when someone released the details of how to do this.

[Sharp-kun]

Why would anyone blame the manufacturer of a console for suing people who hack the console?

Because you know, we paid for the console. If I want to mod my property thats my own business. What if we applied this logic to other consumer goods - want to shorten the sleeves on the shirt you bought? Tough shit.


Sure, blacklist my console so I can't connect to PSN or any other services Sony run and go after me if you catch me pirating games, but I paid for the machine and I should be able to do what I want with it as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. Sony can hate me all they want but unless they catch me doing something actually against the law they can sit there and seeth.


If I buy a PC I am allowed to replace the OS, tweak the hardware and do what I want with it (though it may invalidate my warranty). The PS3 is no different much as Sony would like to claim otherwise.


*Note that I'm not in favour of the hacking of PSN etc, but Sony don't really have the moral high ground either. THis isn't the first time they've done something that wasn't exactly clever / moral - remember the rootkit on audio CD's?

[TheHammer]

Why would anyone blame the manufacturer of a console for suing people who hack the console?

Because you know, we paid for the console. If I want to mod my property thats my own business. What if we applied this logic to other consumer goods - want to shorten the sleeves on the shirt you bought? Tough shit.


Sure, blacklist my console so I can't connect to PSN or any other services Sony run and go after me if you catch me pirating games, but I paid for the machine and I should be able to do what I want with it as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. Sony can hate me all they want but unless they catch me doing something actually against the law they can sit there and seeth.


If I buy a PC I am allowed to replace the OS, tweak the hardware and do what I want with it (though it may invalidate my warranty). The PS3 is no different much as Sony would like to claim otherwise.


*Note that I'm not in favour of the hacking of PSN etc, but Sony don't really have the moral high ground either. THis isn't the first time they've done something that wasn't exactly clever / moral - remember the rootkit on audio CD's?

When it comes right down to it, I think what matters is what do you "Agree to" when you purchase a piece of hardware. Obviously, if you go in and pick up an unmarked box of something, they swipe your credit card and you leave, then I don't think you've really agreed to anything. However, if there is a clear notice on the box that your purchase and use of the item inside is subject to certain conditions then you would be bound to those conditions so long as they were in accordance with local law. That being said, I don't know that Sony has a case it can win in this regard. We'll have to see how it plays out.

[Sharp-kun]

When it comes right down to it, I think what matters is what do you "Agree to" when you purchase a piece of hardware. Obviously, if you go in and pick up an unmarked box of something, they swipe your credit card and you leave, then I don't think you've really agreed to anything. However, if there is a clear notice on the box that your purchase and use of the item inside is subject to certain conditions then you would be bound to those conditions so long as they were in accordance with local law. That being said, I don't know that Sony has a case it can win in this regard. We'll have to see how it plays out.

Going from memory there is nothing on the PSP or PS3 box that ties you to anything (there is when you sign up to PSN though but thats optional). THere's a note on the back directing you to http://scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/, but that seems to only cover PSN.

There may be something inside the box (say in the manual) or online, but its questionable if you can be tied to something that you couldn't read when you bought the item (Software EULA's have been called on this in the past iirc, as you only get to read them when you install the program, not when you buy it).

What it comes down to is when you buy the console, do you actually become the owner of it with the right to do whatever you want to it as your property, or are you effectively renting it from Sony with their restrictions on what you can do? I think if you asked most people that question they'd assume the former - they paid £300 and assume they they now own the thing.

[Molyneux]

Why would anyone blame the manufacturer of a console for suing people who hack the console?

I mean, large corporations aren't the greatest things ever, but they do have some right to try and protect themselves from other people making illegal use of their products that hurts their business model; they're not just supposed to sit there and do nothing while everyone dances around them and robs them blind.

Or am I missing something here?

Think of it this way: how would you feel about it if, say, Dell told you that you weren't allowed to install anything on your PC that they didn't like - or that you had to use the OS they picked, and they'd sue you blind if you tried to change it?

Hacking a console isn't "illegal use"; you have the right to goddamn well customize an expensive piece of hardware that you own.

[Simon_Jester]

Moly, I didn't know the backstory and so misunderstood the implications of Starglider's comment, OK?

That said, I really don't like the idea of blaming Sony for the PSN hacks on account of their suing the first guy.

The hacker community's tendency to engage in 'retaliatory' behavior to 'punish' large corporations by breaking laws is incredibly counterproductive, given how important it is to limit corporate power and get it through the average citizen's head that the corporation should not be given unlimited power. Because it creates the impression among the general public that the hackers are the bad guys, and allows the corporations to spin acts they commit in something that can reasonably be called self-defense as entitling them to unlimited amounts of power over the products they make.

