Slashdot Mirror


Japan Says No To PlayStation Network Restart

tekgoblin writes "Although Sony may be restoring services on the PlayStation Network around the world, one country has said 'No.' Japan has not yet given Sony approval to start up their online services, making the company wait until they have proven that they have taken the necessary measures to secure their network against another incident."

146 comments

  1. Bravo Japan! by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A government that actually does its job (protect the citizens' rights). Good for them.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Bravo Japan! by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      No networks is secure no matter how many steps are taken there is always a hole to get in

    2. Re:Bravo Japan! by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's no excuse to be lazy about keeping up to date with patches, and apparently having no disaster recovery plan.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I assume you never bother with firewalls on your home and local systems either, because they're still not secure.

    4. Re:Bravo Japan! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Perfect is the enemy of Good. The question is not is their setup perfect, but is it good. Odds are it is just the cheapest fix they could come up with.

    5. Re:Bravo Japan! by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Perfect is the enemy of good.

    6. Re:Bravo Japan! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, that would have been to have standards in place and make Sony follow them before they were permitted to even put up the PSN. This is the same kind of "protect" that the police are there for. "To Serve and Protect"? No. "To Punish After the Fact".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Bravo Japan! by zanian · · Score: 1

      really... Troll? You may not agree, but I don't think he's being a troll. I wish I had some Mod points right now.

    8. Re:Bravo Japan! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A government that actually does its job (protect the citizens' rights). Good for them.

      Right. And just sort of ignores major problems with nuclear reactors. Nice set of priorities there.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:Bravo Japan! by cinderellamanson · · Score: 0

      Good enough, usually isn't.

      --
      Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
    10. Re:Bravo Japan! by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>"To Serve and Protect"? No. "To Punish After the Fact".

      Excellent point. Didn't think of it in that way.
      Of course, in order to prevent ANY kind of disaster/theft/etc (i.e. zero such events), the government would have to put its nose into everything. Seems kinda... invasive? Of course if they did that with corporations I'd certainly have no objections.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    11. Re:Bravo Japan! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      And yet, if the US tried to tell YOU that you were not permitted to run a legal server that you wanted to run, there would be screams of censorship.

      The government does not have the duty to protect the citizens from themselves, nor to deny the citizens the right to run a service that is within the bounds of the law.

      IF the Sony service is breaking the law, the government has the duty to step in. Until it breaks the law, Sony should be allowed to run its service just as Apple and Google and every other content provider is.

    12. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ...really believe this? And that it's helpful? I want to be blunt...I can and have made a secure network. Of course, *I* was the user. And it really only provided five public facing services, four of which ran in different BSD jails with custom per-account firewall settings. There was a brief window where I had to patch SSH.

      My other measures would...not be acceptable on a corporate network... needing a special SSH key to get a second DHCP lease that generated an address with routing permissions to the internal VPN ... just not gonna fly. But believe me... if you cracked WPA, you'd get the ability to ping a router and SSH into one host.

      But the real question is... was an appropriate level of security undertaken. Just because there's usually way in doesn't mean you shouldn't decide what appropriate protective measures are. If you knew my user account password and login, you *COULD* ssh in. It's not a likely threat given the presence of a nonstandard port, a strange login, and a good password. Of course, I usually used an SSH-key instead of a username/password.

      Security is NOT a boolean variable. It's a risk analysis, understanding, and guided acceptance. For a corp the size of sony to either not know, or accept an ancient Apache install is...not acceptable. Sony may not be able to secure their network against the best guy in the world... but they should be able to demonstrate it takes a certain level of competence, skill, and time to penetrate it it completely.

      They should be able to demonstrate you cannot do it with simple off the shelf tools. They should be able to demonstrate they have mitigated the most likely risks and prevented reasonably anticipated threats to their users.

      If they can't do this, they should be able to demonstrate someone's actually made and signed off on the decision that it's cheaper to lose the accounts, get hacked, and throw their users to the wolves than hire admins capable of fixing it. Because as of today, P(hack) = 1.0 ... not whatever their risk assessment said it was.

      And so far, they've done none of this.

    13. Re:Bravo Japan! by ipwndk · · Score: 1

      Sure it is

      All our technology is based on good enough. Do you see perfection anywhere? No! We must make do.

      --
      01 REDEFINE REALITY.
    14. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their network (and apache) WAS patched. That acusation was crap. Do some research on google.

    15. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you share an honest opinion that the average slashdotter agrees on it's instant karma, if they don't like it (even if the post is perfectly motivated and well written) you will get modded down. Kind of sad... The modding system isn't there to promote your agenda, it's there to promote the insightful discussions Slashdot is known for!

    16. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a river, and Have a Nice Day.

    17. Re:Bravo Japan! by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      and apparently having no disaster recovery plan.

      I do not think it means what you think it means. Go here for more information.

    18. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because being hacked is definitely not a natural or "human-induced" catastrophe.

      They were clearly hacked by robots!

    19. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumers, being people, do have the right to conduct business without undue interference.

      Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face

      (Cue those who want to make a million excuses why a consumer should not be allowed to buy a good or service from another party, knowing full well the general and particular risks. Also cue those who feel that it is necessary to prevent such a transaction not because it directly hurts other innocent parties, but because... it just goes against social order/global warming/global cooling/insurance premiums/sony sux lolz)

      Put another way, my desire to do or not do business with Sony isn't up for referendum.

    20. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't mean a plan on recovering from a disaster? News to me.

    21. Re:Bravo Japan! by danbuter · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points.

    22. Re:Bravo Japan! by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      A government that actually did its job in this instance (protect the citizens' rights). Good for them.

