8 ms·

PlayStation 3 Hacker Must Allow Sony to Inspect His Hard Drive

77 points by ssclafani 16y ago

gisenberg 16y ago
> The judge also backed off on an order that Hotz “retrieve” the code from anybody who he may have forwarded it to. Good to see the judge is knowledgeable in this area! I'm sure this will end well.
- tptacek 16y ago
  If, by "end well", you mean "the judge readily conceded that there was no practical way for this to happen and apologized for the ill-thought-out demand", then know (by reading just a few sentences further) that this already happened.
  - logjam 16y ago
    Uh, "readily conceded?" The judge took several weeks to finally realize that she made an "ill-thought-thought out demand" to "retrieve the codes".
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Several weeks is milliseconds in legal hearing time. Have you ever taken something simple to actual civil court before? It doesn't look like this got dragged out; the defense objected to the request, the judge reconsidered, and then apologized. What more can you reasonably ask for?
      - mtarnovan 16y ago
        I could reasonably ask for the judge to have the common sense not to make such an outlandish request in the first place.
        tptacek 16y ago
        You just made a comment at least two other people made before you, so I'll let my answers to those stand here too.
        mtarnovan 16y ago
        I was just answering your pseudorhetorical question in a semi-satirical way.
  - jerf 16y ago
    It's a little disturbing the order was ever made, though, because the fact that information can't be retrieved isn't some unique computer complication, it's just generally true. There aren't any media in which you can uncommunicate. (A couple of computer media try to hack it in but they can't recover copies either.) If I were being tried by a judge who did that, I would realize that I've basically already lost, pretty much no matter what happens next. (Which in this case is probably a null issue. This is an open-and-shut DMCA violation. I disagree with the DMCA but that doesn't change the fact that it's an open-and-shut DMCA violation.)
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I'm not even a little bit disturbed the order was made. I'm thrilled that the judge backed off and apologized for making the request. Tells me that she's actually listening to the defendant; will be helpful down the road.
    - tedunangst 16y ago
      There's not much detail about the order, but it seems reasonable to me. Don't interpret code strictly as the bits, but possibly as media. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, unless you're the kind of person who makes corrections like "it's not a movie, it's a DVD containing a movie". "Defendant gave the code to person X. He should get it back." Here, "the code" could reasonably be a USB stick, a printout, or whatnot. If the request didn't make clear it was distributed over the internet, why would the order?
  - gisenberg 16y ago
    The order being made at all is what I'm most concerned about. This is an important case about technology with a judge that demonstrably does not understand technology. Perfect recipe for a lose-lose situation.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      First, we're probably hyperventilating about the extent to which this request was nonsensical. It could have been an oversight on the judge's part, or there could have been a rationale behind the request that simply didn't turn out to be reasonable in hindsight. We may never know, because the judge (properly) conceded the point quickly. Second, it is not the job of a judge to "understand technology". We may not even want judges that are specifically steeped in technical knowledge. What we need them to be is fair arbiters of the law and of the ways the law allows facts to be introduced into evidence.
      - vilya 16y ago
        Surely in a case which revolves around technology like this it's reasonable to expect the judge to have some technical knowledge? The job of a judge is to interpret the law as it applies to a particular case; if they have no knowledge of the context in which the case has arisen they could very well come up with a bad/nonsense interpretation.
aw3c2 16y ago
The accused has to led the accuser inspect his data? Scary! I sure hope they use forensic standards such as not the actual hard drive but an image of it. Otherwise the chances to plant some evidence are truly disturbing.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  I wonder if, for situations like this, you could have a neutral third party image your drive, keep one for themselves and push the image over to Sony.
  - m0nastic 16y ago
    You won't likely find such a party in cases like this. What is more likely is that each side will hire a forensics firm to image the drive, and as long as both their checksums match, than there isn't much disagreement.
    - Natsu 16y ago