There's a danger that the issue, in the public eye, will end up looking like this:

Hacker: "Information deserves to be free! We deserve control over our own property!"
Sony: "Silence, pathetic drone! No it isn't and no you don't!"
Hacker: "Yes it is and yes it does! And I'll prove it by making information free and showing people how to override the controls you put on their property!"
Sony: "Hey! You can't do that! You're just a lowly peon!"
Hacker: [repeats previous slogans]
Sony: [sues]
Hacker: "FUCK YOU YOU FUCKER I'LL BREAK YOUR WINDOWS! THAT'LL TEACH YOU!"

Now, it's a lot easier to sympathize with the hacker's side of the dispute before that last line, not so?

You can make as many arguments as you like about Sony being a bunch of utter dickheads who care about nothing but their own bottom line, but it's not going to win their enemies any points if those enemies proceed to create massive inconvenience for third parties.

[White Haven]

While it doesn't so much apply in most hack situations, the spectacular nature of the PSN hack lends itself to a another last line on your little exchange there, Simon. 'You're filing suit to ruin someone financially? Here's the countersuit he doesn't have the lawyers to afford to file legally.'

And then Sony's entire online gaming architecture falls on its ass for a month. Is it legal? Nope. But I actually have a lot more respect for the PSN hack than for most 'I'm mad at a company' hacks. Sony began pulling the classic huge company schtick, throwing their weight around and obliterating people with lawsuit barrages that their targets can't even begin to afford to fight. Rather than just pull petty low-dollar vandalism attacks like most hacks, they actually managed to do exactly what Sony was doing: viciously attacking their target in a way that plays to their strengths and causes very real financial harm. Sony just has the advantage that the attacks that play to its strengths aren't illegal.

Now, do I agree with everything the assorted and sundry hackers are doing? Not even close. There's a whole lot of collateral damage that's absolutely not cool. At the same time, however, when your goal is to attack Sony's income...well, Sony's income comes from their customers. It's not pretty, and it's certainly not legal, but there you have it. It has a lot in common with guerilla/terrorist tactics, really. When you're under attack from someone so mindbogglingly bigger than you that you can't even begin to fight back cleanly, you either roll over and die, or you fight dirty.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because you know, we paid for the console. If I want to mod my property thats my own business. What if we applied this logic to other consumer goods - want to shorten the sleeves on the shirt you bought? Tough shit.

If you were stupid enough to buy a shirt with an end user license then you deserve to suck down that tough shit. Don't like Sony policy? Then don't fucking buy Sony products. Its that simple and Sony is under zero obligation to tailor its policy or products to anyone. They’ll live or die on what they do, so they get to choose what it is. Breaking encryption BTW is illegal in a great many countries.

Anyway like I already said, without this kid being a glory hog he'd have none of these problems in the first place.

[phongn]

If you were stupid enough to buy a shirt with an end user license then you deserve to suck down that tough shit. Don't like Sony policy? Then don't fucking buy Sony products. Its that simple and Sony is under zero obligation to tailor its policy or products to anyone. They’ll live or die on what they do, so they get to choose what it is.

PS3 (hardware) doesn't have a EULA, as far as I know. The software running on it, yes. (That, and EULA enforceability is something of a mixed bag).

Breaking encryption BTW is illegal in a great many countries.

In the US, it's illegal under the DMCA (for the purposes of circumventing copy protection). The attack on the PS3 bootloader was not, IIRC, encryption circumvention.

[TheHammer]

When it comes right down to it, I think what matters is what do you "Agree to" when you purchase a piece of hardware. Obviously, if you go in and pick up an unmarked box of something, they swipe your credit card and you leave, then I don't think you've really agreed to anything. However, if there is a clear notice on the box that your purchase and use of the item inside is subject to certain conditions then you would be bound to those conditions so long as they were in accordance with local law. That being said, I don't know that Sony has a case it can win in this regard. We'll have to see how it plays out.

Going from memory there is nothing on the PSP or PS3 box that ties you to anything (there is when you sign up to PSN though but thats optional). THere's a note on the back directing you to http://scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/, but that seems to only cover PSN.

There may be something inside the box (say in the manual) or online, but its questionable if you can be tied to something that you couldn't read when you bought the item (Software EULA's have been called on this in the past iirc, as you only get to read them when you install the program, not when you buy it).

What it comes down to is when you buy the console, do you actually become the owner of it with the right to do whatever you want to it as your property, or are you effectively renting it from Sony with their restrictions on what you can do? I think if you asked most people that question they'd assume the former - they paid £300 and assume they they now own the thing.