      More like this. Japan's government takes some positive unilateral actions without consulting business on occasion, but on average they're not a lot better than ours in the US.

    23. Re:Bravo Japan! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. nope, that reads as exactly what I think it means. What do you think it means?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    24. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll64 has a history of trolling. He's gotten better, but my guess is he's still suffering the consequences of his past actions.

    25. Re:Bravo Japan! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Perfect and Good don't always get along, but they can and do cooperate in their eternal struggle against Sucks.

    26. Re:Bravo Japan! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      So you'd also claim that, the NY Times, not being a person, has no right to free speech and the government may censor the NY Times all it wants? Or let's use the Tokyo Shinbun (I think that's the Tokyo daily) as the example. Governments may censor corporations all they want? Even when corporations are made up of people who actually do have the right to free speech?

      But then, this isn't an issue of free speech, it is an issue of commercial activity, and discrimination by company is not a valid activity of government. If what Sony wants to do is legal, then Japanese government should shut up and let them do it. If the Japanese government wants to make it illegal, then pass a law.

    27. Re:Bravo Japan! by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. nope, that reads as exactly what I think it means. What do you think it means?

      As linked in the wiki article, it refers to disasters like floods or bombing; where the building that housed your data center no longer exists and you're employees are probably living in shelters.

    28. Re:Bravo Japan! by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      While I understand your initial point, you lost me as you began the next sentence. Have cops never interrupted a robbery? Prevented a murder? Broken up a street fight? You're absolutely right in that the standards are late coming, but that doesn't translate to cops only punishing after the fact. Lastly, while yes, they are late, I'm glad they're coming up now "to serve and protect" in the future(hopefully).

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    29. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As linked in the wiki article

      wikipedia's never wrong and always 100% specific, if it's not on the wiki page it's wrong. you'll find those things listed in the broad disaster categories are examples.

    30. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that protecting citizens' rights is the government's job, but I don't believe this is protecting them. Citizens need to be informed of the situation, then given the freedom to choose whether or not to use the service. This is taking away their right to choose whether to use a known insecure service.

    31. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll admit that you are better than you used to be, but your past still seems to be biting you in the ass.

    32. Re:Bravo Japan! by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      Now, if the Japanese government can get Sony to cough up some compensation for the nearly 100 million users that were comprimised...

      --
      Stone
    33. Re:Bravo Japan! by skywiseguy · · Score: 2

      wow, someone read bruce schneier's interview on kotaku about the PSN outage!

    34. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The government does not have the duty to protect the citizens from themselves, nor to deny the citizens the right to run a service that is within the bounds of the law."

      Well tell me, then why the fuck does the U.S. government have the right to tell me what drugs I can and cannot put into my own body? Eh? Hey, it's my body--if I want to do drugs, it's only harming myself. And only potentially (depending on the drugs) at that.

    35. Re:Bravo Japan! by man_the_king · · Score: 1

      If you share an honest opinion that the average slashdotter agrees on it's instant karma, if they don't like it (even if the post is perfectly motivated and well written) you will get modded down. Kind of sad... The modding system isn't there to promote your agenda, it's there to promote the insightful discussions Slashdot is known for!

      In my opinion, Slashdot cannot lay claim to promoting insightful discussions anymore, at least as far as anything Sony is concerned. Over here, most /. folks are willing to believe ANYTHING negative about Sony, even if it's from the worst sort of tabloid, and are unwilling to do the slightest bit of research if said research will work to disprove their bias against Sony.

      Over here, anything anti-Sony, even if it's a blatant example of trolling = modded > +2,3,4 or 5 Insightful, Interesting or Informative, while anything NOT anti-Sony = modded 0, -1 Troll or Flamebait.

      Says a lot about the maturity of the moderators here.

    36. Re:Bravo Japan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somersault said: That's no excuse to be lazy about keeping up to date with patches, and apparently having no disaster recovery plan.

      Spoken like an IT professional. Unfortunately most of the PC "professionals" out there. You know who you are hey I have a computer in the backroom and I have done the wiring and know every last thing there is to know people. Yeah the ones that put the Internet on everyones desktop and still don't backup you email or having a written document giving all the steps that you do personally to back up and maintain the computer(s). So what if you are murdered or killed on the way home or to work or on a quick weekend to aunt Frieda's. Yes you know who you are....

  2. Kudos to Japan by Hultis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a very nice move by Japan - rather than bending their laws to maximize corporate profit, a disturbing trend, they do the absolute opposite and force Sony to take measures that protect customers (which will cost Sony quite a bit). Customers win, Sony loses. Excellent, they really deserved it!

    1. Re:Kudos to Japan by drb226 · · Score: 1

      Sony doesn't necessarily "lose" if these forced changes can help them regain customers' confidence. Getting the OK from Japan could be a great boon to Sony, and a chance for them to say "hey look, we redid everything and now everything bad is all better!" (whether or not it actually is)

    2. Re:Kudos to Japan by Hultis · · Score: 2

      Nope, but when a country bends over for the companies it might be time to think it over.

    3. Re:Kudos to Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      profits at the expense of all else is. don't be a fucking idiot

    4. Re:Kudos to Japan by LastGunslinger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your logic would imply slavery is fine so long as the business employing it makes money. Profits are neutral. The methods used to make them are not. Neither the consumer nor the worker should be harmed so the company can profit.

    5. Re:Kudos to Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profits are not evil. Putting profits over the well being of your customers, is.

