Anonymous Launches Attack On Sony

RedEaredSlider writes "The hacker collective Anonymous has made good on its threat to attack Sony, having launched a distributed denial-of-service attack on Wednesday afternoon. The attack is revenge for the legal action taken against another hacker who modified a PlayStation 3. Sony Computer Entertainment America filed suit against George Hotz, also known as Geohot. Hotz had released a firmware modification that allowed a Sony PlayStation 3 to run other operating systems. Sony had removed that functionality some months before. The suit is still pending."

Comments

I approve of these actions.

[EkriirkE]

Am I now part Sony's subpoena to get user IPs from ./ who comment on Sony stories?

Re:I approve of these actions.

[dstyle5]

Since you approve of the actions, I wouldn't be surprised. Now if you were to condemn the hackers actions, vigorously defending all that is Sony, they would probably just ad you to the "watch them" list.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[zill]

I know it's not likely, but here's a hoping they'll use SQL to store the comments.');DROP TABLE Comments;--

Re:I approve of these actions.

[Renraku]

Alright, here's how it's going to work. Sony will threaten Slashdot with a lawsuit unless they cough up user IPs. If Slashdot doesn't, then they'll be aiding/abetting/participating in whatever nasty Sony is trying to say has been committed. Sony has a bigger legal budget than Slashdot, so without a technically competent judge (there aren't many), Slashdot loses. Unless they turn over the IP data.

Millions spent in legal defense, or giving up an IP address, which will they choose? As a car analogy, you can tell me all about that hitchhiker you picked up and dropped off last week or I can take your car/house/children/bank account/etc.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[tobiah]

ha! that never gets old

Re:I approve of these actions.

[h0dg3s]

I've never heard that one before, did you make it up yourself?

Re:I approve of these actions.

[PopeRatzo]

But my IP address is not really my IP address.

I had no interest in hacking a PS3 until Sony started this attack on Geohot.

Now I've got a nice used PS3 just for that purpose. I struggled with whether or not buying a used console actually put money into Sony's hands, but I got it from a girl on Craig's list who had thrown her unemployed boyfriend out and was selling all his stuff. Fifty bucks.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[Culture20]

I've got a nice used PS3 just for that purpose. I struggled with whether or not buying a used console actually put money into Sony's hands, but I got it from a girl on Craig's list who had thrown her unemployed boyfriend out and was selling all his stuff. Fifty bucks.

You just admitted to knowingly purchasing stolen property (and potential conspiracy). I am not a lawyer.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[flyneye]

I'll testify you were only defending yourself from all the attacks SONY has made on the world, freedom and mankind, through monopoly, corrupt government officials,abusing the TAX PAYERS courts,and that funny coating on all their electronic devices that probably makes you believe their crap is good and they are righteous dudes. I.P. this SONY, your garbage is garbage,your artists mediocre and your mama dresses you funny. You don't scare me, I'm well armed, heavily sedated and know where you go to cheat on your wife.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[PopeRatzo]

You just admitted to knowingly purchasing stolen property (and potential conspiracy). I am not a lawyer.

They boyfriend ran up her credit cards, so it sounds like she simply repossessed the PS3.

And judging from the looks of her, she has better ways to spend her time than playing Bayonetta. She was pretty fine for a suburban trixie.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[zill]

So every time a joke is told the name of the author must be included as well?

Or is it taboo on slashdot to make a xkcd reference without linking to the comic itself?

Re:I approve of these actions.

[h0dg3s]

More like the entirety of the internet's heard it before. If it's new to you, then I have one about a chicken crossing the road that's a doozie.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[socsoc]

Go on...

Re:I approve of these actions.

[Ant P.]

Well in that case I'm Spartacus.

Oh and 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 to them, for good measure.

Re:I approve of these actions.

[the_hellspawn]

HACK THE PLANET!!!!

Re:I approve of these actions.

[I'm not really here]

Awww... little Bobby tables is at it again!

Re:I approve of these actions.

[conspirator57]

and of those 99%, only 0.1% read /. much less /. comments. as opposed to say 50% of the 1% who know what SQL is who read /.

so for this audience the joke is trite.

Why DDOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there a better way to get back at Sony then DDOSing there web page? Granted it works, the general public/politicians are made aware but why not do something more sinister? Spread investor rumors that cause their stock price to crash or disable their corporate email system. Something to truly cripple them would be the most effective way at getting back.

Re:Why DDOS?

[msauve]

Why not just avoid buying Sony products? Let the free market operate. Granted, this doesn't compensate for Sony's removal of the "other OS" feature, but there's an ongoing lawsuit over that, too. It's interesting how disingenuous Sony is being, claiming different things in the two lawsuits - that should (hopefully) get them in big trouble with the courts, which don't like weasels.

Re:Why DDOS?

[click2005]

Not everyone wants a $10 off voucher for some Sony product as compensation for losing an important feature (to some).

The legal system doesn't work when going up against large corporations.

Re:Why DDOS?

[kelemvor4]

You sure it's just the web page? My friends and I cannot login to PSN right now with our ps3's.

Re:Why DDOS?

[brain_lapse]

This is off topic but your signature quote got me thinking.

  He may not be DRM'd or RFID'd but he sure as hell was UID'd.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a free market while copyright and patent monopoly laws are distorting it. Face it, the free market won't sort it out, because sony has been rendered largely immune to free market effects by government-granted imaginary property monopolies.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Wild_dog!]

Do you know they are teenage vigilantes?
How exactly is this Nazi?
Glad you like sony products and they work for you.
I won't be buying another one after 30 years as a customer of sony.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Digital Vomit]

Isn't there a better way to get back at Sony then DDOSing there web page?

I recommend fire -- and lots of it.

Re:Why DDOS?

[phaethon2k]

likewise... :(

Re:Why DDOS?

[countertrolling]

Why not just avoid buying Sony products?

Sheesh! You gonna avoid the iPhone 5 also?

Just stop it.. Okay? Don't be an idiot.. If you want to boycott Sony, you're gonna have to boycott everything... Maybe even toilet paper. Then you can learn what the left hand is really for..

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Do you know they are teenage vigilantes?

They act like little criminal children. I doubt they are upstanding citizens.

How exactly is this Nazi?

They dont like the way a company behaves due to their own set of morals so they punish that company. This is a small group of people forcing others to their will. Bunch of freakin Nazis. Like the OP said - let the free market decide. If people dont like the company attitude then they will let them know through their purchases.

Re:Why DDOS?

[zill]

Maybe even toilet paper.

I know you were just kidding, but look what google found.

Re:Why DDOS?

[russotto]

Don't be an idiot.. If you want to boycott Sony, you're gonna have to boycott everything... Maybe even toilet paper.

Don't be ridiculous. My TP is made by by Mitsubishi, not Sony. Look for the three diamonds on the label.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Bacon Bits]

They're not Nazis. They're anarchist bullies. Nazis are authoritarian, totalitarian, nationalistic, socially corpratist fanatics interested in eugenics. In other words, exactly not anarchists. SCEA has a lot more in common with Nazism than Anonymous does.

Re:Why DDOS?

[cheekyjohnson]

If you want to boycott Sony, you're gonna have to boycott everything

Not really. You can do it one (or a few companies) at a time. Assuming the strategy works, of course. But then again, I think I do a good enough job of giving any of these companies my money.

Re:Why DDOS?

[WrongSizeGlass]

How exactly is this Nazi?

They dont like the way a company behaves due to their own set of morals so they punish that company. This is a small group of people forcing others to their will. Bunch of freakin Nazis.

Anonymous is acting like a vigilante group, not Nazis. Enacting their revenge on Sony because they believe - and rightly so - that Sony will not be brought to task for their actions by any authority. Not enough people know about Sony's shenanigans to make a difference to their bottom line so Anonymous wants to let Sony know they are not willing to just "take it" or stand idly by as Sony persecutes GeoHot for what he did to his own hardware.

Your definition of 'Nazi' can easily be applied to local police in small communities, political groups on a national scale and even Sony's board of directors (they are punishing GeoHot because they don't like the way he behaved due to their own set of greedy, rat bastard morals). I have extended family that were killed by the Nazis - in their homes, in the war and even some in concentration camps. I must say that I am offended by your casual and ignorant use of the term 'Nazi'.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Culture20]

I'm afraid this plan will only make them successful and allow them to make good products. If you want to ruin the company, scare the execs, but find a way to force them to stay. Paranoid megalomaniac sociopaths will do more damage than their absence would do.

Re:Why DDOS?

[mywhitewolf]

If people dont like the company attitude then they will let them know through their purchases.

, because "companies" that engage in unethical behaviour are very informative to the public about said behaviour.

using your nazi analogy, this is along the same lines of "if hitler was so bad, why didn't the Jews just leave?" of course this is a poor analogy, but so is equating commercial espionage performed by political activists to the genocide of millions of people.

the hive mind is a magical thing.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Wild_dog!]

The word Nazi is losing its meaning because it is applied indiscriminately to just about anything someone doesn't like. Firstly, the Nazis were totalitarian which clearly anonymous is not. Secondly, they used violence and terror to carry out their work. Thirdly, they killed lots of people based on bigotry.

Anonymous is just not even close to such evil.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Wild_dog!]

That would be interesting. Would we have worldwide nerd warfare? As varying factions attack each other?

A three stooges pie fight comes to mind.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

All Nazis were not involved in the atrocities committed. To say so is ridiculous and casts blame where it is not founded (all Germans at the time were Nazis but I'd say most Germans had no idea what was going on). Regardless, Nazwhat you say about the Nazis is true but they were also anti-capitalist which Anonymous certainly seems to be.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Entropius]

Sony can do business as they choose, but why do they have the right to expect the government to enforce that business model with absurd interpretations of copyright law?

Let Sony compete the old fashioned way -- produce a product and sell it to people, whereupon it becomes their property to do with as they will.

Re:Why DDOS?

[geminidomino]

And we're offended by your ideological ignorance and corporatist Stockholm Syndrome, so we're even.

Re:Why DDOS?

[MimeticLie]

Why is it so scary? People have been doing it in the real world for years. If there is a botnet behind the DDOS, that's one thing. But in the case of Anonymous, they're all choosing to run the software. It's more akin to a sit in than anything else.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Anthony Mouse]

I don't know if you can really call it "organized." It's more like a mob. Somebody points in a direction and some people follow, but nobody has to and some people don't.

Re:Why DDOS?

