Slashdot Mirror


Sony Reportedly Is Using Cyber-Attacks To Keep Leaked Files From Spreading

HughPickens.com writes Lily Hay Newman reports at Slate that Sony is counterhacking to keep its leaked files from spreading across torrent sites. According to Recode, Sony is using hundreds of computers in Asia to execute a denial of service attack on sites where its pilfered data is available, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. Sony used a similar approach in the early 2000s working with an anti-piracy firm called MediaDefender, when illegal file sharing exploded. The firm populated file-sharing networks with decoy files labeled with the names of such popular movies as "Spider-Man," to entice users to spend hours downloading an empty file. "Using counterattacks to contain leaks and deal with malicious hackers has been gaining legitimacy," writes Newman. "Some cybersecurity experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'."

7 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Is SONY breaking the law with this "defense"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then they are no better than those that hacked into their systems, and should be prosecuted like any criminal hacker
    Those that have helped them in this, should be prosecuted as accessories.
    Or, if what SONY is doing is acceptable, Than it was okay for those that hacked SONY to do what they did.

    The law applies to all, big and small.

    1. Re:Is SONY breaking the law with this "defense"? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there are any legitmate files hosted on those servers Sony's hired guns are DOSing, a "second amendment analogy" means Sony just fired back at both their opponents and some innocent bystanders. How about that, posters defending Sony's right to use such tactics - does that right include unlimited collateral damage to random bystanders? If sony isn't breaking the law, then does that make the law right even if innocents get caught in the 'crossfire'?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:Is SONY breaking the law with this "defense"? by AntiSol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the first paragraph of that wiki article was very damning! I thought wikis were supposed to be neutral.

      I thought that wikis were supposed to be factual. Sometimes the facts are damning.

  2. Re: The Internet Will Die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Internet died about 10 years ago. Just like everything else, the capitalists took something good and turned it into a giant cesspool of greed.

  3. Really... by the_skywise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Some cybersecurity experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'."

    Uh huh... the 2nd amendment says I have the right to defend myself. That means I can own guns to defend myself when I'm being attacked... PHYSICALLY.

    The proper analogy is that I have the right to secure my computer systems from being hacked by malcontents or governments (or both).

    It does not give me the right to go over to the local printing press and blow them up if they're xeroxing my naked selfies. That's not defense, that's just vandalism.

    Good lord can this world get any dumber...

  4. Re:Is anyone surprised? by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Famous last words... We all know it can get a lot worse.

  5. Mixed Feelings by smashr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's strange, I have completely mixed feelings about this. If Sony is using such borderline techniques to try and prevent people from downloading torrents of PII data pilfered from their servers such as SSNs, tax returns, W2s, celebrity phone numbers, etc, then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This may be slightly over the line, but if it is to protect the data belonging to outside people, then I am inclined to view it more favorably.

    If, on the other hand, this is about preventing the latest ZOMG HD SCREENER TORRENT of their most popular film from being shared one more time, I view such activities much less favorably.

    There is probably not a legal distinction between protecting future profits and protecting the private data of one's employees, but it certainly makes me struggle with how to view this..