    6. Re:Kudos to Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb socialists

    7. Re:Kudos to Japan by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      What is with the link between profit and slavery issue. When ever someone has a political stance that government interaction on the average will have more of a negative impact then a positive one they bring up this lame 150 year old slavery debate as "Proof" the their idea is wrong.
      Extremes on either side is bad and Evil will occur. If you want to twist your logic around the reason for slavery success was because government supported it and enforced slavery laws. I can see if there were no slavery laws for or against, that slavery wouldn't be an issue as the people if they felt they were treated unjust they will just walk away. As the government would enforce capture and return any runaway slaves.

      That said, I would like to agree with the rest of your comment, however there is an old saying "You can't please all of the people all of the time" A business cannot run selling a product for less then the market price and paying their employees above their market price. Also the cost to be 100% sure is often astronomical while 99.9% sure is affordable. These choices are not not of Evil, but trying to obtain the right balance.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Bedfellows by Krazy+Kanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It says a lot when the country a company is headquartered in tells them their stuff stinks.

    +1 Japan for asking what everyone else lacked the sense to question.

    1. Re:Bedfellows by jaskelling · · Score: 1

      Seconded. Bravo for the business equivalent of "proof or it didn't happen" as far as Sony's claim of having everything fixed.

    2. Re:Bedfellows by idontgno · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is certainly not something I would have expected of the Japanese government, although I'll admit I hadn't thought very much about it since the business-friendly era of the "bend-over-backwards and kiss business' butt" MITI. Of course, that was international trade, and this is about domestic business.

      I have the beginnings of a theory, though. The recent revelations about the government's virtually non-existent oversight over the nuclear power industry, and TEPCO in particular, may have sensitized the entire Japanese cabinet and bureaucracy to public perceptions of being asleep at the switch... hence, the surprising and almost-literal leaping to the defense of the public interest against a danger to network and financial security. (Yeah, comparing Fukushima to the PSN hack is ridiculous, except for the change in behavior of the government between the two events. Correlation != causation and all..)

      As a theory, it strains my credibility, and I just thought it up, but who knows?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:Bedfellows by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      Japan, like most of those ranting against Sony in these forums, is just waiting for free hookers and blow. And unicorns, no unicorns - no forgiveness.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    4. Re:Bedfellows by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      As a theory, it strains my credibility, and I just thought it up, but who knows?

      Well, the same thing had occurred to me.

      In in the wake of the nuclear plant, er, 'problems' ... and not getting responses from the company for quite some time when they were asking for updates ... I think it highly likely that the Japanese government isn't looking to just simply take companies at their word.

      And, yes -- obviously the importance of the nuclear reactors vs the PSN outage are nowhere near one another. But, that doesn't mean that it might not signal a bit of a shift in the way their government is viewing such things -- "trust us" is no longer something they'll accept.

      Maybe more governments will realize that if they're the ones who are supposed to be regulating and controlling -- well, then they need to be doing that, and be accountable for it. Not getting updates from TEPCO probably drove home the point that they need to be much more in control where they need to be.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Bedfellows by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      And then there was the Toyota debacle a year or two ago with the sudden accelerations and the denials. Japan doesn't want to lose much more face in the market.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:Bedfellows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you in a coma when NASA demonstrated that Toyota was right all along?

    7. Re:Bedfellows by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Like the other replies below, I find your theory fairly credible, actually. Their government has lost enough face over the poor showing by TEPCO that they probably want to take good care of the shred of a cheek they have left.

    8. Re:Bedfellows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, NASA showed that Toyota was not at fault electronically, but Toyota was still fined for mechanical issues, including the floor mats which had a tendency to entrap the accelerator.

    9. Re:Bedfellows by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It says a lot when the country a company is headquartered in tells them their stuff stinks.

      Obama wants his Call of Duty...see what happens when PSN goes down, he recreates the 'Castro's Compound' level as 'Osama's Compound', right down to where he uses his wife as a human shield!!!

    10. Re:Bedfellows by BBF_BBF · · Score: 1

      Cynical Mode On...

      Sony Japan is probably blaming it on the incompetent *Americans* since the data breach occurred in Servers located in San Diego. Thus the foreigners created a mess for the parent company. Cynical Mode Off...

    11. Re:Bedfellows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean those sudden acceleration cases caused by IIRC 80% of the drivers involved being 70+ years old and the NSTB basically exonerating toyota....

      Those acceleration cases?

    12. Re:Bedfellows by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the public face of the government response doesn't really hint of "someone else's screwup". I'm sure that in private, both Sony and government robots are muttering under their breaths about incompetent gaijin... but publicly, the gov is jumping on Sony's Japan operations.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:Bedfellows by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think it is because Sony has failed to admit responsibility and apologise, and the government sees this as a way to boost their own popularity by taking a hard line on businesses that screw up.

      TEPCO has apologised several times already. Sony has not, probably because the US and EU arms don't want to admit liability and open themselves up to lawsuits from customers, developers, merchants and Visa/Mastercard. Normally a Japanese company's top management would issue a heartfelt apology like Toyota did, accepting responsibility and promising to put it right. (Of course they might not follow through...)

      Keep in mind that most people don't blame the current administration for the Fukushima disaster because they have not been in power long enough and have had other issues like the economy to and US bases to deal with. Plus, it is mostly TEPCO's fault anyway, and there is admiration for the individual workers who are now trying to fix things and who can't really be held responsible for what happened.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Sony no longer the favorite?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Seems like Japan used to bend over backwards for Sony. This ongoing outage is seriously harmful to Sony's reputation. It's deservedly so, but interesting to see happen nonetheless, especially at this time when Japan could use a little financial love.