[ogdenk]

Sony can do anything they choose but once they sell me a piece of hardware, we're done doing business. I can and will do whatever the fuck I want with it. I didn't rent it. I don't care if they tried to put artificial barriers to me taking full advantage of the hardware in software. If I want to uncripple my shit to make the device more useful to me, I'll do it.

Now, should they be able to void my warranty or block me from PSN? Absolutely. THAT is covered by their right on how they can decide how they want to do business.

They never had me agree to anything prior to the sale. I am not "borrowing" the console from them. If they don't want me looking at their firmware, don't ship the device with it.

They can give me no more shit about jailbreaking a console than jailbreaking a phone. Personally I don't care where the law falls on this, I'll continue to do whatever the hell I want regardless and Sony can go f**k themselves and if jailbreaking consoles becomes illegal due to some horrible precedent here I'll make plenty of money off of local high school and college students because the demand for the work will skyrocket.

Re:Why DDOS?

[ChrisMaple]

A patent is a temporary monopoly on the right to produce a physical manifestation of an idea. That monopoly is granted in return for money and making the idea public. It is not a monopoly on imaginary property.

Re:Why DDOS?

[inode_buddha]

We saw how well that worked in the SCO cases. At one point they were making conflicting claims in 3 different courts *and* the SEC. The CxO's and directors walked off with lots of money, the company has collapsed, and that was it. They never got called on it, and the bankruptcy court let them do pretty much anything, without paying any mind to the prior legal cases and rulings against them.

They get off with it because the different courts don't necessarily collaborate, and the lawyers had to fight just to bring up the topic of what was said in the other court.

Re:Why DDOS?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Just because your distant relatives were involved with the German Nazi occupation nobody can use the term in any other way? Take your butthurt ass home and go fuck yourself sideways with a swastika.

Now come on - that's not what I said. Anyone can use the term 'Nazi' anyway they'd like - including pnewhook - because that's what free speech is all about (just like I can voice my offense of the trivialization of the term when someone uses it in a fashion that equates the acts of DDoS'ers to that of, say, a murder - let alone millions of them).

There are several types of governments or regimes that are "anti-capitalist" (as pnewhook later associated with Anonymous' actions) that may not allow the same free speech that affords people the right to use the term Nazi any way they'd like, such as Fascists and Communists. Calling someone's actions Stalinist when they actually mean communist can create the impression that they are equating the person's actions with those of Stalin (which is quite different even though Stalin was a communist).

Re:Why DDOS?

[xero314]

they're organized which is the exact opposite of anarchy.

Spoken like someone that doesn't know what anarchy is. Anarchy at it's most basic means "Without Ruler". This does not mean that Anarchy is disorganized.

Re:Why DDOS?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Just because your distant relatives were involved with the German Nazi occupation nobody can use the term in any other way?

BTW, aunts, uncles and cousins aren't 'distant relatives'. They may have died before I was born but I am old enough that they would have shared a significant portion of my life.

Re:Why DDOS?

[taucross]

A free market is only as good as its freedom of information. Control the information, you control the market.

Re:Why DDOS?

[xero314]

We need to stop pretending that ideas can be owned.

We need to stop pretending that anything can be owned without force. If there was no government to enforce private ownership then there would be no private ownership (only temporary restriction of use as long as you can fend off those that would attempt to use those things you want to keep to yourself).

Point is that all property "rights" are government granted, and thinking otherwise is just fooling yourself. So if the government can say that land can be owned, then I for one don't see why ideas would be any different.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy is often applied to the idea where there is an absence of a governing body. It's basically mangled Greek. an (without) arkhos (ruler). i.e. lack of a leader. This doesn't mean people can't self-organize. People think 'anarchy', and the next thing they think is 'chaos', and in the sense of a theoretical anarchist society, that's simply not so.

Think large groups of flocking birds or schooling fish. They scurry here and there, often as a large group, but sometimes that group splits into smaller groups and the smaller groups merge into other groups. Is there a leader? If there is, we can't identify it. Perhaps one bird or fish is the leader one moment, and another the next? But, it's not clear this is happening.

Say someone named Joe Blow says "Let's do XYZ, its' a good idea", and other people like the idea. They follow along with it of their own volition. Perhaps Joe becomes bored, and drops out from the movement. The movement may well continue without any further input from Joe. That is self-organization in an anarchist community. When you do it without names, without faces, and especially on the internet, that's what Anonymous is all about.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Bacon Bits]

Spoken like someone that doesn't know what anarchy is.

Well, he doesn't know what Nazism is, either, so I'm not surprised. He probably doesn't understand why the Bolshevik Communists and Nazis hated each other so much, too.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Keen Anthony]

Most because this is 4chan's /b/ we're talking about. And ultimately, their desire to be entertained with Sony products wins over any real political statement Anonymous wants to make.

Re:Why DDOS?

[mjwx]

Why not just avoid buying Sony products?

Sheesh! You gonna avoid the iPhone 5 also?

Just stop it.. Okay? Don't be an idiot.. If you want to boycott Sony, you're gonna have to boycott everything... Maybe even toilet paper. Then you can learn what the left hand is really for..

As someone who already avoids buying Sony products, yes, yes I will.

Happy with my HTC built Android phone, Asus built laptop and Samsung displays and NEC projector.

(X) Achievement unlocked: No Sony Timer installed.

Re:Why DDOS?

[mrchaotica]

You don't get it, do you? Sony isn't trying to do business in a free market economy; Sony is trying to change the rules so that actual people's physical property rights are destroyed in order to protect a virtual person's (i.e. a corporation's) virtual property rights (i.e., copyright). Sony is trying to bring about some sort of Bizarro world where individuals aren't allowed to own anything but instead are subjugated by whatever fucked-up rules the Corporate Overlord deigns to attach to the "privilege" of using their product. It is a new kind of serfdom, and cannot be permitted at any cost!

Re:Why DDOS?

[mrchaotica]

I'm pretty sure Sony's argument with the PS3 relies on copyright (and more specifically, the DMCA), not patents.

Re:Why DDOS?

[mrchaotica]

We need to stop pretending that anything can be owned without force. If there was no government to enforce private ownership then there would be no private ownership (only temporary restriction of use as long as you can fend off those that would attempt to use those things you want to keep to yourself).

The difference is that Imaginary Property can't be owned even with force.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Omestes]

I'll have to find something else to keep me from being productive for a couple days? It might be a mild annoyance, but I'm sure I'll cope.

Though if they took down Slashdot, it would make me ponder what Slashdot did to deserve it. So far my interests have been pretty much aligned with Anonymous, so I'd probably have ditched Slashdot for greener pastures. I'm not saying I agree with their actions, but so far I agree with their opinion of their targets.

One part of me agrees with the anti-Anon talk here, the other part finds it refreshing that someone is taking Sony to task for being a nasty, abusive, and unethical behemoth.

Actually, come to think of it, Sony might be the only target I actually can agree with the actions too. How is this different than Sony playing law man and hosing people's machines illegally with root kits? At least in this case no one innocent is being hurt. Or going out of their way to ruin the life of a mere hobbiest who thought (wrongly) that his hardware was his hardware?

Yes, two wrongs and all that jazz... But still, you have to admit it is something Sony would have done to you if they thought they could make $0.03 off of it, and Sony has done worse to tons of people.

Re:Why DDOS?

[westlake]

It's not a free market while copyright and patent monopoly laws are distorting it. Face it, the free market won't sort it out, because sony has been rendered largely immune to free market effects by government-granted imaginary property monopolies.

The geek's dismissal of "imaginary" property is ludicrous.

His entire existence is built on the value of intangibles.

Bits and Bytes.

Five years out from the introduction of the console, the free market won't punish Sony for the removal of the OtherOS any more than it did for the removal of SACD support and PS2 emulation.

There are lessons to be learned here:

Linux as a DIY system install has no mass market appeal. Dual-booting or virtual machines on a video game console even less so.

That limits the remedies the geek can reasonably ask for.

The only way to make Indie or Homebrew gaming on the console work is with the full support of the console manufacturer. You need development tools like XNA and Visual Studio Express. You need the app store.

The console manufactuer will ultimately do whatever it thinks it has to do to protect the integrity of the multiplayer game, DVD and Blu-Ray content, the Netflix stream and other online sources of revenue.

The cloud is not your friend.

You wife and kids won't take kindly to the hack that bans them from PSN.

They will be even less understanding when they see you mucking about with the wall mounted $4,000 Internet-enabled HDTV in the family room.

Re:Why DDOS?

[andot]

Godwin's Law time?

Re:Why DDOS?

[PatrickThomson]

So where do you stand on the idea of set-top boxes and cable modems? Would you respect the right of loanership there?

Re:Why DDOS?

[Haedrian]

I love how this suggestion pops up every single time a huge company does a bad thing. The free market wasn't designed to work with giant companies. It was meant to work with "Pa and Ma's Grocery Store" - you get the whole village to boycott it, it goes out of buisiness. When billions of dollars go across a company each year, a handful of people boycotting it won't do anything.

Its for times like this when you need to rely on the government everyone's* been trying to kick out for the past few years.

Re:Why DDOS?

[MeateaW]

Except where that property is that of an algorithm. Is an algorithm or parts there-of to encode h264 video or AAC audio a "physical manifestation" of an idea? What part of those 2 things aren't imaginary property exactly? The words? the piece of paper that you print it out on? the electrons that align to create a recording of the information in a computer? What is your stand on business method patents? Are they physical manifestations of ideas?

Re:Why DDOS?

[MeateaW]

I would question this. If I bludgeon you enough your brain will no longer hold the information, one way or another.

Re:Why DDOS?

[MeateaW]

Out of interest who made the battery in your laptop? Did they pay Sony for any patents they might hold on battery technology? Are you sure?

Re:Why DDOS?

[countertrolling]

In addition to the previous reply, are you going to check all the internals of all your machines, clocks, microwaves, TVs, radios, car, bla bla bla? What about the banks that do business with Sony? The sports bar that has a wall full of Sony monitors? Hospitals with Sony electronics? Sony doesn't know you exist.. This isn't like a bus boycott in Alabama. Sony is everywhere. You will not avoid Sony. Get over it.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Yes, they scurry around in large groups, in masks, and smash windows. Often unemployed living off social assistance since they dont like capitalism, but still sucking off other peoples taxes without understanding they are causing the problem.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Sony can do anything they choose but once they sell me a piece of hardware, we're done doing business. I can and will do whatever the fuck I want with it. I didn't rent it. I don't care if they tried to put artificial barriers to me taking full advantage of the hardware in software. If I want to uncripple my shit to make the device more useful to me, I'll do it.

