Sony raid the home of German PS3 hacker called Graf

billyboy01

Is this a step to far for a private corporation, to get a Country's civil police force to raid someones home for reverse engineering his own private property!

http://www.ps3news.com/PS3-Hacks/graf-chokolos-house-raided-ps3-hv-bible-out-hackers-hiding/

gizmo

billyboy01 wrote: »

Is this a step to far for a private corporation, to get a Country's civil police force to raid someones home for reverse engineering his own private property!

http://www.ps3news.com/PS3-Hacks/graf-chokolos-house-raided-ps3-hv-bible-out-hackers-hiding/

He may own the physical console but he doesn't own the software he's been ****ing with. If the warrants were granted then the judge probably felt he had a valid reason to do so. If it goes to court he'll have plenty of opportunities to defend himself and, if he really hasn't done anything wrong, he'll be cleared.

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

If it goes to court he'll have plenty of opportunities to defend himself and, if he really hasn't done anything wrong, he'll be cleared.

Normally I'd agree, but this is Sony.

For those that wern't aware, Graf Chokolo is one the top hackers of the pS3 at the minute. His crime? It's not snooping PSN data, or cheating at MW2, but being able to give people the ability to play >=3.42 games on 3.41 if they wish. His other work related exclusively almost to Limux, and he's been able to restore OtherOS recently.

Also this is a criminal case now, not a civil one like Hotz' one, meaning serious stuff. But yet again, s smart powerful corporation like Sony, just proved that their arrogance in blinding them because after continued warnings by Graf about provocation and c&d letters, they did this. The result? Graf last night uploaded his entire technical manifesto on the Hypervisor. One problem for Sony (who was only interested in Linux anyway), just because 100k problems (and not all of them will be interested in Linux if you get my meaning).

The information is likely very technical & only useful to someone with heavy programming knowledge, but in my limited understanding this has become a big issue now. It's entirely possible, to decrypt any hardware, & with enough knowledge of the system, a dev could remove digital signature checks altogther from the Hypervisor & then install it to a console. What this means is the console won't be asking for any keys, whther hackers know them or not would become irrelevant. And what that means for you guys? More PSN cheating, further rampant pirating of games, ete etc.

Had they have left him alone? He was happy enough messing about with Linux, & often stated he'd no interest in gaming/backup managers etc. And seeing as he was the main dev for decryption, he had all the tools & knowledge too, which in turn, is now being downlaoded left right & center.

Nice going Sony!

bladespin

gizmo wrote: »

He may own the physical console but he doesn't own the software he's been ****ing with.

Is that true? Personally, I'd be of the opinion I can do anythiong I want with a game once I own it, baring sharing it.

Ciaran500

gizmo wrote: »

If it goes to court he'll have plenty of opportunities to defend himself and, if he really hasn't done anything wrong, he'll be cleared.

Bull****.

Unless you have the pockets to fund a team of lawyers the odds are greatly stacked against you and the chances of getting in trouble are pretty high whether you've done wrong or not.

Myrddin

bladespin wrote: »

Is that true? Personally, I'd be of the opinion I can do anythiong I want with a game once I own it, baring sharing it.

Technically Sony own the software on the console, so I guess there's some merit in the case. But it shoud be a civil case, unless theres unrelated charges that nobody is yet aware of.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Bull****.

Unless you have the pockets to fund a team of lawyers the odds are greatly stacked against you and the chances of getting in trouble are pretty high whether you've done wrong or not.

Agreed, this is where money talks.

aperture_nuig

I don't see how "I only wanted to put linux on it" is a valid reason for these hackers. surely if they're good enough to hack the ps3 they can enable linux without removing key verification?

Hacking consoles ruins the platform. Remember the PSP?

RedXIV

aperture_nuig wrote: »

I don't see how "I only wanted to put linux on it" is a valid reason for these hackers. surely if they're good enough to hack the ps3 they can enable linux without removing key verification?

Hacking consoles ruins the platform. Remember the PSP?

As mentioned before, It didn't take an awful lot to hack the key verification, it wasn't an onslaught of hacker willpower to crack it, it was an observation of a critical and pretty stupid flaw implemented by Sony.