    Can Sony really be this incompetent, and/or incapable of hiring in the necessary talent?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Sony no longer the favorite?! by JockTroll · · Score: 2

      Seems like Japan used to bend over backwards for Sony.

      That happened to be the case. However after one earthquake, one tsunami and one muthafucking nuclear disaster they've grown some extra skin and decided Sony deserves some good facefarting.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    2. Re:Sony no longer the favorite?! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      With the fukushima daiichi incident fresh and lingering in the japanese publics eyes, exhibiting additional signs of blatant regulatory capture is counter intuitive to fat-cat politicians, and their political careers.

      Prior to the disaster, there was a revolving door between government employees and politicians and the (ahem) regulated nuclear power industry-- a connection that was lambasted by inquiries and probes into the reasons for the spectacular failure of Fukushima Daiichi in preventing a meltdown. Turned out that the captured regulatory agencies turned blind eyes to major warning signs about the reactor, and did so consistently.

      Now that the shit has hit the fan, Japanese politicos are busy trying to save face, which is probably why they are taking such a hard stance against Sony. Additional embarrassment would not help them win back public confidence, while even token gestures like this one may distract and give talking points to weasel out of having hell come to breakfast.

    3. Re:Sony no longer the favorite?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you worked in a Japanese IT development department you would not be surprised. They are generally dire skills wise.

      Most big-name Japanese companies hire new employees once a year straight out of university. As a graduate you do not apply for a job, you apply to join a company, what you studied in university has very little bearing on which department you are assigned to.

      Therefore most of my colleagues had never seen a line of code before being assigned to the development department and told "You are now developers, here is your first project."

  5. Then no Portal 2 for all their PCs... by schwachs · · Score: 0

    let's face it, a ton of the people who bought the PS3 version of Portal did it just for the "free" copies on the Mac and PC. I can finally get it on all my platforms in my house... the PS3 so far is a one game platform in my house and that's Little Big Planet (and LBP2).

    1. Re:Then no Portal 2 for all their PCs... by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow - me too! I've bought a bunch of PS3 games, but the only ones that anybody in my house ever plays is LBP and Katamari. The rest of the games I've bought have been very disappointing. My wife bought me Portal2 and it was good, but short.

    2. Re:Then no Portal 2 for all their PCs... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I'll put in a vote for Valkyria Chronicles. I really like that game.

  6. Say no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can someone remind me how can a government say "no" to someone operating a legal service again?

    1. Re:Say no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When said govt can send real ninjas to your house to slaughter you while you sleep.... freaking ninjas!!!

    2. Re:Say no? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      You mean like, "Get all the planes out of the air, turn back international flights, and nobody goes up again until we say so"?

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:Say no? by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Big difference. The Federal Aviation Administration, a US governmental agency, is responsible for the airspace over the United States so I would say it was well within its rights to shutdown the airspace over the US. It's nowhere near the same thing is it would be if they told a private company that they couldn't do business in the US because of a data breach.

    4. Re:Say no? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      The same way a government can setup a monopoly of companies and be Ok with it.
      Japanese laws are not US Laws.

    5. Re:Say no? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Corporate charters exist at the pleasure of the government. If your corporation would prefer not to have all its assets nationalized it will play along.

    6. Re:Say no? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      The service is not legal if the Japanese government does not allow Sony to operate it. You know, kind of like how buying and selling marijuana is illegal in the United States?

      What constitutes a "legal service" is entirely dependent on the law of the land. If you are in a country where the law requires you to seek government approval before operating a service, then your service is only "legal" if the government allows it.

      Now, whether or not it is morally acceptable to have such a legal system is another question entirely.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:Say no? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So kiss off any concept of private property.

    8. Re:Say no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So kiss off any concept of private property.

      ...a concept which you expect the government to enforce. Ironic, no?

    9. Re:Say no? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Who do you think enforces that?
      This has zero to do with private property for real humans, just the construct called the corporation. With its limited liability should come limited freedoms. Having limited liability and unlimited freedom just means everyone should become a corporation and start committing crimes for fun.

    10. Re:Say no? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Difference: that limitation was applied to all and every aircraft, either commercial or private, without regard to ownership. It was invocation of a legal power congress gave the FAA in controlling the airspace.

      If Japan had said: there is a clear threat to the wellbeing of the populace from network services and NO company may operate one until further notice, you'd have a fair comparison. For Japan to single out Sony in a prohibition against performing a legal service that others were still permitted -- Japan's bad. Just as if the FAA had said "United, you may not fly any more airplanes until YOU, and ONLY YOU, install better anti-hijacking methods in all of your aircraft", while allowing Delta and Southwest to continue flying, they would have been just as wrong.

    11. Re:Say no? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This has zero to do with private property for real humans, just the construct called the corporation.

      Corporations are owned by people. The property owned by a corporation is owned, ultimately, by the people who own the corporation.

      Having limited liability and unlimited freedom just means everyone should become a corporation and start committing crimes for fun.

      That statement is so pathetically ridiculous that it does not merit any response, buy I'll point out one tiny fact that demonstrates your lunacy: corporations don't have unlimited freedom, and people in corporations have gone to jail for committing crimes. Even so, many people do become corporations so they can take advantage of the laws for corporations, which also pretty much shoots down you nonsense about corporations not being people.

    12. Re:Say no? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Corporations are owned by people. The property owned by a corporation is owned, ultimately, by the people who own the corporation.

      Tell the GM shareholders that lost out about that.

      That statement is so pathetically ridiculous that it does not merit any response, buy I'll point out one tiny fact that demonstrates your lunacy: corporations don't have unlimited freedom, and people in corporations have gone to jail for committing crimes. Even so, many people do become corporations so they can take advantage of the laws for corporations, which also pretty much shoots down you nonsense about corporations not being people.

      So who from BP is in jail for that oil spill? If I let my car leak oil all over town and nature parks(since my car does not float) I bet I would be paying for cleanup and fines. Also where can we find BPs internal organs?

      Corporations exist at the like of the government, that is why they have to have a charter, and I don't.

    13. Re:Say no? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Tell the GM shareholders that lost out about that.

      So you think that debts are not owned by the owners of a corporation, as well? How interesting. Please tell me how I can subscribe to your newsletter.

      So who from BP is in jail for that oil spill?

      Nobody I know of, yet. Was it BP breaking the law, or was it the firm that was supposed to maintain the flow diverters that didn't do it? Are you actually stupid enough to think that the legal process dealing with the gulf spill is actually over and nobody else will wind up in court?

      If I let my car leak oil all over town and nature parks(since my car does not float) I bet I would be paying for cleanup and fines.

      And now you are trying to tell us that BP didn't pay anything for the cleanup. Fines, well, when they are taken to court, they'll wind up paying them, too. If they owe any.

      If you are responsible, you pay the fine. If your mechanic is responsible, you pay the fine and then sue your mechanic to recover the loss. Of course, the big difference is that you leaking oil all over the place is a localized phomenon that you can trivially mitigate (that means "stop", in this context.) A hole in the bottom of the ocean isn't. And when a company other than BP was the cause, your continued rant against BP is just that.

      Also where can we find BPs internal organs?

      Ok, now I know you are just being stupid for the sake of confrontation. Telling you that the owners of a company own the property of that company has nothing to do with "internal organs", and I expect that you know that.

  7. "Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by cmholm · · Score: 2

    proven that they have taken the necessary measures to secure their network

    IIRC, one rather glaring issue was the use of a bone-stock Apache install that evidently hadn't kept up with any security updates. I wonder what sort of Powerpointology Sony will be needed to prove worthiness, and whether there's enough folks at the Media and Content Industry department to knowledgeably gage the degree to which Sony got its act together?

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      There were also the glaring issues of not hashing passwords, storing all kinds of sensitive information in plain text, failing to offer sunset on old customer data, etc...

    2. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What retarded OS are they using that doesn't get security patches for apache2* packages?

    3. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1
    4. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by zen_la · · Score: 2, Informative

      "One other point to clarify is from this weekend’s press conference. While the passwords that were stored were not “encrypted,” they were transformed using a cryptographic hash function. There is a difference between these two types of security measures which is why we said the passwords had not been encrypted. But I want to be very clear that the passwords were not stored in our database in cleartext form. For a description of the difference between encryption and hashing, follow this link." Source: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/02/playstation-network-security-update/ [playstation.com]

    5. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by cmholm · · Score: 1

      So, the "unpatched" theory was based on nothing by Spaf's gut. It would seem Dr.Spafford is resting on his laurels. Great.

      --
      Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    6. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I see!

      I had heard it reported that they transmitted cleartext information over the wire protocol, and even read a packet dump taken some 2 weeks or so before the breach at PSX-SCENE. Hackers there reported that cc data and other sensitive information was sent in cleartext.

    7. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      When did they not hash passwords? They said they didn't *encrypt* passwords, but clarified that later that they meant they were hashed not encrypted. I actually found it rather reassuring that they understand the difference (and, yes, passwords should be hashed and not encrypted).

    8. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      I believe user2 when he says this. He seems like a trustworthy guy.

    9. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I wonder what sort of Powerpointology Sony will be needed to prove worthiness

      Slide 1 - Intro slide
      Slide 2 - Previous configuration - Insecure (include at least 4 bullet points, include lots of buzzwords)
      Slide 3 - New configuration - Secure (include at least 6 bullet points, include even more buzzwords)
      Slide 4 - Conclusions/Q&A

      Remember, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    10. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by suutar · · Score: 1

      Spaf said he didn't actually know anything. If folks take his ruminations as gospel even when he disclaims them, what can he do about it?

    11. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by marcansoft · · Score: 2

      The same Powerpointology that was used to design the PS3 security system. It includes just about every single crypto buzzword and system under the sun. AES, RSA, Elliptic Curves, CBC, ECB, CTR, CFB, RC4, SHA1, MD5, HMAC, SSL, Full Disk Encryption, Isolated Security System, Hardware Decryption, Secure Boot, Per-Console Encryption, Tokens, Hypervisor, blah blah. You name it, it's in there, used in all the wrong ways and littered with holes.

      This is the problem with Sony: they do Security by Powerpoint. Buzzwords a secure system do not make.

      Nintendo's security designers at least knew what they were doing, since the Wii's security design is logical, consistent, quite simple (simple is better), and uses the right technologies in the right places. Sadly, their code monkeys failed at coming up with an implementation with fewer holes than swiss cheese. Microsoft is the best of the bunch, as they have a solid, powerful security system with an extremely good implementation so far.

    12. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      There was a whole thread on the PSX-SCENE forums that was over 11 pages long discussing this issue. It was independently verified by several forum members. Sadly, I am at work right now and we have some draconian internet filtering set up, so I cant link to the forum thread. You can find it yourself though. It was in the news section, dated april 30, 2011.

      Names and some other information were redacted to protect people from corporate retaliation; remember, this was released at the height of the Geohot lawsuit.