Ok so that would also mean that if you buy music or software then you think you have the right to copy and distribute or resell it. You also don't believe in FSF as that restricts what you can do with the software. You believe you can take any open source and use it however you wish. You also believe in ticket scalping. Yes? Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Oh please. Sony is my captor because I like one of their products? You're such a moron.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

So if you don't like it then don't buy their products!!! Not liking what they do doesn't justify vigilante attacks on the company. And if you believe it does then you must also believe the attacks on Sept 11 were justified and ok because the terrorists were obviously just demonstrating their displeasure against the US government that in their opinion doesn't play by the rules.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Ok so if you dont like Nazi, what would you call them. And they are not anarchists by any stretch of the meaning.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

A sit in is passive by nature. Passive resistance. These jackasses are doing real damage and costing real money. They're more like those morons that run around smashing windows and burning down businesses when they are pretending they are actually protesting something.

Re:Why DDOS?

[d3ac0n]

Now you are just making straw man arguments. Come on.

Your argument doesn't even make sense anyway. You are essentially saying that because he believes in personal property rights, then he therefore must also believe that GNU is invalid, despite GNU being based upon the concept of both Copyright and personal property rights?

I should note that GNU and FSF ONLY restrict certain types of sales and distribution of software. NOT modification, which is what the OP is talking about. In fact, GNU and FSF are specifically designed to allow and protect the end-user's right to modify the software in any manner one sees fit!

I respect that you are attempting to defend the rule of law, but in this case, the OP is well within the law and well within his rights. You have no quarrel with him.

Re:Why DDOS?

[gfreeman]

Ok so that would also mean that if you buy music or software then you think you have the right to copy and distribute or resell it..

He's not copying nor distributing nor reselling the PS3. Your comparison does not apply.

Re:Why DDOS?

[d3ac0n]

We need to stop pretending that ideas can be owned.

Thank you, Obadiah Stane, for your words of wisdom.

Re:Why DDOS?

[gfreeman]

(all Germans at the time were Nazis ...)

Incorrect. Please check your facts, or stop making things up.

Re:Why DDOS?

[gfreeman]

And stop watching movies by MGM or Columbia, and never use software that accesses Gracenote ...

Re:Why DDOS?

[GameboyRMH]

You had to go to the place where you're doing a sit-in and sit down, just as you'd have to point your DDoS tool at the target IP and click Start. How is one passive while the other is active?

Neither is destructive, it merely blocks access and ties up resources that could potentially be used to make money. So how are they different?

Re:Why DDOS?

[GameboyRMH]

You can still try. You may not be able to avoid them 100% but the more you can avoid them, the better.

Re:Why DDOS?

[Captain Centropyge]

In case you're not aware, you have the choice to purchase your set top box outright, from the provider or elsewhere. Most people don't want to, so they rent it. (Although, you might have fees to continue using certain features, like a DVR or whatever.) You can do the same thing with your cable/DSL modem. Rather than pay a fee each month, I ponied up the money for my DSL modem.

Re:Why DDOS?

[conspirator57]

some companies make you buy the box. in that case, since you own it you should be able to hack it to your heart's content. if it is a rental then you're obligated to return it in its original condition when you're done renting or pay whatever damage is specified in the rental agreement. pretty simple really. OMG property rights work when applied to... property. it's amazing.

Re:Why DDOS?

[xero314]

The difference is that Imaginary Property can't be owned even with force.

Ownership ultimately comes down to being able to control who can use something. With that in mind, Idea's can certainly be owned by force. If your ability to use an idea can be restricted through force than that idea is effectively owned. Idea's can be owned just as much as anything else. Sure no one can really stop you from thinking about the idea (though that day may come), but then again I can't stop you from thinking about my car or my house either. The only thing my ownership grants is the ability to stop your using those things that I own.

People just need to realize that property ownership, intellectual or otherwise, is a wholly made up construct that exists only because of the use of force. Once we accept this very clear fact, then we can do away with ownership entirely and the whole Intellectual Property problem goes away along with it.

Re:Why DDOS?

[conspirator57]

will you please stop your lame and hyperbolic attempts to shove words into people's mouths? let's see how you like a dose of your own medicine, and one that, as pointed out above is more apt than your Godwin attempts or 9-11 Godwinesques: You support a company that is attempting to subvert the rule of law to benefit itself against a group of people engagued in political protest speech that happens to have a denial of service effect. You therefore must support segregation because the people staging sit-ins at segregated lunch counters were just vigilante attacks on that lunch counter company. See. Now how does that feel? Was it constructive to the conversation? No? Oh, I see, it's only an allowed tactic when you do it. Jerk.

Re:Why DDOS?

[conspirator57]

except that patent and especially copyright are becoming effectively permanent, not temporary. so the system has been subverted by the beneficiaries of those monopolies. to our detriment. just try to start a product company these days and see how long before all your hard earned profits evaporate into a patent troll's pockets.

Re:Why DDOS?

[yuna49]

Neither is destructive, it merely blocks access and ties up resources that could potentially be used to make money. So how are they different?

Because there are no physical people involved violating a law that puts them at risk of physical arrest.

Re:Why DDOS?

[marcosdumay]

People (and policeman) don't go identifying me around the streed by my /. UID.

Re:Why DDOS?

[marcosdumay]

Some corrections:

1 - it is made in exchange of making the idea public. Money does not enter the equation. Most IP offices spend more money than they make.

2 - Patents are surely a monopoly on imaginary property. That property is the lawfullness of producing a good. And, yes, it is imaginary.

3 - If the company had the slight hope of keeping its inventions secret, do you realy think they'd publish it and get a temporary monopoly, insteady of a permanent one by keeping it secret? Surely companies don't exchange the publicity of their inventions by monopolies, they either exchange it by something else or get the monopoly free.

Re:Why DDOS?

[marcosdumay]

Well, if they start making good products, and stop stealing and harassing their customers, and lose they lobbying powers, who cares if they grow? Looks like a win-win for everybody except the sociopats (ok, it is a win for the sociopat killing the other sociopats too, but you can't always win).

Re:Why DDOS?

[cffrost]

Ok so if you dont like Nazi, what would you call them.

Hmm... How about "Anonymous?"

Re:Why DDOS?

[mjwx]

Out of interest who made the battery in your laptop? Did they pay Sony for any patents they might hold on battery technology? Are you sure?

Branded Asus, Made in Korea.

Thanks for your interest. See this guy.

Re:Why DDOS?

[mjwx]

In addition to the previous reply, are you going to check all the internals of all your machines, clocks, microwaves, TVs, radios, car, bla bla bla? What about the banks that do business with Sony? The sports bar that has a wall full of Sony monitors? Hospitals with Sony electronics? Sony doesn't know you exist.. This isn't like a bus boycott in Alabama. Sony is everywhere. You will not avoid Sony. Get over it.

So I should rush out and buy a Sony TV, knowing that it's low quality and I'm supporting a company that is openly hostile to me, the consumer.

Like the other responder pointed out, you simply dont "get it". I can avoid purchasing all Sony branded products, you're just being a pedantic moron by trying to link my purchases indirectly to Sony.

I choose not to buy Sony branded products because the Sony brand is anit-consumer. Now they do not earn nearly enough from selling capacitors and Li-ion cells at low margins to other companies, they earn their profit from high margin items like TV's. Sony's wholesale is nothing compared to their retail. Boycots hurt large companies, although negative publicity is better. A 10% drop in retail sales sends a very clear message.

Get a clue.

Re:Why DDOS?

[countertrolling]

Ah yes, the old 'symbolism over substance' trick to make yourself all 'moral' n shit. You are a useful idiot, as the saying goes, but by all means, if it feels good, do it...

In their eyes you are a noisy little piss-ant. In mine, you're just dumb. You have no idea

Re:Why DDOS?

[countertrolling]

So, what? You mean all they have to do is slap a different name tag on it and it's all okay? How silly can you people get?

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

His statement was once he buys something he can do whatever he wants with it. I'm merely pointing out additional things that are true if he really believes his statement. If he doesn't believe in these things, then his statement is clearly false.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Your arguments dont make any sense and are not relevant to the conversation. Please educate yourself before you protest against them.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

He said he can do whatever he wants. My comments DO apply.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Nazi is a lot easier to write than 'fat teenage cyber terrorist criminals with no concept of how free market works because they never get out of their moms basement and are only doing this because they are pissed they cannot easily pirate movies and music'. Nazi has a better ring to it.

Re:Why DDOS?

[pnewhook]

Hmm. Nazi Germany. Totalitarian dictatorship with only one ruling party. Therefore by definition any German living in Germany during this period were by default, Nazis. Note that I did NOT say that everyone agreed, supported or even knew about the atrocities committed, any more than every American knew of or agreed with frying 200k Japanese civilians with a nuclear bomb. Get your facts correct.

Re:Why DDOS?

[sjames]

Why not just avoid buying Sony products?

Only to discover that the other brand you buy instead is just a re-badged Sony product?

Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[Robadob]

Wouldn't it be far more effective to ddos their psn servers.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[www.sorehands.com]

But if they did that, wouldn't they need to insert trojans into the Play Station 3s to be real effective. Oh you, you can't hack them anymore. Never mind.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[History's Coming To]

And far harder. It's a system specifically designed to handle massive numbers of constantly running connections.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be far more effective to ddos their psn servers.

They are targetting PSN. It's been down for at least 24 hours and Netflix won't run without logging into PSN. I just went out and bought an Apple TV because of this - and I'm not missing the PS3.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[flimflammer]

This is disrupting the PSN service.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[Verunks]

Wouldn't it be far more effective to ddos their psn servers.

they actually did that, I had a hard time trying to login today to play online, so fuck you anonymous cowards

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[im_thatoneguy]

And disrupt most Anonymous participant's Killzone 3 evening? I think not.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[PRMan]

Based on my experience this morning, they may have done that...

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[index0]

From the number of people I see complaining in #ps3 on efnet, psn is down.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[MacGyver2210]

Wouldn't this inquiry be more effective with a question mark.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[Khyber]

Actually, a hack directly through PSN is the next thing I'm expecting.