And actually the PSP did quite well out of piracy. It became the go-to console for plenty of people who wanted to easily mod a console.

I'm not saying that all hackers are good but not all are bad either

Myrddin

aperture_nuig wrote: »

I don't see how "I only wanted to put linux on it" is a valid reason for these hackers. surely if they're good enough to hack the ps3 they can enable linux without removing key verification?

Hacking consoles ruins the platform. Remember the PSP?

They didn't hack any verification, they calculated Sony's signature code. Is buying an owning a games console not enough to warrant putting a different OS on it?

Magill

Good stuff, the more hackers they jail the better.

savemejebus

EnterNow wrote: »

Is buying an owning a games console not enough to warrant putting a different OS on it?

Legally i'd say the answer is no. To use the PS3 don't you need to accept their EULA? This is a binding legal document pertaining to the sonly software on the hardware that you own. If you can run a different OS on the PS3 without needing any element of Sony Software then you're grand. However, if you need to use sony software or code to get that running then they are within their rights to sue because you've broken the terms of the EULA.

Myrddin

savemejebus wrote: »

Legally i'd say the answer is no. To use the PS3 don't you need to accept their EULA? This is a binding legal document pertaining to the sonly software on the hardware that you own. If you can run a different OS on the PS3 without needing any element of Sony Software then you're grand. However, if you need to use sony software or code to get that running then they are within their rights to sue because you've broken the terms of the EULA.

True to an extent, you do have to accept an agreement in ofder to use the System Software, in which OtherOS is contained within. So in that sense, technically they have a case. But is it worthy of a criminal investigation? Something very wrong there, it's a civil case all day long to me. Graf's claim is that he's restoring something that was intentionally removed on a system which once advertised it. It's a big case, much like Hotz' case, probably bigger. I can only hope this judge isn't out of his/her depth like the one overseeing the Hotz case who seems to backtrack a lot.

And magill, the more hackers they jail the better? Are you aware everytime you turn on your PS3, it's harvesting every piece of info from your home network & sending to it Sony? HTPC info, share info, pc info, anything it can get including info from the HDMI port which includes the make & model of your tv. Sounds like trojan behaviour to me and a lot of others, should Sony be prosecuted?

Otacon

EnterNow wrote: »

But is it worthy of a criminal investigation? Something very wrong there, it's a civil case all day long to me. Graf's claim is that he's restoring something that was intentionally removed on a system which once advertised it.

So Sony should have to go through civil proceedings to get at the hackers, but hackers can circumvent Sony's EULA to get back some functionality in their machines?

Myrddin

Otacon wrote: »

So Sony should have to go through civil proceedings to get at the hackers, but hackers can circumvent Sony's EULA to get back some functionality in their machines?

How is it a criminal case over a civil one?

RedXIV

Otacon wrote: »

So Sony should have to go through civil proceedings to get at the hackers, but hackers can circumvent Sony's EULA to get back some functionality in their machines?

See this is thing here. The high profile hackers have all been trying to get Linux back on the machine. If I had bought a PS3 specifically for the OtherOS feature, i'd be pretty pissed too. Its no wonder that hackers would try to get the functionality back after some of them paid alot of money to get it in the first place

savemejebus

EnterNow wrote: »

. But is it worthy of a criminal investigation? Something very wrong there, it's a civil case all day long to me.

To an extent i would agree but like it or not hacking the ps3 enables piracy which is a criminal problem. And when you compound that with the pirates who commericalise their activities (selling pirate discs etc. - it isn't only people who download torrents and post on forums that take part in piracy) in order to fund some pretty horrible activities such as human trafficking, drug dealing etc. it becomes more and more a criminal case. Sure, the hackers may not have wanted to play a part in anything like that but by leaving the door open they are enabling criminal activities and can, and probably should, be held accountable.

EnterNow wrote: »

And magill, the more hackers they jail the better? Are you aware everytime you turn on your PS3, it's harvesting every piece of info from your home network & sending to it Sony? HTPC info, share info, pc info, anything it can get including info from the HDMI port which includes the make & model of your tv. Sounds like trojan behaviour to me and a lot of others, should Sony be prosecuted?