There is such a thing as limited ownership. To use another example, some houses require that if you purchase them you be bound to a Home Owners Association. That may mean you can't put up a fence on your property, or paint it a certain color even though you own the home in question if it violates the HOA. Another example would be if you were to buy in to a restaurant Franchise, you would be bound to certain standards and conditions of that franchise. So the precedent exists.

The question is, does Sony have the legal right to such a restriction, and is the purchaser bound by it. Again, that depends wholely on the local laws for the person in question. Unfortunately, we might have to wait til the next case since it appears this one was settled - http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/so ... awsuit.php

In the U.S. and much of the EU "Jailbreaking" a device is considered legal. Apple in particular was quite pissed off about that when it came to their Iphone. But was the case about jailbreaking? Or was it about releasing proprietary code in violations of the DMCA? I think if it had gone to trial, I don't think SONY has a case against simple Jailbreaking in and of itself given the Iphone precedent.

[Sea Skimmer]

PS3 (hardware) doesn't have a EULA, as far as I know. The software running on it, yes. (That, and EULA enforceability is something of a mixed bag).

Last I heard the license prohibits running any unapproved software on the hardware and executing the hack involves doing so even if you ran nothing else.

[Thanas]

Prohibiting people from modding their own property is completely illegal in several European countries. Why is it different in the USA?

[Sharp-kun]

PS3 (hardware) doesn't have a EULA, as far as I know. The software running on it, yes. (That, and EULA enforceability is something of a mixed bag).

Last I heard the license prohibits running any unapproved software on the hardware and executing the hack involves doing so even if you ran nothing else.

When was I told that when I was buying the console?

All you get on the box is a note saying to read the T&C's at http://legaldoc.dl.playstation.net/ps3- ... ua_en.html

Guess what, they cover the PSN network, not the console itself:

You must not use any unauthorised hardware or software to access or use Sony Online Network or make, or distribute unauthorised software or hardware via, or in connection with, Sony Online Network (including but not limited to cheat code software or devices that circumvent any security features or limitations included on any software or devices).

You must not modify or attempt to modify the online client, disc, save file, server, client-server communication, or other part of any Service or cause disruption to any account, system, hardware, software, or network connected to Sony Online Network for any reason, including to gain an unfair advantage in any Service.

You must not bypass or attempt to bypass any user authentication systems or security feature or attempt to hack or reverse engineer any code or equipment in connection with Sony Online Network or any Service (unless permitted by applicable law).

etc....

So going by that, you can do whatever you want to the console as long as you don't go on PSN etc. What if I never link it to the net?

If there's something inside the box, then sorry, its not presented to the consumer when they choose to buy the console.

There is such a thing as limited ownership. To use another example, some houses require that if you purchase them you be bound to a Home Owners Association. That may mean you can't put up a fence on your property, or paint it a certain color even though you own the home in question if it violates the HOA. Another example would be if you were to buy in to a restaurant Franchise, you would be bound to certain standards and conditions of that franchise. So the precedent exists.

The difference is that those are made clear to the purchaser and they have to agree to them in writing. When we bought our current home we have to agree to not paint it bright pink or anything that would mess up the estate. That was made clear before we signed anything.

Where's the PS3's terms made clear? The most you have is a note on the back of the box directing you to a website that doesn't even seem to cover the console itself. Just the network.

[Simon_Jester]

The difference is that those are made clear to the purchaser and they have to agree to them in writing. When we bought our current home we have to agree to not paint it bright pink or anything that would mess up the estate. That was made clear before we signed anything.

Where's the PS3's terms made clear? The most you have is a note on the back of the box directing you to a website that doesn't even seem to cover the console itself. Just the network.

For the record, this strikes me as an extremely good point.

While it doesn't so much apply in most hack situations, the spectacular nature of the PSN hack lends itself to a another last line on your little exchange there, Simon. 'You're filing suit to ruin someone financially? Here's the countersuit he doesn't have the lawyers to afford to file legally.'

And then Sony's entire online gaming architecture falls on its ass for a month. Is it legal? Nope. But I actually have a lot more respect for the PSN hack than for most 'I'm mad at a company' hacks. Sony began pulling the classic huge company schtick, throwing their weight around and obliterating people with lawsuit barrages that their targets can't even begin to afford to fight. Rather than just pull petty low-dollar vandalism attacks like most hacks, they actually managed to do exactly what Sony was doing: viciously attacking their target in a way that plays to their strengths and causes very real financial harm. Sony just has the advantage that the attacks that play to its strengths aren't illegal.

I understand that.