Sony has already proven itself to be rather narrow-minded when it comes to their security. This should be only marginally difficult to accomplish.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[iainl]

They _did_ DDOS the PSN servers, as reported on many sites. However, Anonymous then realised that they were just upsetting customers (some of whom are even members of Anonymous themselves) they switched to the corporate servers instead, stating that their target is purely Sony themselves, not the customer base.

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[MeateaW]

They aren't cowards, they are DOING something, in fact they are doing a very illegal something.
They got balls, (perhaps stupid balls) but balls. (though perhaps slightly inflated by the theory of "anonymous"... they aren't anonymous enough in general sadly.)

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[IrquiM]

If they do, I'm gonna start DDOS'ing Anonymous!

Re:Bit useless ddosing corporate servers

[qubezz]

It would be more effective to DDOS their retail locations. Start with Sony stores and then move to the Best Buys. Leaflet campaign anyone approaching a Sony retail location, informing the potential customer of the multiple transgressions by Sony against it's customers (root kit, remote removal of features, lawsuits against it's customers and publishers). Guy Fawkes mask optional.

That's preposterous!

[marcello_dl]

They dare to put offline servers owned by sony???
Don't they understand the concept of private property???
Would they like it if Sony did the same and one day decided to put a rootkit on its cds to make them difficult to copy, or issued a firmware upgrade that disables capabilities which were sold and advertised on its consoles? huh? HUH?

seriously, a boycott is safer and makes more sense. It would need to be extended to the banks that probably own sony, so it boils down to getting new hardware only when sorely needed.

Re:That's preposterous!

[kelemvor4]

Boycotts almost never work. Unless perhaps every single person everywhere participated all at once and sales stayed absolutely at zero for a while (not effing likely). Great principle but they would just attribute the loss of sales to other reasons most likely and never "get it".

Re:That's preposterous!

[Anonymous Coward]

They dare to put offline servers owned by sony???
Don't they understand the concept of private property???

Sony is preventing people from using a feature on something they own.
The people are preventing Sony from using a feature on something they own.

Re:That's preposterous!

[cheekyjohnson]

"Slipping right past them"? I'm sure that happens to some people, but even if they hear about it, will they actually care? Some of them even side with Sony.

Re:That's preposterous!

[CronoCloud]

issued a firmware upgrade that disables capabilities which were sold and advertised on its consoles? huh? HUH?

Where does this idea come from? It was NEVER advertised by Sony. Sure it got mentioned on Slashdot and other geek outlets, but OtherOS was never mentioned in Sony advertisements.

Also you can always keep OtherOS by not updating your PS3.

Re:That's preposterous!

[r_jensen11]

*Whoosh*

Re:That's preposterous!

[Chubcorp]

The use of a boycott in this type of situation, it seems to me, would be pointless. Based on the fact that Sony can afford to lose a couple of costumers, believe it or not, most people I talk to don't know who GeoHot is, that the PS3 is hacked, or even that Sony is in a big lawsuit about it. I think that what Anonymous is trying to do here is create a ripple effect. What I mean is that by shutting down systems, servers, and just attacking Sony, they show that Sony isn't this great big invincible corporation. I think that this is just a small stepping stone in the overall effect of the GeoHot case. Those that hack are incredibly smart, they interpret laws and think things through in every aspect. When they band together, which Anonymous is doing, they can cause some serious damage. Sony on the other hand has money, and lots of it. How this whole thing will turn out, I haven't a clue.

Don't they understand the concept of private property???

Well, you could turn that the other way, the PS3 was private property and GeoHot never signed any Terms of Service or other agreements.

Re:That's preposterous!

[Nursie]

Sure you can keep it.

In exchange for loss of access to the online services and not playing any games released after the firmware was updated.

Major loss of functionality, either way. Also irrelevant to the general right to hack what I own.

Re:That's preposterous!

[tlhIngan]

Where does this idea come from? It was NEVER advertised by Sony. Sure it got mentioned on Slashdot and other geek outlets, but OtherOS was never mentioned in Sony advertisements.

Also you can always keep OtherOS by not updating your PS3.

It was advertised at one of the E3 shows in an attempt to differentiate it from the already-released Xbox360 by showing the PS3 is more open.

It wasn't advertised on TV but it was heavily advertised on the Internet, and even Sony's own documentation makes it appear that OtherOS isn't just a toy feature meant to satisfy some feature list item, but a real thing Sony was getting behind.

And finally, prior to the announcement, Sony even renewed their commitment to OtherOS.

And yes, you can keep OtherOS by not updating your PS3. Except if you need to get it serviced, in which case Sony will NOT send you one with old firmware. Also, if you wish to keep playing PSN games you purchased, you need to update. Or wish to continue playing online multiplayer.

Sony killed PSN access for old firmware a month and a half after the OtherOS. And games released after April 1, 2010 require firmware updates. And any Blu-Rays that require firmware updates to play.

So, prior to April 1, 2010, I could use my PS3 for PSN, games AND OtherOS. After April 1, 2010, I could have PSN and games, OR OtherOS. Sony's effectively devalued the PS3 since I bought it.

My option left is to update and use the exploits to get full functionality that I had when I bought my PS3, risking a lawsuit by Sony. Or not update, and waste another $300 on a new PS3.

Honestly, I'd trade OtherOS for a feature of equivalent value to me - which is the ability to play games for free. And I say this despite my Xbox360 not being modded to pirate, my Wii not running homebrew channel at all. etc.

Re:That's preposterous!

[xero314]

Boycotts almost never work. Unless perhaps every single person everywhere participated all at once...

This attitude is why boycotts do not work, and why we have a two party political system in the US. If you keep thinking that it won't work then you won't try it. If we are going to have to live with a freeish market then we better start using the tools available to us that allow the market to work for us rather than us working for it.

Re:That's preposterous!

[mrchaotica]

[I]t will keep SONY out of my household, and that is sufficient for my needs.

Will it still be sufficient for your needs if this case sets a bad precedent and every company thinks selling you its products gives it the right to dictate what you do with your property?

Re:That's preposterous!

[ThunderBird89]

Those that hack are incredibly smart, they interpret laws and think things through in every aspect. When they band together, which Anonymous is doing, they can cause some serious damage.

Except Anonymous is not a band of hackers, but a band of script kiddies who like to feel like the great champions of justice, while not being anything more than petty vandals, and who probably don't even understand how the piece of shit they call LOIC works.

Re:That's preposterous!

[oliverthered]

Boycott who, The government.... Seriously try not paying your taxes.

Re:That's preposterous!

[marcello_dl]

You can also see a boycott like the ethic thing to do, consequences notwithstanding.

Sony can do what they want as long as it's legal (nevermind the influence on the application of law by corporations).

But not with my money.

Re:That's preposterous!

[drinkypoo]

seriously, a boycott is safer and makes more sense.

OK, so you and I can take the safe and sensible road and boycott Sony, which achieves very little, while Anonymous actually does something. Fine by me.

Re:That's preposterous!

[Chubcorp]

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that other people will take part in the cause, these people may be better at what they do and have a greater effect. I'm just saying that this is the start of a ripple.

Re:That's preposterous!

[kelemvor4]

I've boycotted companies before. I participated in the Microsoft boycott for several years in the 90's for example. Now days I use Microsoft products all the time. It, like almost all boycotts, was completely ineffective. I doubt any executives at microsoft were even aware it was going on save for the boycott site's features like the "whole Microsoft catalog" that exposed some of the horrible things MS was into at the time. The boycott its-self, though - complete waste of time other than to make the people participating feel a little better about themselves.

Boycotts just don't work except in extremely rare circumstances in my experience as a human.

Re:That's preposterous!

[xero314]

Boycotts just don't work except in extremely rare circumstances in my experience as a human.

And this is how the corporations win and capitalism fails. Because they have done well to spread the belief that boycotts do not work, no one is willing to try them. It's the same thing that kept peasants from revolting. Interestingly enough, this behavior is what capitalists use to argue against socialism, saying that people will be become complacent and have no motivation. The failures of all isms is not one of the ideal but of the people.

I have been part of many boycotts in my life and every single one of them has worked. As long as by "worked" you understand that it means "I did not support a product or service that I did not wish to support"

hacker collective?

[demonbug]

More like cracker collective.

Mmm, crackers. Now I just need a wine collective and a cheese collective.

Re:hacker collective?

[kelemvor4]

Cracker collective? Isn't that like the KKK?

Re:hacker collective?

[ElKry]

I was *this* close to spitting my tea all over the keyboard. An that's not a euphemism.

Re:hacker collective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheese collective? Isn't that like the French?

Ironic if

[www.sorehands.com]

It would be sweetly ironic if hacked Play Station 3s were used as part of the attack.

Sony astroturfers out in force

[DCFusor]

Or truly ignorant gamers. See the comments on this article at the Inquirer. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2041179/anonymous-takes-playstation-website-playstation-network Either there are a lot of very stupid gamers who forget the sony rootkit incident, and who also need to get a life, or this is Sony's class of counterattack. Sadly, Sony will be able to use this against GeoHot, as in "all those hackers are alike, see?" Gheesh.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[Anonymous Coward]

That is really really funny and sad at the same time. But it is like that everwhere these days.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[flimflammer]

Looks like one of them made their way here!

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[poity]

Condemn Sony rootkit; condemn anon DDoS -- people with intellectual integrity are astroturfers?

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[znerk]

Sadly, Sony will be able to use this against GeoHot, as in "all those hackers are alike, see?"

"You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike." -Hacker Manifesto

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[exomondo]

Or truly ignorant gamers.

It's likely they aren't ignorant, just that they are just gamers. People who aren't affected by or don't care about the actions of Sony. Sure they should care - just like with the otherOS fiasco - but the fact is the vast majority of sony's customers aren't interested and forcing them to take a side on the issue is likely to go against the DDOSers.