If sony did that without first getting people to agree to their EULA then yes, unfortunately when people accept the EULA they agree to it which means it's not like a trojan.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

The information is likely very technical & only useful to someone with heavy programming knowledge, but in my limited understanding this has become a big issue now. It's entirely possible, to decrypt any hardware, & with enough knowledge of the system, a dev could remove digital signature checks altogther from the Hypervisor & then install it to a console. What this means is the console won't be asking for any keys, whther hackers know them or not would become irrelevant. And what that means for you guys? More PSN cheating, further rampant pirating of games, ete etc.

Had they have left him alone? He was happy enough messing about with Linux, & often stated he'd no interest in gaming/backup managers etc. And seeing as he was the main dev for decryption, he had all the tools & knowledge too, which in turn, is now being downlaoded left right & center.

Nice going Sony!

And in doing so has pretty much wrecked his chances of playing the "but I don't believe in piracy" card in court. He has had his possessions seized for an alleged crime and instead of actually waiting for his day in court he goes and does the most extreme thing he could do, releasing the above bible which could **** things up for the millions of PS3 users out there, how noble of him.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Unless you have the pockets to fund a team of lawyers the odds are greatly stacked against you and the chances of getting in trouble are pretty high whether you've done wrong or not.

Really? I wasn't aware ones financial status dictated the proceedings in a court of law. If he can't afford representation then he'll be given legal aid. Personally I'd be surprised if some firm didn't take the work on pro bono due to the publicity the case will draw. Either way, if he has done nothing wrong within the confines of the law, he'll get off.

WolfForager

Releasing the code wasn't the worst thing he could have done, but blackmailing Sony before the raid saying "I'll release the code if you don't leave me alone", now THAT was the worst thing he could have done and he did do it...

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

Really? I wasn't aware ones financial status dictated the proceedings in a court of law.

In the US it has benefited Sony, however I'm not sure if this will go to trial in the EU or the US. Hopefully the EU.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

In the US it has benefited Sony, however I'm not sure if this will go to trial in the EU or the US. Hopefully the EU.

Oh I'd agree but mainly because I don't want to have to hear the EFF whine about how these "researchers" are being prosecuted for accessing their "own computers in a way that Sony doesn't like".

norrie rugger

RedXIV wrote: »

And actually the PSP did quite well out of piracy. It became the go-to console for plenty of people who wanted to easily mod a console.

Where as for me (Mr. Want PSP games for the LUAS) the games market basically vanished. Very little released for the PSP even gets me to look twice (been like this for a few years now)

Ciaran500

gizmo wrote: »

Really? I wasn't aware ones financial status dictated the proceedings in a court of law. If he can't afford representation then he'll be given legal aid. Personally I'd be surprised if some firm didn't take the work on pro bono due to the publicity the case will draw. Either way, if he has done nothing wrong within the confines of the law, he'll get off.

You must be kidding, Sony is throwing five lawyers at Geohot while he has spent $10,000 on two lawyers over the last few weeks. Do you really think that is going to be a fair case when Sony have the clout of five lawyers, probably specialised in the subject, dedicated to one case. With legal aid you have a state assigned lawyer (who may be shite anyway) who will be working on multiple cases as well as yours, won't specialise in what you need and won't dedicate the same amount of time to you as a lawyer would.

gizmo

Ciaran500 wrote: »

You must be kidding, Sony is throwing five lawyers at Geohot while he has spent $10,000 on two lawyers over the last few weeks. Do you really think that is going to be a fair case when Sony have the clout of five lawyers, probably specialised in the subject, dedicated to one case. With legal aid you have a state assigned lawyer (who may be shite anyway) who will be working on multiple cases as well as yours, won't specialise in what you need and won't dedicate the same amount of time to you as a lawyer would.

Quite true but none of that changes the fact that if what he did is considered legal under existing legislation he will be cleared. Sony can pay for all the highly trained lawyers they want but they can't change the law.