On the other hand, it just strikes me as... have you ever been embarrassed to agree with someone? Because sometimes I'm embarrassed to agree with the kind of people who engage in vandalism attacks. This was higher-profile, and in some sense 'clever,' but it also reflects some of the same psychology.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone operated like that put it that way. Having everyone who feels their cause is being persecuted respond by semi-random illegal activity to 'get back' at the people they dislike is a recipe for anarchy.

And when the people backing a certain cause do it, it greatly undermines any hope of legal reform for the cause. Sony can, like it or not, afford to fight a guerilla war with hackers for a long time. It won't destroy them. And guerilla attacks against their profit base like this make it so very much easier for their lobbyists to paint the "stop screwing with our property!" side of the debate as a pack of vandalizing adolescent malcontents.

[Xisiqomelir]

How does all of this benefit the ordinary gamer?

On the Sony end: I don't play multi, so I'm about to get a bunch of free stuff to compensate me for the temporary inability to access a feature I don't use.

On the Lulz/geohot end: I'm hoping that this extremely public display of penetration testing makes console manufacturers diligently secure their network services. However, it is more likely that they will simply blame the security researchers.

[Losonti Tokash]

You get a bunch of free stuff that Sony is lending you for a month, you mean.

[phongn]

On the Lulz/geohot end: I'm hoping that this extremely public display of penetration testing makes console manufacturers diligently secure their network services. However, it is more likely that they will simply blame the security researchers.

Don't be daft. These aren't legitimate "security researchers".

[Tanasinn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13636704

i'm somewhat annoyed if it is them, considering the hassle this has caused to gamers worldwide and that Sony may have to raise prices to compensate for the loss and why are Lulz security doing this? apparently its for George Hotz who is facing legal action for his hacking of the PS3. How does all of this benefit the ordinary gamer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulz_security

If you think self-styled internet vigilantes give a shit about the "ordinary gamer," you're mistaken. The goal is to cause Sony financial damage and humiliate them to their customers, owners, and the press. As far as these types are concerned, said ordinary gamers can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.

Prohibiting people from modding their own property is completely illegal in several European countries. Why is it different in the USA?

We have political and legal system that tolerates and sometimes glorifies corporate corruption. See the recent Supreme Court ruling that infinite corporate bribery of politicians in the form of "campaign contributions" was a-ok.

[Master of Ossus]

We have political and legal system that tolerates and sometimes glorifies corporate corruption. See the recent Supreme Court ruling that infinite corporate bribery of politicians in the form of "campaign contributions" was a-ok.

There is simply so much misinformation about the Citizens United case, with people hyperventilating about it even though its holding was unambiguously correct (you don't lose your First Amendment rights when you form a group), usually by resort to falsehoods and even outright lies about the case and what it stands for. Yours is absolutely a false characterization of its holding--indeed, one that was specifically held to be incorrect in Swanson. Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign contributions. It never did. It was a case about direct expenditures, and whether Congress could control the way in which groups could money in expressing their political views.

[Simon_Jester]

We have political and legal system that tolerates and sometimes glorifies corporate corruption. See the recent Supreme Court ruling that infinite corporate bribery of politicians in the form of "campaign contributions" was a-ok.

There is simply so much misinformation about the Citizens United case, with people hyperventilating about it even though its holding was unambiguously correct (you don't lose your First Amendment rights when you form a group), usually by resort to falsehoods and even outright lies about the case and what it stands for. Yours is absolutely a false characterization of its holding--indeed, one that was specifically held to be incorrect in Swanson. Citizens United has nothing to do with campaign contributions. It never did. It was a case about direct expenditures, and whether Congress could control the way in which groups could money in expressing their political views.

Which has the same de facto effect, when the groups in question are corporate-financed and time their decision to spend money to coordinate with political campaigns.

If you can't stop corporations from spending money to badmouth political candidates they dislike a week before the election, you can't stop corporations from spending money on elections at all.

And treating a corporation as just another "group," as a voluntary association, ignores the critically important point that corporations have the power to spend other people's money- if I buy a Coca-Cola, I wind up indirectly fueling Coca-Cola's political ambitions, despite the fact that my purchase of a cola is an act with no political intentions whatsoever.

Voluntary political organizations, which people join specifically because they wish to endorse a given political point of view (such as Greenpeace or the National Rifle Association) are somewhat different matter; there the organization's money is explicitly being collected from citizens with the understanding that it will go to a political purpose, and you can at least sanely argue that the citizens should be free to do so.

But an organization which is devoted to the task of profiting from the sale of some apolitical product such as computers or soft drinks should not be able to spend money to remove politicians who threaten their business model.