If a service i used got DDOS'd as an attack on a company's actions that i didn't have a problem with then i'd be pretty pissed off too. Sure this could have the effect of showing that sony's actions are having a negative effect on a large number of their customers but I reckon it's only going to rally those customer's to Sony's call to 'fight the hackers'. I'm on geohot's side in this court case but i don't these DDOS actions are going to have a positive effect.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[Kalriath]

It really is nothing like a picket line. You can walk through a picket line and still use the store which is picketed (or the cops will break up the protest). A DDoS is more akin to picketers walking up to a shop, nailing the doors shut and punching anyone in the face that tries to enter the store.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[xero314]

Either there are a lot of very stupid gamers who forget the sony rootkit incident

Most gamers never even knew about the root kit, let alone forgot it. And some of us that did know about it realize that Sony Music and Sony Computer Entertainment are separate companies. There are those of us that didn't buy the kind of crap music that Sony put the Root kit on. Some of use even realize that though it was on a Sony CD, and Sony should have a better understanding of how the DRM they use works, it was not a sony product that installed the Root kit, but a DRM package bought from a third party. And lastly, but certainly not least important. Some people are capable of realizing that Sony stopped putting root kits on CDs when it was discovered that they could be used for malicious purposes.

And don't get me wrong, I think the removal of "Other OS" was a bad move on Sony's part, but anyone that was using that feature and lost it, did so of their own choosing (they chose games over linux). What happened in this case is no different than when Microsoft put out the 360 and stopped producing games for the original XBox. This is actually better than that situation. Sony put out a new Game system, which they also call the PS3, which is fully backward compatible. The old PS3s will still play all the old PS3 games, though they have turned of the old PS3 network. But in this case, where sony did better than microsoft, was that sony is offering a free upgrade to the new PS3. It just so happens that the new PS3 does not support the Other OS feature.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[mrchaotica]

The thing is, everyone should have a problem with Sony's actions. What Sony is trying to do goes beyond just screwing their customers; Sony is trying to destroy the concept of property rights by subjugating an owner's right to modify his property below Sony's desire to dictate how their product is used!

Copyright is not a property right, but rather merely a temporary monopoly established at the whim of the public for the express purpose of enriching the Public Domain. To make it superior to genuine property rights is both blatantly unconstitutional and dangerously insane.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[exomondo]

The thing is, everyone should have a problem with Sony's actions. What Sony is trying to do goes beyond just screwing their customers; Sony is trying to destroy the concept of property rights by subjugating an owner's right to modify his property below Sony's desire to dictate how their product is used!

That's your point of view, and i agree with you, but most people don't have that point of view, most people clearly don't care about that. I can go around saying everyone should agree with me and logically justify it, but that certainly doesn't mean they will.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[MeateaW]

except a big enough picket line will be really annoying to walk past.

This is like a really really really big picket line. you *can* talk to sony, it isn't going to be easy and not everything you say to them (internet metaphorically speaking here) will get through the picket line (and back again)

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[Legion303]

It's titled "Conscience of a Hacker" and you're quoting it out of context for some reason.

Re:Sony astroturfers out in force

[Kalriath]

Can you access the service at all while it's being DDoSed? No? Then nothing like a picket line. You don't have to walk past a picket line, you can walk through it. If they try stop you, they can be arrested.

Re:al3x

[Robadob]

Given the fact that it has been seen that botnets (not #hivemind) have joined a fair few of the ddos attacks i would bet that there are a few people who are more than just script kiddies joining some of the actions.

Re:al3x

[unity100]

it is stupid to think that there are not quite elite hackers among them. such causes attract such hackers like bees to honey.

This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

This move by Anonymous was not an act of revenge directly related to the GeoHotz debacle at all. Everybody assumes the two are directly related, when in fact they are not.

Anonymous has taken measures against Sony because of the clear abuse of the judicial system undertaken by the company which has been bordering on the violation of the rights of US citizens. It is apparent to Anonymous that Sony has overextended their reach, and are getting away with it based on their size, power and financial status. It is a clear exploitation of the legal system by a greedy corporate entity.

While I do not agree with Anonymous' methods, their point still stands, and what they have done is an unfortunate but neccessary eye opener for large companies that think they are above the law when faced with similar circumstances.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[pedropolis]

This move by Anonymous is revenge for the soul sucking Star Wars Galaxies "updates" known as CU and NGE by SOE marketing suits.

Corbantis server... HEAR ME!!!

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[MimeticLie]

Nice job conflating non-violent civil disobedience (a DDOS attack is fundamentally no different than a sit in) with terrorism. There should be a corollary to Godwin's law for things like this.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Isaac Remuant]

This was PRECISELY what I thought, how should it be called? We need to standarize it's use .

I'm not calling for an end of the argument, though. I found it to be an interesting point of view but this was just funny.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[ogdenk]

I agree, when the system fails, it really *IS* up to the people to make things happen or stop things from happening when tyranny, corruption and backroom dealing are obvious and blatantly open. The US Govt have become tyrant sockpuppets for the even-more-evil corporate tyrants. Personally I'm sick of it. I'm glad a few folks did SOMETHING even if it just costs Sony a few grand.

As robotic warfare becomes mainstream, armed revolution becomes worthless because we'll be the only ones that actually die in combat. Electronic and network warfare may end up being our only real options later down the road as things get worse.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Kalriath]

Except that it's drastically different than a sit-in. A sit-in, you can walk up to someone talk to them, learn their story and know who they are and what they do. That is fundamentally what a sit-in's function is: to show the human side of the people affected.

And just as importantly, if you do not agree with the sit-in you are free to walk past it and use the service you're there for. A DDoS, you are not because that store/service has been nailed shut and cannot be reached.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Kalriath]

While I do not agree with Anonymous' methods, their point still stands, and what they have done is an unfortunate but neccessary eye opener for large companies that think they are above the law when faced with similar circumstances.

So you're saying that the solution to companies who believe they are above the law is to act like you're above the law yourself?

Yeah. That'll fly.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[shermo]

The only difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is which side they're on.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[RobbieThe1st]

I thought this at first, but now I'm not so sure. Why? The PSN is apparently down. This means that all these PS3 owners now can't play a lot of games, watch Netflix, or a lot of other things. And they will either blame Sony for it(and go buy some other device to replace it), or learn about this whole conflict -- And, hopefully, join in the boycott.
It might actually do some good: Hit them in the wallet through lost games sales, and make people aware of the situation.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Sensiblemonkey]

*ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks [wikipedia.org] *ahem*

The only difference between this and terrorism is the choice of tool and setting.

I'm sure all the friends and family of the people killed on 9/11 would agree with that comparison.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[VoidCrow]

So you're saying that the only way to deal with companies that change the rules as they see fit, is to follow those rules slavishly, ad infinitum?

Yeah, that'll fly.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Raenex]

And unfortunately, there's nothing else but DoS on the Internet.

That's a lot of bullshit. You can speak out against Sony on the Internet. You can urge people not to buy their products. You can not buy their products yourself.

I own a PS3 and I wanted to play online today but I could not because of the DoS.

I own a PS3 too. This past week, if you wanted to continue using their online network, you had to agree to a new Terms of Service with SNEA. I refuse to, and will never spend another dime on my PS3 again. I emailed support asking them to cancel my account. They owe me some funds from my "wallet" that is left over from renting movies -- I will make sure to get this money back.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[MeateaW]

With a sit in you can go to the "entrance" of a store and talk to people visiting.

With the internet you cannot go to the "entrance" (front of the web page) and give people a handy popup (that they can rightfully ignore) about how bad you think sony is.

Talking on the internet, is like going to your local park and complaining about the supermarket in a city 200 miles away (everything on the internet is very close to everything else, while simultaneously being on a different planet). Sure, people can go to your park and hear your story, but how exactly is it the equivalent situation to a sit in?

A DOS isn't the same, but its close. The closest to a sit in would be defacing the front page of Sony's website in such a way that you could click "past" the defacement and continue working on sony's site. But I don't think anyone would think that it is legal, as it requires modification of Sonys property. (kind of like spraypainting your message on the window of a shop). There really is no equivalent, but a DOS is the closest - no physical "damage" but it does affect its ability to do business (no sit-in is damageless).

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Raenex]

That's a good point, but there are alternatives. You can spread the message to all your contacts on the PS3. You can talk about it in game over voice. You can talk about it on PS3 forums.

This denial of service isn't going to generate any sympathy to the case. It's just going to paint the opposition as a bunch of petty vandals.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Kalriath]

Except that this dickhead action doesn't inconvenience Sony, so much as it inconveniences millions of console owners who can't play their games online, all because some group of 12 year olds got a stick up their ass. Hell, taking down PSN probably saves Sony money, since suddenly their free service which consumes tons of resources is offline.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Kalriath]

There are laws for a reason. If companies are somehow changing laws, well that's a problem with your government. You're attacking the wrong pack of douches.

Re:This was not revenge for GeoHotz at all.

[Kalriath]

There really is no equivalent, but a DOS is the closest - no physical "damage" but it does affect its ability to do business (no sit-in is damageless).

No, it's polar opposites. With a sit-in, the ability to do business is impaired, but if stopped completely the store could call the police. A DDoS does nothing short of total shutdown. The ability to do business if the target of one of these is obliterated. They should be, and are, illegal. They absolutely DO do damage (go work for a webhost and tell me that a DDoS is victimless).

Fine with me

[jhoegl]

Sony has yet to apologize for the way they have handled their SOE arm of the business.
Terrible company, just terrible.

Re:al3x

[Wild_dog!]

HB Gary might disagree after getting themselves pants'd then wedgied.

I don't approve of the DDoS

[ZorinLynx]

DDoS accomplishes nothing and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals. This is just more ammunition for Sony to use in court.

We need to get a ruling that hacking your own hardware is legal. It's not ever going to happen with these guerilla practices.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[Travelsonic]

...and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals.

I disagree - to some extent - yes, they do tarnish the image, but I feel the largest amount of tarnishing comes from media ignorance, and ignorance on the part of the non-technical.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[mysidia]

DDoS accomplishes nothing and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals. This is just more ammunition for Sony to use in court.

No. This is totally irrelevant to the case before the court, unless they can show involvement by the plaintiff. The court does not and cannot legally weigh the "DDoS" occurring against Sony in any way, positive or negative. Courts are only allowed to consider relevant matters such as the law/findings of law, and the facts of the case. Even if the president got on public TV chastizing the PS3 hackers, the court could not consider that.

However... the DDoS is definitely illegal and barbaric. That is not how Justice works in a civilized society.

If you are harmed by Sony's actions, then do the legal thing and take them to court, or organize a boycott, protests, or other legal demonstrations against Sony.

DoS and hack attacks of any sort against Sony's network (without Sony's written permission) are illegal. And Sony should vigorously pursue the criminals performing network attacks against them, regardless of the underlying motivation, the internet will be a better place if the cowardly vigilantes who don't respect the law, justice, or the civil process, are themselves brought to answer for the crimes.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[halowolf]

I was wondering why it has been taking so long to log into PSN the last little while. The amusing thing was getting a message saying something of the like "It's taking a long time to log in, check your internet connection".

Hmm no Sony, you check yours.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[e70838]

Anonymous would not exist if the society was civilized and if the justice was working correctly.

Behaviour of Sony is not acceptable. People should boycott Sony. DDoS is also an unacceptable practice whose consequences are impossible to predict.

I condamn DDoS, but I am happy that Sony receives a punishment for its acts.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[Moryath]

However... the DDoS is definitely illegal and barbaric. That is not how Justice works in a civilized society.

Oh?

I seem to remember people "denying service" at lunch counters, banks, etc simply by sitting in the premises in large numbers...

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[Moryath]

DDoS is also an unacceptable practice whose consequences are impossible to predict.

Sigh.

The consequences are quite simple: people can't get to the website for a while, either because the traffic isn't getting there or the server just crashes. Eventually it comes back up.

"DDoS" via LOIC - where all the participants are willing (a DDoS via botnet of hijacked computers being something else because the resources to launch it are stolen resources) - is no different than:

- The Retardican/Rea Tardier "virtual march on washington" a couple years ago that tied up the congressional phone banks for days.
- Holding a protest that shuts down a main street outside a building.
- Holding a sit-in protest at a business that "denies service" to customers who can't get through the area.

I don't condemn DDoS. As far as I'm concerned, it's a protest action. The moment we start criminalizing protest actions, we cease to be a free society and fall right in to the trap of the MafiAA/Repukelican corporate fascism model.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[ArhcAngel]

DDoS accomplishes nothing and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals

Just like sitting at the front of the bus and eating at a white's only counter did nothing to advance the cause for equality for black Americans. You might try to argue that they aren't of the same importance as one is simply a console but this isn't about modifying a console it is about freedom to do what we want with property we own. Printer companies have slapped encryption devices on their ink cartridges to prevent third party ink companies from being able to make compatible cartridges because they can invoke the DMCA FOR AN INK CARTRIDGE!

We need to get a ruling that hacking your own hardware is legal

The courts are mostly siding with the large corporations and the politicians created the DMCA FOR the large corporations so what other option do we have? These actions may seem counterproductive but they are getting the news media to start following theses stories. The reason the companies can get away with it is because mainstream Americans (or just about any country) know nothing about what is happening and even those that do don't care until it directly affects them. A bank's web site or Sony's being unavailable affects enough people as to be newsworthy. Once enough people know what is happening it is easier to get the laws changed if they need to be. Sony's actions are reprehensible and unnecessary. I bet had they chosen to meet with George he would have had valuable ideas on how to implement the otherOS function back without giving crackers any more advantage than they already had. Now we'll never know.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[yuna49]

Yes, they were people. They got arrested, too. DDOS has no moral equivalence with lunch-counter sit-ins, and not just because the latter had to do with civil rights. DDOS is an act of cowards. Protest all you want but be ready to accept the consequences. Read some Thoreau.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[Moryath]

They got arrested.

Then the arrests got thrown out.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[marcosdumay]

Anonymous would still exist even if everybody acted ethicaly (by your standards, I guess). Even if nobody wanted to act in an unethical way by their standards, they'd do unethical acts by somebody's else standards. That said, this case is completely different from the Wikileaks one, here people are on courts, looking for a rulling. At the Wikileaks one, people were simply acting, without any chance of defense for their oponents. I don't like the way the courts are working on this case, but you can't deny it is different.

Now, I second the oppinion of Moryath, a DDoS made by people is completely different from one made by bots, and it can't be criminal to use your bandwidth in a protest. I hightlight "your bandwidth" and "protest" here, without those qualifications, there can't be an exemption. And no corporations protesting, they shouldn't have that right.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[elrous0]

Are you DARING to imply that Sony is the one to blame for your obviously faulty internet connection? Please place your hands in the yellow circles, citizen...

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[elrous0]

At least MS isn't kicking down my door for modding my Xbox.

Re:I don't approve of the DDoS

[X0563511]

Dear Sony,

If you want to be treated in a civilized manner, then perhaps you should behave as if you are civilized yourself.

Regards,
Everyone Else

This hurts GeoHot

[schnikies79]

I don't own a single Sony branded product and likely never will, but this sad temper-tantrum that so-called Anonymous is throwing is doing nothing to help GeoHot and everything to hurt him. Lets not do anything, like stop buying their products or telling your friends why they shouldn't be buying them. Let's just egg their house instead!

This isn't the kind of people I want on my side during a court case of the this magnitude. DOSS attacks are for the lazy.

Re:This hurts GeoHot

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with your suggestions is that they are ineffective. Most people who own Sony gear don't care about their abusive behaviour, they just want a big screen TV or PS3 to play games on. You can try to explain it to them but if they want to play Tomb Raider I doubt it will stop them buying a PS3.

The same problem exists with peaceful protests. They usually don't make the TV news programmes and even when they do their grievances are barely mentioned. Government and large companies just ignore them. It is only when things get violent that they take notice. For example 2 million people marched peacefully in London against the Iraq invasion and were ignored, but when Poll Tax protests turned violent for a sustained period the government had to act.

So while DDOS'ing is breaking the law it is unfortunately the only way to get publicity and make people aware of your cause. If they manage to take sony.com or PSN offline they will get a headline.

Re:Predicting Idiocy in 3... 2... 1...

[oracleguy01]

It is happening. In a comment above someone posted a link to an article about it on The Inquirer and the comments are funny and sad. People are really upset that they can't play their call of duty.

A lot of the comments indicate people are suffering from a severe case of not knowing all the facts. But that shouldn't surprise anyone. They can't see the big picture and understand that their anger should be directed at Sony. I'm not saying DoSing the PSN is the best approach but it would be effective if people were actually upset at Sony. Based on the comments on that article people think GeoHot is a criminal that should go to jail.

If that's all he did...

[Duradin]

"Hotz had released a firmware modification that allowed a Sony PlayStation 3 to run other operating systems."

If that's all he did I wonder why Sony is so mad at him. It's not like he leaked their secret or anything. If he did that then I could see Sony breaking out the big legal hammer.

Or perhaps the summary is trying to paint St. George in a better light to inspire some sympathy from those who don't know better.

Re:If that's all he did...

[Travelsonic]

He released firmware modification, and how he figured it out - which includes, IIRC a code that is on the PS3's packaging and some basic algebra.

Re:If that's all he did...

[Travelsonic]

If he thought that the "cellphone jailbreaking is OK" decision would protect him, that was a little naive.

You say that like it's a fact [that said ruling won't protect him] - how about we wait for the actual trial?

Re:If that's all he did...

[matt_gaia]

What he did, and Sony is pissed at him over, is release the (at the time) root security key of the system, which enables any software to be signed as if it was a legit executable from Sony. Despite what most of the anti-Sony rants on /. (and the bit from Anon), this has nothing to do with jailbreaking his PS3, and everything to do with the releasing the key, which is a violation of the DMCA.

Re:If that's all he did...

[russotto]

Despite what most of the anti-Sony rants on /. (and the bit from Anon), this has nothing to do with jailbreaking his PS3, and everything to do with the releasing the key, which is a violation of the DMCA.

If releasing the key -- which is a number derivable from public information -- is a violation of the DMCA, then the DMCA is in violation of the First Amendment.

Re:If that's all he did...

[matt_gaia]

You would have to be one hell of a contortionist to make the stretch that this is some sort of First Amendment issue. Whether or not the DMCA is a good law is still an entirely separate argument, but this is nowhere near a free speech issue.

What he did was release the key, which still happens to be Sony's private key (read: theirs), in order to bypass the security of this system. Fail0verflow, who actually found the key, did the (relatively) right thing and realized the screw-up and sat on it, which is why they're not in that much of legal trouble, Things would have been fine if that twit St. George wouldn't have done the internet equivalent of breaking out the bullhorn and yelling "Hey, I got my hands on the security key to the PS3, but don't use it for piracy *wink wink*" ... and THAT is why this case is where it is.

Yes, Sony has been a pretty big dick about things the last 5+ years(CD rootkit, general quality of their hardware, etc...), but speaking as a software dev, they do have the right to try to protect the works for their game studios/3rd parties who develop for their system. If they were let piracy run rampant on the machine, which face it, that's what most "homebrew" would have been for, PS3 gamers would only have to look forward to our yearly allotment of Madden/COD games.

Re:If that's all he did...

[nosferatu1001]

A number is not "yours" to own, right. You do realise that?

You cannot copyright a number as it is not a creative expression

Re:If that's all he did...

[matt_gaia]

*sigh*....*facepalm*....And I thought my reading/legal comprehension was off today.....

  No, I cannot claim to own "12345" as my own number if it were the combination to my luggage. But, if you get a hold of the combination to that, I can go after you for releasing that combination to everyone. That is EXACTLY what Geohot is in trouble for.

This is not about copyrighting a key.... it is about distributing a security key that a) he should not have had and b) is used to secure something that is copyrighted (e.g. Firmware/software published by Sony).

Re:If that's all he did...

[aaron552]

Sony sold me a console containing their private key in its hardware. This private key is needed to run all the software on the PS3, and must therefore be distributed in some form with the console. How is accessing numbers stored in hardware that I own and then publishing said numbers somehow illegal? Don't I own these TPM modules that I bought from Sony as part of this PS3 console?

Re:If that's all he did...

[Duradin]

Sony removed the wondrous OtherOS *after* Geohot (ab)used it to crack their system. So thank George for your precious OtherOS machine no longer being able to play online or current games, since if it really was that valuable you could choose to just not update and you'd retain that all important feature.

Re:If that's all he did...

[matt_gaia]

So, by your logic, if you decompiled something, such as one of the Office executables and during the decompile, you discovered a flaw that would let you bypass the 25-character key and Windows Genuine Advantage before setup and the activation after setup. Now that you have the key, you could either:
a) send something to MS, saying "Hey, I found a security flaw with x you might want to fix" or
b) post something on YouTube to the equivalent of "HEY EVERYONE!!!! I CAN GET AROUND WGA AND WINDOWS ACTIVATION!!!!1!one!! Now I'm not saying that you should pirate Office, but here's the flaw and how to exploit it."

Obviously, you would be in no legal trouble doing B, right? You did purchase your copy of Office, so it should be yours to do whatever you want to with it. I mean, you did pay for your copy of Office just like you paid for your copy of all of the firmware included on the PS3 (as well as accept their TOS when it comes to the OS on the first boot of the system), so there should be no legal implications, correct?

How about for arguments sake, you go ahead and try B, and let all of us here know how it works out for you, ok?

Re:If that's all he did...

[aaron552]

There are differences with this case:

• I don't have to agree to the PSN TOS when buying, starting or using a PS3.
• The code that GeoHot published does not, by itself and without significant extra work, allow piracy on the PS3 console

Re:If that's all he did...

[russotto]

Obviously, you would be in no legal trouble doing B, right?

That's what free speech means. Just like those guys who figured out that you could use a Bic pen to open a Kryptonite lock were in no legal trouble for posting the videos demonstrating that. The only law making this illegal in the computerized case is the DMCA, and its no stretch to say that this is a violation of the First Amendment.

Suppose I figured out I could bypass Office copy-protection by holding down the shift key during startup? How is it anything but a clear violation of free speech to prevent me from saying so? (of course, you can't -- but there has been a copy protection scheme which was that simple to bypass.).

As for the number being Sony's "private" key... it's private in the sense of a public-private cryptosystem. It's not private in the same sense as "personal privacy", and even if it wasn't, corporations don't have personal privacy rights. And it's "Sony's key" in the sense that it is the key Sony uses. It is not a key which belongs to Sony, because it's impossible to own a random number. You're all up in arms because a guy made a particular random number public, and you're twisting yourself into knots trying to avoid the obvious free speech issue.

While I'm not sure I agree with DDoSes...

[bhtooefr]

...they're as close to a sit-in as you can get, as far as non-violent but effective protest goes.

Often, illegal things have to be done to right wrongs, especially when the laws are written by those doing the wrongs.

(If the wrongs are severe enough, extremely illegal things may be morally OK, on the other hand. As in, using the second amendment to defend oneself against violations of rights.)

Re:While I'm not sure I agree with DDoSes...

[Kalriath]

Again, you can walk past a sit-in to use the store or service you intended if you feel inclined to. You cannot ignore a DDoS in order to access a store or service you intended to. Hence, they are exactly nothing alike whatsoever - and the only people who claim they are alike are just trying to justify what is essentially a destructive action. Sony may be assholes, but Anonymous are bigger ones.

Re:While I'm not sure I agree with DDoSes...

[xMrFishx]

If a shop holds 50 maximum and you have a sit in of 40, guess what, walking past it is not something you can just do. If the shop has 60 people trying to perform a sit in, then shop bandwidth exceeded, user access denied. Same with a DDoS. The problem is not that DDoS manage to properly hinder their targets, it's that shop sit-ins do not. You get 10 people who target BigMegaStore with a bandwidth of 50 humans/sec instead of finding a better choke point where they can perform actual throttling of services. If megacorps piss people off, they can't cry when they get a shitstorm.

Re:While I'm not sure I agree with DDoSes...

[Jeek Elemental]

I think its an excellent way to protest, and very effective since companies dont know if its backed up by other, more skilled individuals.
It isnt going to do any damage but it will make many sonyers nervous about getting hbgaryed.

Besides, what other forms of protest are there on the web? Angry forum posts?

Re:While I'm not sure I agree with DDoSes...

[Kalriath]

Except that if they do actually choke off service, the store calls the police and the protesters are told to disperse or face arrest. Again, nothing like a DDoS where that course of action is not possible.

Re:While I'm not sure I agree with DDoSes...

[Kalriath]

Still wrong. If a sit-in is obstructing to the point that customers cannot actually use the store, the protesters are told to disperse or face arrest. Nothing like a DDoS, where you can't find the douchebags to tell them to leave.

Stop trying to defend it - a DDoS is a vigilante action taken by lazy good for nothing douchebags. Much like Sony.

Re:Predicting Idiocy in 3... 2... 1...

[Travelsonic]

Just read the article - and am reading the comments - my brain just threw up trying to comprehend the idiocy.

Easiest way to have a profound effect on SONY

[Phizzle]

Is to go online and slam them in reviews on every site they advertise their wares, services, etc. Millions of potential customers base their purchasing decisions on these metrics. Sites like Amazon, Newegg, Google Products, Yelp (SONY Stores), and so on. Of course these would have to be honest reviews about products actually purchased, services actually experienced and stores actually attended.

Re:Easiest way to have a profound effect on SONY

[Zandamesh]

Shhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas!

semantics

[MarkvW]

Hotz=hacker
Anonymous=cracker

Summary shouldn't lump both together as hackers.

Re:semantics

[haderytn]

Hotz=hacker
Anonymous=cracker

Summary shouldn't lump both together as hackers.

You have presented assumptive generalization of both Hotz and Anonymous....something about lumping together...

Re:semantics

[Culture20]

Which was is the Vatican liked again?

Re:semantics

[jarlsberg71]

Both, as long as their under 13 and can keep a secret.

How much damage?

[Zandamesh]

I'm curious, how much damage does something like turning off PSN for 24 hours do in actual money? They had to hire a security firm so it can't just be a little bit. What variables play a role?

stupid

[Charliemopps]

Just read that article... it's just garbage. A splinter group of anonymous? How could they have a splinter group? 3 posts in an IRC channel that everyone in the world has access to mean they did it? I could ddos Sony and post it in that IRC channel. Next time there's a major earthquake I'm going to log into a channel called OpQuake claiming Anon is activating its earthquake machine... bet it makes CNN. People are stupid.

Re:stupid

[jank1887]

people would only believe you if it coincides with a space shuttle launch.

2 minds

[mywhitewolf]

I'm of 2 minds over this subject, on one hand, i can hardly consider vigilantism appropriate. but as someone who was burnt by sony, i feel a personal justification of "serves them right".

on the other hand though, this is bringing a lot more attention the case, which is exactly what is needed for the "free market" to do its job properly. Even if its being gone about the wrong way, the attention of the masses to the court case and the nasty tactics that are being employed by sony is really important.

Re:another hacker?

[mywhitewolf]

Your right I guess its lucky that conditions like "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome" exist then and match your analogy perfectly. fortunately for the hive mind its the people that actually make a difference that get all the media attention,

Stop buying Sony products?

[sgrover]

Stop buying Sony products? Even if every geek who is aware of the issues did that, Sony would only loose a small percentage of their income. The consumer sheeple out there don't know any different or don't care. Extend that beyond the PS3's to other Sony products - phones, laptops, etc. and the geek boycott becomes a minor ripple.

And I'll challenge you to actually stop buying Sony products. It is harder than you think. That new game you've been eyeing that doesn't say "Sony" on it anywhere? probably made/distributed by Sony - watch the opening credits. That new electronic device you want probably has some Sony product in there.

While I don't agree with what amounts to vandalism (ddos'ing servers), sometimes a more drastic method is needed. All the people who can't access PSN today may actually find out WHY, and start learning about the greater issues. Sony actually takes a bigger financial AND social hit this way. In one single day, more damage has been done to their reputation than a week of geeks trying to boycott Sony would ever cause.

Redirection on the IBtimes page

[John Saffran]

User beware! The IBtimes article in the summary attempts to redirect to a fake antivirus page

Re:Redirection on the IBtimes page

[John Saffran]

In my case it sent me to hxxp://bestlaserscanantiv.com/index.php?06abQDU9QU6XUGv8rSw2jMiscm1vOCQ5eFBceXKtAFhQMZFwRCiHftY70F8ghchXFnM=

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

anonymous press release

[Weezul]

Isn't there an anonymous press release like every 10 min? Is anyone implementing this particular one?

It'll be more effective just posting stuff about all their products are radio active now. You could make a youtube video of yourself with a geiger counter showing the radiation. You might post maps about contamination of their warehouses in Japan, conjecturing their supply chain will bring radio active products to the U.S. until 2013.

Re:anonymous press release

[conspirator57]

i hope you're joking, because if not, you're a dick. probably as big a dick as the christians who support gbagbo.

even if you are joking, you're still a dick, just not as big a dick as you would be if you're not joking.

Re:anonymous press release

[marcosdumay]

Yes, that would be more effective. And also would be hightly immoral, even for the people that think the DDoS is moraly right.

Re:anonymous press release

[Weezul]

Ahh, but both are light years less immoral than Sony's behavior here. Ergo, it's boils down to whether those acting on behalf of "anonymous" could persuade Sony to abandon their immoral lawsuits by more moral means. If not, well Sony deserves that it gets for (partially) abandoning civilized society.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Re:anonymous press release

[marcosdumay]

I agree, but the same way I won't get in the Anonymous cruzade because I think their methods are wrong (in the sense that they don't work), one'd have to accept that even less people are wiling to go into more questionable methods.

That said, such an attack needs only a small team of perpetrators, so nothing we talk here can make it happen, or not happen.

Re:anonymous press release

[Weezul]

"Don't work" is kinda a valid criticism, except you also want to get people talking bout stuff

Posting videos of yourself criticizing sony with a geiger counter might work.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sony has for a long time sold shit.

[Entropius]

Back when I wanted to buy a digital camera, I looked at a couple of competing models from Sony, Panasonic, and Canon. All of them were of the "superzoom" type, with ambitiously-specified zoom lenses.

Sony's products were loaded with features -- fancy modes, gadgets, and a shiny, sleek interface. They had the marketing campaign to back them up, too.

But their lenses ... agh. They had *horrible* chromatic aberration, that optical defect that causes different colors to not focus the same way and creates colored fringes around everything. This isn't something that makes the ad campaigns, but it *is* something that professional reviewers (fortunately) turn up, and something that will be present in every picture you take.

Panasonic's cameras, on the other hand (back then) were pretty simple. The one I bought had very few widgets that weren't actually related to taking a picture, and a pretty basic/ugly on-screen display that showed the image preview, f/number, and shutter speed, along with the focus reticle. They had the fastest autofocus of any of them, and the best and brightest lenses of any of them, using special (not cheap) ED glass to further reduce aberrations. Remaining aberrations were analytically characterized and compensated for (as much as possible) by the camera's image processor automatically. None of this is stuff they advertised, but it sure showed in the images -- I have giant prints from that camera hanging on my walls that look fantastic.

Re:Sony has for a long time sold shit.

[Entropius]

Chromatic aberration is a property of any refractive system, but it can be greatly reduced by good design. As you say it's something not worth worrying about in many applications, but the Sony's C/A was bad enough to be obnoxious most of the time in most scenes.

The reviews I mention are the ones at dpreview, which used to be (and still somewhat are) extremely well done -- their test still-life is the same for all models, they shoot it at essentially the same angle of view for everyone, and they're obviously doing the tests in an unbiased way. (This angle of view is more or less 85mm equivalent; obviously for these zooms that go out to 400mm equivalent or more, that has to be tested separately, and they do it just by showing samples. As you'd expect chromatic aberration is worse out there, but there's a definite quality difference between Sony and others.

Re:Sony has for a long time sold shit.

[Entropius]

Actually, you *can* compensate for chromatic aberration in any lens, zoom or prime, to a rather large degree, using multiple glass elements and various different types of glass. There's no need to have a piece of glass change its shape; you just need multiple pieces of glass moving with respect to each other. How well you can compensate for aberrations (of any type) depends basically on how elaborate a design you are willing to use (more glass elements made out of more exotic types of glass get heavy and expensive) and how clever you are. (Lenses got a lot better once people started using computers to help design them.)

To compare like for like, look at tests of two zoom lenses of roughly 3x ratio:

First is Nikon's best short telephoto zoom, the 70-200mm f/2.8 II: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon70-200f28vr2/caloader.htm
The only cheapo 3x zoom to compare it to that has about the same focal length range that they've tested is the Olympus 40-150: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus40-150f4-56/caloader.htm

The difference is >3x here, but it can be much more than that; the Olympus lens linked above is remarkably good for a $70 thing that comes with the camera. (Note that the D200 they used for the test does not have automatic chromatic aberration removal.)

Another example is the various versions of the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens. The early version had stronger chromatic aberration; they made a new one that used several pieces of anomalous-dispersion glass that greatly reduces this. (I have the Olympus 70-300, which is the same optical formula as the new Sigma, and can confirm that it's quite good.)

For fixed lenses, there is even more variability. In fact, there's a company -- Coastal Optics -- that sells lenses made with exotic types of glass and fancy designs that essentially eliminate chromatic aberration even well outside the visible range.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hackers?

[Nursie]

Since the HBGary affair, and other things. There are a bunch of disgruntled hackers and an army of script kiddies. This 'campaign' seems to be more to do with the script kiddie side of things.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

please don't revise the Hotz story

[YesIAmAScript]

Hotz released his hypervisor hack for PS3 and then Sony removed the ability to run other OSes in response.

Hotz then released another hack later which brought the ability to run other OSes back.

Hotz did not just act to restore something Sony had removed, Hotz acted first by breaking out of the penalty box that other OSes ran in. You may agree or disagree with breaking out of the penalty box, but either way, that was the first punch that started the battle between Hotz and Sony, not Sony removing the capability to run other OSes.

Here's a good list of illegal activities:

[mykos]

1. Refusing to move to the back of a bus for a white person.

Geez, it's just a seat! Come on, why don't you just move? You're ruining it for other bus passengers by disrupting their ride.

2. Throwing hundreds of crates of someone else's tea into the harbor

Geez, it's just a small tax! Come on, why don't you just stop drinking tea? You're ruining it for other tea drinkers by disrupting their supply of tea.

3. DDoS on Sony.

Geez, it's just video games! Come on, why don't you just stop buying from Sony? You're ruining it for PSN users by disrupting their service.

Re:Here's a good list of illegal activities:

[kelemvor4]

Well stated!

Re:Here's a good list of illegal activities:

[noobermin]

i'd mod you if i could.

Re:another hacker?

[Omestes]

Calling 4chan "hackers" is like calling the kids in special ed "rocket scientists".

From what I've read; Anonymous isn't 4chan anymore, its gotten much, much, bigger. Claiming that Anon is just 4chan, is like saying it is just the ACs here. Anonymous is just that, and also amorphous, leaderless, and completely random. Think of these seemingly coordinated attacks as more standing waves than fine structure. A network of IRC channels, forums, and a couple *Chans randomly coalesce into noticeable action against mostly random targets for very random reasons. Once an attack starts, and somehow has enough momentum, it snowballs into a full on assault as the more meek and trepidatious members get emboldened.

Anon is more of an angry mob (ala the protests in the middle east currently) than representatives of any single body.

Also, the nerd part of me agrees with you about the misuse of the term "hacker", but sadly that bus left town a very long time ago. Hacker means something much much different these days than what it did 10-20 years ago. I hate it, you hate it, but the fight has been long lost.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

war machine

[kemp0master]

maybe $ony is butturt that the us air force has managed to cobble together a supercomputer from their gaming consoles.

Defense against SONY is simple.

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

A defence case is quite easy against SONY. Once you buy a PS3 it is your property and you can do with it what you like and SONY does not have a leg to stand on.

I might even buy a PS3 and make a movie just for the hell of it and put it on you tube. First I will torture it in a microwave, connect a car battery to it and fry it's brains (Electric Chair) then smash it into pieces with a hammer and set it on fire.

Well if I decide to buy one, I own it. The you tube video would go viral!

Re:Defense against SONY is simple.

[MeateaW]

And after you do it to one, you can buy another! and torture that to death! Take that Sony!! Maybe after you've bought like 50 Sony will finally give in! In fact I'm sure they will be so sad, they will be sure to give you a free copy of God of War 7 and pray you wont burn that on your extremely popular viral Youtube channel in front of your whole audience...

Re:Defense against SONY is simple.

[minasoko]

They wont care about this at all. They are not going after Geohot because he used his PS3 as a paperweight, they are going after him because they claim he altered the embedded software running on the PS3 and redistributed it illegally. This is my understanding, so add a pinch of salt to taste.

Re:Defense against SONY is simple.

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

And after you do it to one, you can buy another! and torture that to death!

Take that Sony!!

Maybe after you've bought like 50 Sony will finally give in! In fact I'm sure they will be so sad, they will be sure to give you a free copy of God of War 7 and pray you wont burn that on your extremely popular viral Youtube channel in front of your whole audience...

Well I have just bought one and am picking it up in a few hours. I have a really nice BBQ outside... I will get some charcoal whilst I am at it and say sorry I do not want to pay for an extended warranty. Take it back fired to a crisp and say have you ever heard of spontanoeus combustion? Must have been the firmware that did it and get constant replacements under the sale of goods law.

After a while they will get bored and then I can blame it on a BAD batch of machines!!!!!! The money is worth it for entertainment value, but hang on isn't that what SONY's key business is?

Re:Defense against SONY is simple.

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

They wont care about this at all. They are not going after Geohot because he used his PS3 as a paperweight, they are going after him because they claim he altered the embedded software running on the PS3 and redistributed it illegally.

This is my understanding, so add a pinch of salt to taste.

I see your point. however if one buys a computer with windows OEM pre-installed, there is no legal comeback if you install Linux on it or BSD. It is your machine. The lesson to be learned here is he should have released it under the GPL first as it is Linux and open source. Either which way you look at it, SONY does not have a leg to stand on legally.

What SONY are doing is clearly illegal locking you in to closed source software. I am sure this case will not go away. Just to add some pepper to your salt to taste ;-)

oh for a techie president, speaker, conress, etc

[smilnrt]

***sigh***

So Sad

[rfolkker]

While I don't agree with Sony's practices, and well, they have no idea of how negatively their tactics impact their sales. However, as Sony is not the only company impacted by this. Yesterday was the first time in over a month that I powered up my PS3 to download and install Socom 4 Beta, and well, I was lucky enough to download and install it, I was done after that as I could no longer connect to their network.

So, while I can see why they think it's a great idea by bringing attention to these issues, they really are no different then (and forgive me, but it really is the same) the Tea Party. Young idealistic people who think that they can change the world by running head first at the establishment and thinking it will change. It is counter-productive, and tends to cause the established group to over-compensate.

Why don't these people do something useful

[bluefoxlucid]

Meanwhile, scam artists are still running major scams on Craigslist and in e-mail. Nobody has flooded out their sites with crap; this is because these people are criminals that want attention, not vigilante superheroes making the world a better place.

Re:Why don't these people do something useful

[marcosdumay]

They are after a bigger scam artist, that is scamming the US Judicial system out of the civil liberties of their people.

Really, your poster doesn't look like sarcasm, but I can't imagine you are being so disingenious.

Re:Why don't these people do something useful

[bluefoxlucid]

They are the fodder for convincing the legal system that there are too many rights and that groups like this can cause harm to large interests, which of course is economically costly and thus causes harm to small interests.

Re:Why don't these people do something useful

[marcosdumay]

Yes, that is true. But that doesn't make your argument that they should go against somebody else any less wrong.

Re:Why don't these people do something useful

[bluefoxlucid]

Mayhaps, but I still think they are simply attention whoring and not actually doing anything that will cause any sort of change. I mean it's like watching a chihuahua bark at a tiger. The rats are actually more generally annoying.

Re:The Worst Thing for $ony...

[aaron552]

Until a method to break out of the Hypervisor became possible, gaming on Linux on a PS3 (via OtherOS) was pretty hard, as there was no access to the graphics hardware. Now? You need to "illegally" jailbreak your PS3 to install Linux at all.

About damn time

[Old Sparky]

Anonymous vs Sony leaves me no one to root for.

They're like two assholes, farting at each other.

You should sell the PS3

[qubezz]

Sell it. Do not use or keep the PS3. If there is a flood of used PS3s on the market, nobody that wants one will need to pay Sony money for a new one anymore.

Granted, Sony was already selling the consoles under their cost (where's the federal dumping sanction?), knowing that anyone that owns a PS3, used or not, may buy other Sony products such as games. OtherOS was a promised selling feature, but now they brick PS3s so you can only run their purchased games.

If you own a PS3, then you are a Sony customer; a group also known as potential lawsuit defendants. It's probably better to just destroy the damned device rather than let it report your IP address back to Sony or encourage anyone else to pay another cent for Sony product for it.

Re:You should sell the PS3

[PopeRatzo]

Sell it. Do not use or keep the PS3. If there is a flood of used PS3s on the market, nobody that wants one will need to pay Sony money for a new one anymore.

OK, but I'm going to hack it first.

Maybe I'll donate it to Cathedral Shelter Resale Shop so they can get a few bucks for it.

But first, I'm going to make it more user friendly.

More damage

[Anon8---)]

Just bringing down the web page is useless. Bring down the game servers and Sony WILL have a problem or a least a few angry customers.