On the other hand, if what you and others are saying is that it's unfair that Hotz won't be able to afford an army of high flying lawyers in order to weasel out of the fact that what he did broke a law which currently exists then I'll happily concede the point. The reason I make the distinction is that people seem to be so sure that what they are doing is perfectly legal and it seems odd they'd complain when he has to prove it.

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

Quite true but none of that changes the fact that if what he did is considered legal under existing legislation he will be cleared. Sony can pay for all the highly trained lawyers they want but they can't change the law.

On the other hand, if what you and others are saying is that it's unfair that Hotz won't be able to afford an army of high flying lawyers in order to weasel out of the fact that what he did broke a law which currently exists then I'll happily concede the point. The reason I make the distinction is that people seem to be so sure that what they are doing is perfectly legal and it seems odd they'd complain when he has to prove it.

Can you show me where in the System Software it states that any information that the PS3 can obtain from your home network including any & all devices on it shall be sent to Sony? If it's in there in any type of plain english I'll concede my point. My initial point is that while people are busy burning hackers, there own personal info is being collected by Sony unawares to them, so there's two sides here.

Ciaran500

gizmo wrote: »

Quite true but none of that changes the fact that if what he did is considered legal under existing legislation he will be cleared. Sony can pay for all the highly trained lawyers they want but they can't change the law.

On the other hand, if what you and others are saying is that it's unfair that Hotz won't be able to afford an army of high flying lawyers in order to weasel out of the fact that what he did broke a law which currently exists then I'll happily concede the point. The reason I make the distinction is that people seem to be so sure that what they are doing is perfectly legal and it seems odd they'd complain when he has to prove it.

Copyright and software laws are far from black and white and cases are won and lost on convincing a judge that your side is right. Its not as simple as providing evidence that Graf did X so he's guilty of a crime.

2smiggy

if the wanted the ps3 to play with linux, then a laptop would have been a cheaper option.
like another poster said if they are innocent they will get off, but i think what they are doing is just ruining the whole gaming experience for people who pay for there games. all the scrougers playing copied games, taking money out of the industry. Hardly a reason to spend a fortune making a great game is it.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

Can you show me where in the System Software it states that any information that the PS3 can obtain from your home network including any & all devices on it shall be sent to Sony? If it's in there in any type of plain english I'll concede my point. My initial point is that while people are busy burning hackers, there own personal info is being collected by Sony unawares to them, so there's two sides here.

While it's an interesting point in its own right, it's not relevant to this debate at all.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Copyright and software laws are far from black and white and cases are won and lost on convincing a judge that your side is right. Its not as simple as providing evidence that Graf did X so he's guilty of a crime.

So you admit that there's a chance what Graf and co did may have been illegal? The reason I ask is, as I said above, people seem to be quite insistent that what they are doing is perfectly legal. If this is the case then it should be no problem to prove it whether it takes one decent lawyer or not.

savemejebus

EnterNow wrote: »

Can you show me where in the System Software it states that any information that the PS3 can obtain from your home network including any & all devices on it shall be sent to Sony? If it's in there in any type of plain english I'll concede my point. My initial point is that while people are busy burning hackers, there own personal info is being collected by Sony unawares to them, so there's two sides here.

Doesn't this say as much

DNAS may retrieve information about your hardware and software for authentication, copy protection, account blocking, system, rules, game management and other purposes....

from point 4 here http://web.archive.org/web/20061221201902/http:/www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

Myrddin

savemejebus wrote: »

Doesn't this say as much



from point 4 here http://web.archive.org/web/20061221201902/http:/www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ps3_eula_en.html

And am I born with the knowledge of what DNAS is/stands for? Also, I've no problem with info about my hardware/software being sent to Sony, but I do have a problem with them harvesting information the pertains to every other device on my lan.

Giizmo, when two parties in a case are at fault, it makes it relevant.

savemejebus

It is explained in the full EULA, i just took out the noteworthy sentence. And you note how vague they are in that they did not say PS3, they said retrieve information about your hardware/software which can be spun to mean so much more.

