Slashdot Mirror
Sony Officially Blames Anonymous For PSN Hack
H_Fisher writes "In a letter to Congress, Kazuo Hirai, chairman of Sony's board of directors, blames hacker group Anonymous for making possible the theft of gamers' personal information. 'What is becoming more and more evident is that Sony has been the victim of a very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyber attack designed to steal personal and credit card information for illegal purposes,' Hirai wrote. He also indicated that Sony waited two days before notifying the FBI of the theft."
I officially blame Sony for being PSN hacked.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
"carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"
These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Dont have the competency or skill to run your network correctly?
Dont know who else to blame when your on the hook for a class action and liability in the billions?
Blame Anonymous.
The fact that the attack involve the theft of credit card data, as opposed to just shutting down the network, screams "not Anonymous" to me. You know, given how Anonymous tends to just shut things down with DDoS attacks, or occasionally overwrite a web page with one that spreads some message.
Palm trees and 8
Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.
Did they really claim to be defending themselves against a "hacker" in court? Don't they mean "suing"? And isn't it unfair to lump the hackers who stole the information with completely different hacker, Geohot? Who the fuck wrote this article?
There is no 'Anonymous.' It's just a term that's been widely co-opted. Sort of like 'Al Qaeda.'
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
There is no official "anonymous" and there is no leadership or command structure. It's a concept, an idea to describe an emergent system of hacktivism. Saying anonymous is responsible for this (or anything) is like saying democracy is responsible for causing the wars in the middle east. You're mixing up an idea, an ethos, with an organization.
Yes, but when an organization runs around saying they are attacking targets, and when that organization has no real leadership (collective/mob), they also can't cry foul if someone co-opts their name, claims to be part of them (since they have no real membership requirement or leadership, whose to say), and decides to either:
1) Partake in the attack even though it has been officially "called off" (hey, just because most of Anonymous might be clueless, doesn't mean some of it can't hack/crack with the best of them.
2) Use your name as a convenient scape goat to pin their crime on (okay, we take as much data as we can, and point the finger at THOSE guys over there).
Either which way, saying "Anonymous Denied all Responsibility, It MUST BE SONY'S FAULT!" is the biggest LOL of them all.
Its the fault of the malicious idiot who attacked and broke into the network. Yeah, Sony should have done a better job securing the data, but that does not absolve the THIEF of responsibility (in spite of what most slashdotters seem to think).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Looking for credit card info? Anonymous tends to do things for idealogical reasons, AFAIK. There may be some overlap, but this sounds like organized crime. And yes, known vulnerabilities are things you should not be vulnerable to if you have credit card info for even two million people.
Legalese. They defended their IP against Geohot's hacking. Whether we see it like that is a different story. Most of us see it as Geohot had to defend his ownership of hardware from Sony. IANAL, but I think the law sees both as correct until a judgment is made.
Saying anonymous is responsible for this (or anything) is like saying democracy is responsible for causing the wars in the middle east. You're mixing up an idea, an ethos, with an organization.
Are you equating the loosely-affiliated group Anonymous with a concept like democracy, or are you redefining the common definition of Anonymous as a loosely-affiliated group to now mean anyone involved in hacking or online attacks for an ideological reason other than financial gain? I've never heard proponents of democracy, or any other ethos, say something as cheesy as "We are [ethos]. We are Legion. Expect Us." The words "we" and "us" clearly identify people as a group. That is, even Anonymous thinks they're a group and not just an ethos. They are not an ethos, they are a group of people with some common world views, regardless of whether or not they have an official roster.
It's perfectly reasonable that a not-for-profit attacker would in fact steal valuable information just to steal it, not necessarily to release or sell it. It makes Sony look much worse, and costs them more, to have their customers' financial and personal data stolen, even if that information never actually gets used or released. In addition, it's not Sony's customers that Anonymous wants to attack, it is Sony itself. It doesn't serve their goals to release customer information, all they need to do is steal it. In other words, it would fit in with the idea of revenge against Sony to simply do as much damage to them as possible even if you don't plan on benefiting directly from the attack.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sony, go fuck yourselves.
We are not "Anonymous."
We are the customers whose data you exposed by being a bunch of idiot fucktards who wouldn't bother with the most basic of data encryption.
And WE ARE STILL LEGION.
I have to agree. If so, it is the first time Anonymous has been called "very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated" about anything. That alone should raise flags.
due entirely to Sony's fuckwitted lack of security concerning sensitive data, I have had to take measures to protect my identity
Fuckwitted, indeed. By making this (dubious sounding) claim, they have just poked anon with a stick after it has just been demonstrated that they have a major security problem. There is a fair chance that anon has a sizable population of already irritated PSN users. In light of the whole HBGary fiasco, does this REALLY seem like a wise thing to do?
GG Sony, you are proving to be more entertaining by the day...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!