    13. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      You name it, it's in there, used in all the wrong ways and littered with holes.

      I wouldn't say that is entirely fair. Consider that the system was only broken by glitching the memory bus until Geohot got lucky and caused the OS to allocate his program some of the protected hypervisor's address space. There isn't that much you can do to defend against attacks like that. Even when you have a complete system-on-chip with memory and bus integrated you can still glitch the clock or mess with the supply voltage, which is how the original Gameboy's protected on-die ROM was eventually read out.

      Okay, once people were inside the hypervisor they found numerous other bugs (most notably in the USB driver) that allowed much easier hacks without modifying the console, and it turns out they fucked up generating and protecting their private key, but when you look at the history of encryption in consumer devices they actually lasted quite a long time. It is probably verging on the impossible to design a 100% secure system if you also need to sell it to the public and allow third party software to run. They did a lot better than Microsoft and their own BluRay format.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:"Prove", ie. "Patch Apache"? by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      People weren't trying until OtherOS got removed, and that happened after geohot glitched the memory bus. Given what we know about the PS3 at this stage, I can tell you that there would've been plenty of easier avenues of attack from a black box perspective. For example, there are more than a couple fun header validation bugs that you can try to exploit just by dumping out the NOR and doing some analysis on the binaries contained within. Dumping out Flash memory and messing with it is standard operating practice for trying to break into a device these days (if you know what you're doing), and it's a hell of a lot more reliable and clean than trying to glitch the memory bus. Or, another nice vector (which was actually already known before the HV exploit) was the broken HDD encryption. Given enough effort, you can decrypt the entire PS3 HDD, change any data, and encrypt it again (this was known), so all it would take would be exploiting a bug in a file parser for some system file. Geohot decided to have some fun when no one else cared, and chose an awkward and unreliable course of action - that doesn't mean that was the only course of action.

      Also, you're wrong when you say that you can't defend against memory glitching attacks. The 360 does precisely that - hypervisor memory is hashed and encrypted. As for power and clock glitching, that's enormously more complicated (likely practically impossible) on a system using a Cell than it is on a Gameboy Color's Z80.

      Remember, the countdown for the time it takes to break a security system starts when competent people start trying to break into it. I've worked with some of the most well-known and competent embedded device hackers out there, and I can tell you that nobody was having a serious go at the PS3 until they nuked OtherOS. It wasn't seen as a priority or nearly as interesting as other devices, since it came with a built-in (albeit gimped) "homebrew mode". If you start counting when OtherOS was removed, the PS3 lasted less than its competitors.

      And yes, the PS3 security system is a clusterfuck of everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-done-wrong. They like to use HMACs as a hash function for no reason - both wrapped in public key signatures, and not (!). They misuse counter modes for block ciphers and reuse keys. They fail to validate headers. They have an excessively poorly defined and awkward security container format. They don't wrap things in public key signatures at the earliest possible place, and handle and parse way too much untrusted data. They don't use W^X on the OS kernel (that's what made the USB exploit possible). Privilege separation is leaky. They have an excessively complicated hypervisor that isn't even designed with security in mind. It's way too easy to patch and/or emulate your way around security checks. Their full disk encryption is hilariously broken (Fixed IVs! No hashes! You can decrypt anything you want by putting the HDD into a computer, swapping blocks around between a user file and "secret" system data, then putting it back into the PS3 and copying out the user file). They even use custom cipher operation modes in places, like CBC except they switch to CFB for the last non-multiple-of-the-blocksize chunk. As mentioned, they made the worst possible mistake when implementing their ECDSA signer, and leaked their secret private keys to the world. Worst of all, the overall architecture is ass-backwards, and you can pirate PS3 games by breaking only 10% of the security, which completely defeats the purpose.

      Sorry, but there's no excuse for that amount of fail. The PS3 has the worst security design of this generation, and the only reason it lasted as long as it did was because they had an alternative (OtherOS). Well, that, and maybe because people bought a bit into the kool-aid and buzzwords and thought it'd be a hell of a lot more secure than it turned out to be.

  8. Sony is claiming this is voluntary... by onlysolution · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sony is saying that this is a voluntary effort to cooperate with Japanese authorities, as they are not actually legally obliged to wait for permission to restart their services in Asia.

    However, it's worth pointing out that in Japan it is common to allow companies and individuals to take "voluntary" actions to save face or prevent a public appearance of contention. There is also generally a greater public expectation of privacy amongst the Japanese, so their regulators are more less amused with Sony than American authorities.

    Make of Sony's voluntary claims what you will.

    1. Re:Sony is claiming this is voluntary... by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

      I lived in Japan, and when you damage someone, and you eventually get to court, the judge asks what compensatory payments were made. If there haven't been enough good-faith payments, things don't go well. If you cause a traffic accident and someone is killed, you had better give a shitload of money to the family that just lost their breadwinner, for example.

  9. /. Hypocrisy? by chemicaldave · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In one story we have commenters berating the US government for unveiling a "cybersecurity plan," and here we have them praising another government for ordering a private corporation from continuing operations.

    What gives?

    1. Re:/. Hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Different laws of the land. USA doesn't care what businesses do with your data, EU goes bonkers if your screw up, and it would appear Japan takes data seriously too.

    2. Re:/. Hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. It's almost as if slashdot commenters weren't just one homogenous unit with a fixed opinion on each issue, but instead were a collection of individuals with differing views on any given subject.

    3. Re:/. Hypocrisy? by chemicaldave · · Score: 0

      This seems to be to be differing views on the same subject.

