Emasher Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Its not like he was breaking into other people's computer networks. He just released the code (that someone else found if I remember correctly) that allowed people to run whatever software they wanted on a PS3. I doubt there are any countries that would classify what he did as a criminal offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 What is the current state of the PS3's security? Have they patched it up? Because I'm not hearing much about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPhee Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Sorry I don't study American law, I wouldn't know what they can do about hackers. They got a good deal if it was only a civil damages award they could have been given. They got such a good deal because Sony cannot afford to lose. Neither side could, and neither side could have been all that certain of victory (or they wouldn't have signed up to a compromise). Imagine if Sony lost! That would set the precident that it's OK to hack in to, and modify hardware that you own. There would be nothing to stop similar incidents in the future. This compromise limits the damage and keeps the threat of legal action on the table as a deterrent to future hackers. I'm disappointed to be honest. I was hoping for a clear-cut court ruling as to whether or not this activity is legal. Instead it'll remain a legally grey area, until next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debug Mode Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'm disappointed to be honest. I was hoping for a clear-cut court ruling as to whether or not this activity is legal. Instead it'll remain a legally grey area, until next time. Exactly how I'm feeling. I stuck on the guys side because from what I have read, only one of those counts would have applied to him (The distribution of trade secrets, a law which if I recall, only the US has). So from the looks of it, it's going to remain a grey area for a while and companies and media will keep insisting there is a law against it. I think the most shocking thing throughout this case is: people are very misinformed about the law and there is a very contradictory attitude towards it (like the pirating of music and tv being okay but video game pirates are the scum of the word etc). It sort of reminded me about the big deal with Wikileaks, the supporters of the 'victim' will say it is against the law when the act really isn't. But it looks like Sony has found the next target.. Do yourselves a favour and look away from the absolutely retarded comment section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 It reinforces the idea that morality is relative and that the law is only one interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 It reinforces the idea that morality is relative and that the law is only one interpretation. How? It reinforces that the law hasn't evolved to be capable of punishing this sort of offence yet. Everyone knows he has done something morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) But it looks like Sony has found the next target.. Do yourselves a favour and look away from the absolutely retarded comment section Trying to get back the Linux OS function by siding with the people who forced Sony to remove it doesn't seem to be a good tactic... Edited April 14, 2011 by Cube BBcode Fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 How? It reinforces that the law hasn't evolved to be capable of punishing this sort of offence yet. Everyone knows he has done something morally wrong. And what about Sony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Sony make games I love. Morality BONUS POINTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Okay, in this situation what has Sony done that is morally wrong or could be 'perceived' by some as morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 I think asking for the ip addresses of everyone who visited his site and watched his youtube videos is wrong. That is a fairly huge invasion of privacy, and it was too easy to get. Hacking isn't wrong I think, but releasing the private key definitely was. I'm glad he couldn't just do that without some ramifications as people think they can get away with anything internet-related these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Oh the ip address thing was wrong and too remote to be able to charge any of those that simply watched a youtube video. My questions of Sony's moral questioning was more about trying to get some sort of damages or offence charged against the hacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 How? It reinforces that the law hasn't evolved to be capable of punishing this sort of offence yet. Everyone knows he has done something morally wrong. No law, no offense. Him doing something morally wrong is just your opinion. Its completely subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Wow, you brought up the subjectivity argument. You win the internet. Okay I'll rephrase, everyone with decent morals/ a normal sense of right and wrong should believe he has done something wrong. I didn't say it was an offence either, I don't know American law so I wasn't sure whether it was technically illegal. It will be soon enough in some form or another. Sony did go a bit overboard admittedly though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'm interested, explain why you think everyone should think its immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 More importantly, why do you think it is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I paid $299 for my PS3, I own it, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do whatever I want with it (short of using it to bash in someone's head). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 You can do what you want to it, but as soon as it affects/involves anyone else, that's what's wrong! As far as I'm aware, the guy didn't just keep to himself did he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I paid $299 for my PS3, I own it, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do whatever I want with it (short of using it to bash in someone's head). You own the machine. You only license the code. Pretty much like all software. I'm pretty sure that means you aren't allowed to modify it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I paid $299 for my PS3, I own it, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do whatever I want with it (short of using it to bash in someone's head). The main problem here is releasing the hacks to the public, not making them for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Okay, in this situation what has Sony done that is morally wrong or could be 'perceived' by some as morally wrong. Why qualify that with an 'in this situation'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 You own the machine. You only license the code. Pretty much like all software. I'm pretty sure that means you aren't allowed to modify it, too. Software and hardware are the same to me. If I pay for it, I reserve the right to do whatever I want with it. Take my money and be grateful I didn't just pirate/steal/rape an old lady for it. I have no problems with hacking. I'll agree that piracy is wrong, but I still don't care. At all. Sony lost any chance of sympathy when they started invading peoples privacy (both in this case and the infamous Rootkit Scandal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Yeah, but legally it isn't the same. It's standard practice with software. Same with games, you don't own a game you simply buy the license to play it. Also, I don't really get the issue about Sony invading privacy, what are they going to do with it exactly? Facebook has a shit load more information on you and they make money out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Why qualify that with an 'in this situation'? Well I was asking in regards to this case and the whole hacking thing because I wasn't well informed. I can ask the question without the words if it'll make you happy Rumster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 People keep acting like Sony are assholes for protecting the system. It needs to be protected so that piracy isn't enabled and so that the online experience for other users isn't compromised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts