Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Apr 2011 23:07 UTC
Legal "The hacker hordes of Anonymous have transferred their fickle attention to Sony. They are currently attacking the company's online Playstation store in retribution for Sony's lawsuit against PS3 hacker George Hotz. A denial of service attack has temporarily taken down playstation.com."
Thread beginning with comment 469122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Meh... except for this
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 5th Apr 2011 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Meh... except for this"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Bingo. There's a right way and a wrong way to protest things. Virtual vandalism


Vandalism means damaging property that isn't yours. Anonymous isn't damaging anything. In fact, Sony has damaged other people's property by removing OtherOS support - so Sony are the vandals here.

and inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with Sony's policies definitely falls into the latter.


You do realise that the whole idea of a protest or strike is to be inconvenient, right?

Nothing will make me happier than seeing a three letter agency kicking in these puerile pricks' doors when they piss off the wrong target.


You'd make one damn fine Stasi agent.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Meh... except for this
by orestes on Tue 5th Apr 2011 13:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Meh... except for this"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, the hour or two last night PSN users couldn't access their paid services and any subsequent losses it caused weren't at all damaging. Nor were any of the issues that may have been caused tangentially to the attack.

Legitimate protests might be annoying, but they're annoying within the bounds of the law. These arrogant script kiddies revel in breaking the laws of virtually any country they operate from. They deserve neither reverence nor protection from the consequences of their actions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Legitimate protests might be annoying, but they're annoying within the bounds of the law. These arrogant script kiddies revel in breaking the laws of virtually any country they operate from. They deserve neither reverence nor protection from the consequences of their actions.


If breaking the law is required to get Sony to operate within the law, then so be it. It's not like the US justice system will ever force Sony to adhere to the law.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You do realise that the whole idea of a protest or strike is to be inconvenient, right?


There's a difference though. People striking and protesting does so by standing up for something *in person* and not being anonymous.
"Anonymous" are just a bunch of attention-seeking script-kiddies hiding behind lame-ass masks who probably couldn't come up with an original exploit to save their life.

Reply Parent Score: 2

mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

There's a difference though. People striking and protesting does so by standing up for something *in person* and not being anonymous.
"Anonymous" are just a bunch of attention-seeking script-kiddies..


*in person*...really?!
so -Libya type rebellions aside [where ignoring political persuasions, people truly are standing up to be counted and putting their lives on the line]- in lower-key direct actions such as the mass marches in the US and Western Europe against the last Iraq invasion or the recent demonstrations against public service cuts by a mean and irresponsible conservative government here in the UK, people have been pre-registering their dissent with officials through an online intent-to-gather form have they?! I must've missed that.

Unless they turn violent or start looting and get arrested the participants are similarly anonymous to Anonymous (both largely being identifiable to government agencies should the authorities wish to put the resources in but superficially they're both anonymous).

..and I really wish people would stop using the term Script Kiddies in these scenarios willy nilly as if that automatically wins you argument points. I may well be mistaken but my take on it is that the Anonymous participants both in this case as well as Wikileaks seem to be taking action on something they (at least SEEM) to believe in the cause of. Therefore 'Script Kiddies' comes across as about as objective as if we kept calling Sony the 'Corporate W*$%ers!'

Reply Parent Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"Bingo. There's a right way and a wrong way to protest things. Virtual vandalism

Vandalism means damaging property that isn't yours. Anonymous isn't damaging anything. In fact, Sony has damaged other people's property by removing OtherOS support - so Sony are the vandals here.
"

Exactly, well said, Thom.

Actual vandalism: Keying, egging putting a dent in someone's car, or probably even worse, putting water or sugar in their gas tank. Breaking the windows out of someone's car or house. Breaking into their computers and deleting/modifying stuff and inserting malware of any kind. The Sony Rootkit... now THAT was a prime example of virtual vandalism, and it opened unsuspecting buyers of Sony CDs to some serious security vulnerabilities. Notice that all of these things actually cause *damage*, real damage, and in the case of physical damage... it can take a lot of money to repair.

Temporary inconvenience: Overloading Sony's servers for a short time to get back at them for suing one of their users, and trying to show them that they're not going to take that kind of attitude as paid users. What's it hurt? Well, Sony's servers deny their users service for a while until someone steps in to correct it, or the DDoSers stop attacking, and... boom, service is up and running again, nothing changed. No files were modified, no hardware damaged; they simply stressed the system for a short while.

Big, big difference there. I can't just look at a broken window or damaged paint/body job and expect that with time it's fixed... it just doesn't work that way. Expect to pay hundreds of dollars in actual damage for something like that to get fixed.

If giving some other server a DoS is vandalism, then Slashdot should have been sued to hell and back by now because of their infamous Slashdot effect.

Edited 2011-04-05 20:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The Sony Rootkit... now THAT was a prime example of virtual vandalism


Temporary inconvenience: Overloading Sony's servers for a short time to get back at them for suing one of their users, and trying to show them that they're not going to take that kind of attitude as paid users. What's it hurt? Well, Sony's servers deny their users service for a while until someone steps in to correct it, or the DDoSers stop attacking, and... boom, service is up and running again, nothing changed. No files were modified, no hardware damaged; they simply stressed the system for a short while.


First you say that doing virtual damage is indeed virtual vandalism, and then right next to it you say it isn't vandalism. Way to counter yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 2