    4. Re:/. Hypocrisy? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps because the Japanese government is pressuring Sony to do more to protect user data, whereas the US government is pushing for companies to make it easier to access that data.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:/. Hypocrisy? by Skidborg · · Score: 2

      Because it is different people giving the different views on the same subject.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  10. No worries by keitosama · · Score: 1

    Portal 2 hasn't even been released over here yet, so PS3 owners should know what to expect in advance.

  11. I said 'No' to the Playstation Network restart too by digitaldc · · Score: 0

    I'll stick with my offline xbox and my ultra-retro graphics

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  12. Re:they should force them to readd other os! by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yea right, If anything that probably has strengthen Sony's resolve to keep "Other OS" out. Not that I support Sony having removed the option. But if you make a choice to do something then you get a bunch of criminals pretending to be activists attack you from the choice. It is a strong message that that feature was used by the wrong sort of people, who they will be better off in the future not come back.
    If they were true Hactivists they would have hacked their playstations to support the feature once again and posted how to to it to the public.
    The latter is Civil disobedience. The first is just criminal.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  13. Remarkably shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot, dumb anonymous xenophobe.

    Unless you live in a pure communist state, your working class is paid by capitalist industry.

    1. Re:Remarkably shortsighted by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in a pure communist state, your working class is paid by capitalist industry.

      It's the capitalist industry that is paid by the working class. Who do you think pays the taxes, buys the products, and even does the work for the industry in your capitalist paradise?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:Remarkably shortsighted by smelch · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're a complete jerkoff. If you are so hardlined on separating the "workers" from the "capitalist industry" you've clearly missed the point. "We buy your products" is no better than "I produce your products", to which you would reply "workers in the factories produce those products", to which I would reply make your own damned factory if its so easy. In fact, manage a factory. Oh, thats right, most people can't and if you didn't get the rewards of doing a difficult job nobody would want to. I mean, my God, its almost like capitalism is a system that requires producers and consumers and most of the time people are both. People complain of low wages and not getting the profit for everything they create, but at the same time starting a business is risky and most people wouldn't and don't do it. When people do and are successful suddenly they owe everything to you? No, fuck off, you're both dependent on each other. Turns out the people running businesses are a lot rarer than the people who can work in them, and therefore make a lot of money. When a worker stops working or can't do the job, he can be replaced fairly easily. If he can't, he usually gets paid more. Are you shocked? I'm not, it makes total sense.

      You've heard the phrase the rich get richer? Well how come that doesn't apply to lottery winners? Is it maybe because they don't do the right things with their money? Its so easy to say people are rich because they have money, but yet when people are handed large sacks of money they end up losing it all, helping nobody, providing no products, and just consuming. What good does that do for anybody? None. But go ahead, continue to think the rich owe their existence to the "working class". Yes, they do need people to work for them, but if they weren't employing the working class, the working class would be out somewhere sucking their toes, barely surviving on scraps.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    3. Re:Remarkably shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, thats right, most people can't and if you didn't get the rewards of doing a difficult job nobody would want to.

      I propose that most people can. Sure, there are always going to be malcontents that can't hold a job, much less a management position, but it used to be that the majority of management "graduated" from the lines to overseer positions to management positions until a bunch of MBA grads decided that only other MBA grads could possibly know how to get people to perform tasks that they themselves have never performed but are damned certain that their years at Harvard qualify them to tell other people how to do it.

      Stick that in your spreadsheet and graph it. In triplicate, but only after you've gotten your "buy-in" from all the appropriate "stake holders" during your endless supply of pointless meetings.

    4. Re:Remarkably shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      capitalist paradise

      paradise is right :D if you're anti-capitalist then telling me i live in paradise isn't going to sway me to your way of thinking

  14. Censorship by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    OK, so how is this different from censorship?

    1. Re:Censorship by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      censorship is about preventing speech because of its content, this is about preventing a database of personal and financial details from going online because its safety is dubious ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    2. Re:Censorship by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3

      Whose ability to speak is being suppressed?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if you asked all those people if you could have their credit card and personal information, they'd tell you to fuck off. This is about making sure Sony isn't telling you things they aren't suppose to be telling you. Not Sony gagging people from telling you things.

    4. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony's ability to publish its customers' personal details to the greater internet is being suppressed.

  15. Re:they should force them to readd other os! by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

    I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.... I'm going to assume you're serious since you didn't post AC. IIRC they DID hack the PS3 to support Other OS (isn't this what ghotz did?) the PSN "Hactivist" attacks didn't start until Sony decided to sue ghotz BECAUSE he "posted how to do it to the public."

  16. Test Platforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the rest of the world is the test bed for the new security "upgrade". I wonder if they prefer that all other customers get hosed if it fails again and that the core consumer group gets preferred treatment in order from losing further confidence in at this stage. is it possible they do this to shake down and other latent issues while saving (what little is left) face in Japan?

  17. Re:they should force them to readd other os! by zeroshade · · Score: 1

    If they were true Hactivists they would have hacked their playstations to support the feature once again and posted how to do it to the public.

    What rock have you been under? That's EXACTLY what they did. That's why Sony sued George Hotz. Because he posted how to hack the PS3 on his block and via youtube for all to see. Also, you're assuming that the people who hacked the PSN are in any way associated with the same crowd asking for OtherOS to be back and not just some opportunistic crackers.

  18. When it's not a legal service by name_already_taken · · Score: 3

    Can someone remind me how can a government say "no" to someone operating a legal service again?

    When it looks like you're operating it in a way that does not comply with all of the laws.