Ciaran500

gizmo wrote: »

So you admit that there's a chance what Graf and co did may have been illegal? The reason I ask is, as I said above, people seem to be quite insistent that what they are doing is perfectly legal. If this is the case then it should be no problem to prove it whether it takes one decent lawyer or not.

I've no idea, but that not at all the point I was arguing.

Myrddin

savemejebus wrote: »

And you note how vague they are in that they did not say PS3, they said retrieve information about your hardware/software which can be spun to mean so much more.

Semantic bullsh1t (on Sony's part), it wouldn't hold up in any EU court. We all know Sony are no strangers to this anyway, weren't they ordered to recall thousands of cd's when it was proved they had rootkits which auto-installed onto pc's? I don't see how this is any different.

Myrddin

savemejebus wrote: »

It is explained in the full EULA, i just took out the noteworthy sentence. And you note how vague they are in that they did not say PS3, they said retrieve information about your hardware/software which can be spun to mean so much more.

Also what of those that bought their system 2nd hand like myself? Not everyone may be aware there's an agreement to use your games console? What of those people's right to privacy?

Helix

EnterNow wrote: »

Also what of those that bought their system 2nd hand like myself? Not everyone may be aware there's an agreement to use your games console? What of those people's right to privacy?

doesnt the original owner agree in the eula that they cant resell the machine?

Myrddin

Helix wrote: »

doesnt the original owner agree in the eula that they cant resell the machine?

Lol, you have to be joking? It's illegal to sell on the console? KNowing Sony it wouldn't surprise me really.

sarumite

savemejebus wrote: »

Legally i'd say the answer is no. To use the PS3 don't you need to accept their EULA? This is a binding legal document pertaining to the sonly software on the hardware that you own. If you can run a different OS on the PS3 without needing any element of Sony Software then you're grand. However, if you need to use sony software or code to get that running then they are within their rights to sue because you've broken the terms of the EULA.

Where is the EULA on the box?.....IIRC I had to buy my PS3 before I could read the EULA. I don't know how forcing me to buy something before I can read the EULA could be legal?

Grumpypants

EULA's are about as legally binding as Ryanairs terms and conditions. Ie. their not.

Grumpypants

sarumite wrote: »

Where is the EULA on the box?.....IIRC I had to buy my PS3 before I could read the EULA. I don't know how forcing me to buy something before I can read the EULA could be legal?

Exactly Its not, I think the term is a closed contract ie you cant see it. You can't agree to a legal contract you are obstructed from viewing.

Also a company can not enter into a contract with a child so if Sony want to make PS3's strictly over 18 and get you to read and sign a contract at the point of purchase then an EULA may have a little bit of legal backing.

Ciaran500

sarumite wrote: »

Where is the EULA on the box?.....IIRC I had to buy my PS3 before I could read the EULA. I don't know how forcing me to buy something before I can read the EULA could be legal?

Fairly certain EULA's say take the product back to the retailer if you don't agree with it.

savemejebus

EnterNow wrote: »

Semantic bullsh1t (on Sony's part), it wouldn't hold up in any EU court. We all know Sony are no strangers to this anyway, weren't they ordered to recall thousands of cd's when it was proved they had rootkits which auto-installed onto pc's? I don't see how this is any different.

Try arguing the semantics with a legal team and see how you get on, as to whether EU courts would hold this up, it remains to be seen, however not reading T&Cs that are agreed to is not an excuse that holds up either.

The rootkit debacle was a different story in that, if i recall correctly, there was no agreement for people to opt into. It was a pure stealth install.

EnterNow wrote: »

Also what of those that bought their system 2nd hand like myself? Not everyone may be aware there's an agreement to use your games console? What of those people's right to privacy?

Doesn't setting up an account, installing firmware etc. require the user to accept T&Cs including the EULA? I would imagine that unless you are coasting on someon elses account you've clicked ok at some point and agreed to the EULA.

As to right to privacy, the EULA states that it takes non-identifying info but they've already covered their arses by having you 'opt in'. The onus would be on the user to prove otherwise, and tbh so far I haven't ready anthing other than rumours about the snooping ability of the new firmware beyond those of the T&Cs. Are there confirmed articles and reports about it?

If someone bought the hardware and then totally wiped it and installed their own non-sony derived os software then maybe they;d have a legal leg to stand on.

Helix wrote: »

doesnt the original owner agree in the eula that they cant resell the machine?

From my reading of the EULA (that i posted earlier) it's reselling of software not the hardware that is banned.

sarumite wrote: »

Where is the EULA on the box?.....IIRC I had to buy my PS3 before I could read the EULA. I don't know how forcing me to buy something before I can read the EULA could be legal?

EULA is in the box and part of the setup process. As, i think was posted before if you don't like it the EULA says you can bring it back to the shop.

Just for clarity's sake, this post is not trying to defend sony, it's just pointing out how this stuff works (to the best of my knowledge). Crap like this is what you get roped into when you just blindly click on t&cs without reading them because we're rushing to play a game etc.(like most of us do).

Snakeblood

gizmo wrote: »

Really? I wasn't aware ones financial status dictated the proceedings in a court of law. If he can't afford representation then he'll be given legal aid. Personally I'd be surprised if some firm didn't take the work on pro bono due to the publicity the case will draw. Either way, if he has done nothing wrong within the confines of the law, he'll get off.

Er. That's quite naive.

Varik

savemejebus wrote: »

EULA is in the box and part of the setup process. As, i think was posted before if you don't like it the EULA says you can bring it back to the shop.

Even if it didn't say you could bring it back you still could as it was not as described.

Myrddin

savemejebus wrote: »

Try arguing the semantics with a legal team and see how you get on, as to whether EU courts would hold this up, it remains to be seen, however not reading T&Cs that are agreed to is not an excuse that holds up either.

I can't see anyone taking direct legal issue with it really, we'll prob never see how that one would pan out in a court.

savemejebus wrote:

The rootkit debacle was a different story in that, if i recall correctly, there was no agreement for people to opt into. It was a pure stealth install.

Still though, having to trawl through legal mumbo jumbo in a EULA agreement isn't exactly being open about what's going on.

savemejebus wrote:

Doesn't setting up an account, installing firmware etc. require the user to accept T&Cs including the EULA? I would imagine that unless you are coasting on someon elses account you've clicked ok at some point and agreed to the EULA.

In my case I've never used PSN, therefore I'd no need for an account. I also never didn't update the firmware that was on the console for a good while after I got it. During that time, I was unaware any agreement had taken place. I genuinely didn't know about it, I clicked ok to nothing, & I agreed to nothing, yet despite that, my information was being sent to Sony.

savemejebus wrote:

As to right to privacy, the EULA states that it takes non-identifying info but they've already covered their arses by having you 'opt in'. The onus would be on the user to prove otherwise

Again, I would have 'opted in' to nothing at that time.

savemejebus wrote:

and tbh so far I haven't ready anthing other than rumours about the snooping ability of the new firmware beyond those of the T&Cs. Are there confirmed articles and reports about it?

This came to light way before the mainstream article. The usb traffic was intercepted & analysed, & while at the time a lot of it was encrypted, it could be seen there was information being transmitted which did not only pertain to the PS3 console and its useage, but of all other LAN devices including mac addresses etc etc. This has been confirmed, whether the other PSN stuff regarding credit card numbers has been or not though I'm not sure, but the credit card thing isn't what my problem is.

savemejebus wrote:

If someone bought the hardware and then totally wiped it and installed their own non-sony derived os software then maybe they;d have a legal leg to stand on.

Agreed.

savemejebus wrote:

From my reading of the EULA (that i posted earlier) it's reselling of software not the hardware that is banned.

So in the case of a used PS3 on Adverts.ie for example, is that permisseable in the EULA? If so, how does it cater for my example in being unaware of any agreements (I'm not a PSN user remember). If it's not permisseable, then every 2nd hand PS3 for sale is in violation of the System Software EULA?

savemejebus wrote:

EULA is in the box and part of the setup process. As, i think was posted before if you don't like it the EULA says you can bring it back to the shop.