    You can read into that the Japanese government believes that PSN is not a legal service in Japan if PSN does not protect the privacy of the users.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  19. I think the Onion pretty much nailed it by sourcerror · · Score: 1
  20. Re:they should force them to readd other os! by Riceballsan · · Score: 2

    Again I hold to the fact that I am not convinced that this breach is even connected to geohot in any way more then an opportunistic coverup to cover their asses. I think this was a mass CC# theft intended to use the current tensions between anon and sony as a distraction, possibly even borrow some of anon's members to do a DDOS and keep sony + legal authorities busy chasing 13 year olds while the criminals are unloading money into offshore bank accounts.

  21. Xbox sales by rjejr · · Score: 1

    When I saw US was near the top of the list for the PSN getting back on was all I could think of was Xbox 360 sales, US vs. Japan.

  22. Patches, smatches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The issue isn't patches...

    The issue is that they didn't encrypt the data so that an embarrassing intrusion became a financially damaging intrusion for their customers.

    The two things I am left with that really piss me off are:
    - Why haven't they given me the last 4 digits of the card they had on file? Which card should I be watching? They gave the whole damn number to the intruder so telling me the last 4 digits isn't a big deal.
    - Why do they even require a card number (which they can't be trusted with) when I never do ANYTHING on the network that requires payment.

    1. Re:Patches, smatches... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Wow, way to FUD.

      They didn't "encrypt", but they did hash.

      You should be a bit more careful what you're doing with your cards.

      They don't.. do you you even have a PS3?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Patches, smatches... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      They didn't "encrypt", but they did hash.

      I thought they did encrypt the credit card data. They would only hash passwords.

    3. Re:Patches, smatches... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but according to one of the press releases I saw, people were complaining about a lack of encryption, and they explained that the passwords were not encrypted, but they were hashed.

      Would encryption of the credit card data even be any use if they compromised the whole system, and therefore probably had access to the keys too?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Patches, smatches... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but according to one of the press releases I saw, people were complaining about a lack of encryption

      The personal data wasn't encrypted but the credit card data was.

      and they explained that the passwords were not encrypted, but they were hashed.

      Well yes, hashing is a safer and better method for passwords anyway.

      Would encryption of the credit card data even be any use if they compromised the whole system, and therefore probably had access to the keys too?

      Good point, i guess that depends on their system architecture and whether it was just the database that was compromised or the entire system.

  23. Now for the obligitory response: by lexsird · · Score: 1

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa! FUCK YOU SONY! OH IN YOUR FACE!!!! *dance wildly while singing GO JAPAN GO JAPAN*

    Holy fuck this has been the biggest bunch of epic bullshit to come down the pike out of a corporation in a long time. ONE MONTH of being down, Sweet Jesus, where is the lynch mob? Has anyone been following what a bunch of idiots Sony is with ALL of their security? Reuters had to call and tell them about massive screw ups they had in basic security from a causal outside probe by a security expert. Their expert used a browser and google and found big fat gaping holes in their security. The guy didn't even dig into them hard...lol...what EPIC FUCK OFFS!!!

    Yes, I am one of the pissed off people who's information got ripped off thanks to their completely shitty security. Yes, I am one of the pissed off people who's new PS3 will NOT let me use NetFlix. I am one of the pissed off people who's games are FUCKING NIGH WORTHLESS because they require the PSN.

    WTF do we have to do to get a positive reaction? Do we have to collectively wrap our PS3, games and accessories in burlap, soak it in gas and launch it through the window of the store we got it from? Why is it only Japan that is telling Sony to do the right thing? Where the holy fuck is our piece of shit government in all of this? We pay these worthless cocksuckers enough in taxes, they should have been on this weeks ago. Leave it to our corporate lackey government to set with their thumbs up their collective asses on this while we take a dick in the ass.

    This just punctuates why we have to be politically active in addition to our other chores in life. We have people in power right now that come from a previous era, they are corrupt as fuck, and seriously haven't a damn clue about tech. We need to send these sorry old fuckers packing out to pasture and get some people in that know what they are doing. We need a new party, of new blood, new ideas and that is NOT FOR FUCKING SALE.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  24. Just Sayin' by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    6,341,950 PS3 Units Sold in Japan.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs

    Say the average PS3 uses 110W as typical power consumption.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

    = 700 Million Watts.

    = 700 Megawatts.

    All those PS3's turned off is saving a lot of electricity!

    Yes I am aware of the obscene amount of over simplification.

    1. Re:Just Sayin' by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      Forget the oversimplification, how about your perception that just because the online part of Playstation gaming is down, that people automatically shut their machine off and don't play any offline games???

    2. Re:Just Sayin' by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Or bluray movies.

  25. I support this. by sllim · · Score: 1

    I just got off the line with Clear.com helpdesk.
    The doofushead on the other end of the line posted my clear username/login info for me, even though I never asked for it.

    People are just so clueless with security, it is pretty disgusting.

    Japan forcing Sony to prove they have secured there network - I like this. I like this a lot.

  26. Re:I said 'No' to the Playstation Network restart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ultra-retro graphics on an xbox? How old are you, 12?

  27. Possibly related rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some guy whose blog appears to have been deleted alleges in a newsgroup posting (archived in Google Groups) that the U.S. Government is behind the Sony data breaches. Not sure I believe that, but it could explain Japan's stance...

  28. Wonder if the.... by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    The suicide rate has spike since this started? Even more so in countries where there is recognized gaming dependency issues.

  29. Crack Boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, has anyone mentioned that you are an ass? Or maybe it's a mental issue? Off your meds are you?