That's well & good, but I'd like to see someone on ebay refunding for that reason.

savemejebus wrote:

Just for clarity's sake, this post is not trying to defend sony, it's just pointing out how this stuff works (to the best of my knowledge). Crap like this is what you get roped into when you just blindly click on t&cs without reading them because we're rushing to play a game etc.(like most of us do).

And I'm not trying to attack them, just merely pointing out that they're no angels, & certainly no strangers to covert installations etc. Agreed re the t&c's, they're just too painful to read for the average person who just wants to play their games.

savemejebus

Doesn't one need to create a username to use the PS3? It's ages since i've done that but i recall having to create a username and click ok a number of times to access the xmb. nothing to do with PSN.

As for Sony being no angels, they are a humongous corporation with the goal of making profits. Angels is the furthest thing from what I'd consider them . Then again, the hackers ain't angels too, If they really cared about linux they could have bought laptops or PCs.

Sony and MS and Google get away with so much because we've blindly assented to a lot of things without knowing it.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

Giizmo, when two parties in a case are at fault, it makes it relevant.

They're at fault for two very different issues which are unrelated to each other in this case. To clarify, Sony sending home info on your home network has nothing to do with people compromising the security of the device in order to install Linux/play "backed up" games.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I've no idea, but that not at all the point I was arguing.

Well evidently Sony do have an idea, they think he broke the law so they're going after him. From what I gather though, you're implying that even if what he did was legal, somehow Sony's legal team will be able to convince the judge otherwise. My point is simply that if they're so sure what they did was legal, which I gather they do from what both they and Hotz have said, then they shouldn't have a problem.

The issue is, and I think they know it themselves, that they're on the very fringe of what is deemed legal and it could be swung either way. If this is the case then why in the hell did they they go and publish their work to great fanfare in the first place. Not only that but Graf then went and threatened Sony with the release of his hardware bible which basically blew any credibility he had in the lead up to this.

Myrddin

gizmo wrote: »

They're at fault for two very different issues which are unrelated to each other in this case. To clarify, Sony sending home info on your home network has nothing to do with people compromising the security of the device in order to install Linux/play "backed up" games.

Oh I see, thanks for that clarification...how silly of me to point out our own privacy is invaded through the ps3, which I regard also as security. I'll try not make such a stupid mistake in future.

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

Oh I see, thanks for that clarification...how silly of me to point out our own privacy is invaded through the ps3, which I regard also as security. I'll try not make such a stupid mistake in future.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

Oh I see, thanks for that clarification...how silly of me to point out our own privacy is invaded through the ps3, which I regard also as security. I'll try not make such a stupid mistake in future.

No need to be sarky, you're insisting that Sony being jerks at phoning home somehow justifies the hacking of their platform when it doesn't in either the motivations of the those who carried it out or the forthcoming court case.

I'm happy to agree with you that they shouldn't be phoning home of course. I just don't see how it's relevant to this issue.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

Lol, really Varik, I had you down for being more original than that

gizmo wrote: »

No need to be sarky, you're insisting that Sony being jerks at phoning home somehow justifies the hacking of their platform when it doesn't in either the motivations of the those who carried it out or the forthcoming court case.

I'm happy to agree with you that they shouldn't be phoning home of course. I just don't see how it's relevant to this issue.

How does it mean I think it justifies it? I just think people should be aware of it though, before jumping on the 'burn the hackers' bandwagon that this news will initially cause people think. For the record, it in no way justifies piracy, or any blatant t&c evasion.

gizmo

EnterNow wrote: »

How does it mean I think it justifies it? I just think people should be aware of it though, before jumping on the 'burn the hackers' bandwagon that this news will initially cause people think. For the record, it in no way justifies piracy, or any blatant t&c evasion.

Well apologies for making that connection but I was just confused as to why you responded with it to my post here.

savemejebus

Why should people be aware of that though before "jumping on the burn the hackers bandwagon". Were the hackers working only in order to stop sony 'snooping'? If they weren't then it is irrelevant to the arrest. 2 wrongs still won't make a right.

edit: I don't subscribe to a 'burn the hackers' bandwagon, but at the same time i don't subscribe to 'save the saintly hackers who are working for purely altruistic purposes" either.