      I remember one P2P case that was swiftly dropped because of smart lawyering by the defendant's lawyers. To deal with the "expedited discovery" bit, the lawyer himself took custody of their hard drives. As an officer of the court, he could take responsibility for preventing evidence from being destroyed. He then offered to make it available to third-party forensics experts for imaging, and they would be able to get a ruling from a judge concerning exactly which things those experts would be ordered to search for (rather than letting the plaintiff's lawyers trawl through everything at their leisure). I'm not quite clear on how much of that is happening here. One might hope this would be the ordinary procedure, but I have to worry about any judge who signs an order telling someone to retrieve information from the internet, period. I realize it was swiftly reconsidered and amended. For that, I give them due credit, even though I worry about any state of affairs wherein an absurd order could be issued in the first place.
- m0nastic 16y ago
  Sony won't be involved directly with any part of the forensics. Their attorneys will contract with a forensics firm who will make an image of the drives (using a write-blocked device like the ones made by Wiebetech or an Encase Fastbloc). Analysis will not be performed on the actual drive, but on the image. The defendant's attorney will also receive a copy of this image, ensuring that chain of custody was followed (or else they can sure to try and argue that the evidence has been tampered with). The images will be checksummed, and I would argue that the odds of evidence being tampered are pretty slim in this instance.
tptacek 16y ago
This is discovery for a trial, right? What's newsworthy about this? You don't have a right to be free from search and seizure period, only to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which is to say: (1) demands to compromise your privacy and security have to be mitigate by due process, and (2) Congress can't in the long run be allowed to enact laws that unduly compromise that due process. It isn't the DMCA per se that's allowing Sony to search the guy's drive, is it? It's civil law procedure. Companies routinely have to fork over years and years worth of mail spools for similar reasons.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  hmmm, your definition of due process seems to be different than "good things happen to people we like, bad things happen to people we don't like." Are you sure that's how things are supposed to work?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I absolutely do not understand what you are trying to say with this comment. Can you make your point more directly? My point is: hard drives and mail spools get handed over to the opposition in civil cases all the time. It's called "discovery".
    - SteveArmstrong 16y ago
      And his point seemed to be a simple joke on how most people expect the justice system to work. No big deal.
      - tedunangst 16y ago
        yes.
    - mentat 16y ago
      I believe he was being sarcastic.
    - 16y ago
squeezingswirls 16y ago
What a f* initiative from The Master of Rootkits Company. Never ever again I'm going to purchase a Sony product.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Not much of a compromise. Who wants a computer that can't run Linux, an MP3 player that only plays ATRAC, and a digital camera that can't take SD cards? Sony is an evil company, and their products don't make up for it.
  - danudey 16y ago
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
shii 16y ago
Streisand effect[1] for the win. Top comments on both this wired article and other linked ones has the code[2]. This judge is sorely out of touch with what's going on. Also, "Sony is also asking Judge Illston to order Google to surrender the IP addresses [.pdf] and other identifying information of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on Hotz’ private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December." ...take from that what you will. Searching[3] for the strings in question[4] yields 11k+ results. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [2]: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/playstation3-hacker-files/#comment-144418485 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/playstation3-hacker... [3]: http://www.google.com/search?&q=erk:+C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A+7E+B8+46+50+9F+93+B2+38+E7+70+DA+CB+9F+F4+A3+88+F8+12+48+2B+E2+1Briv:+47+EE+74+54+E4+77+4C+C9+B8+96+0C+7B+59+F4+C1+4Dpub:+C2+D4+AA+F3+19+35+50+19+AF+99+D4+4E+2B+58+CA+29+25+2C+89+12+3D+11+D6+21+8F+40+B1+38+CA+B2+9B+71+01+F3+AE+B7+2A+97+50+19R:+80+6E+07+8F+A1+52+97+90+CE+1A+AE+02+BA+DD+6F+AA+A6+AF+74+17n:+E1+3A+7E+BC+3A+CC+EB+1C+B5+6C+C8+60+FC+AB+DB+6A+04+8C+55+E1K:+BA+90+55+91+68+61+B9+77+ED+CB+ED+92+00+50+92+F6+6C+7A+3D+8DDa:+C5+B2+BF+A1+A4+13+DD+16+F2+6D+31+C0+F2+ED+47+20+DC+FB+06+70 http://www.google.com/search?&q=erk:+C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F... [4]: erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19 R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17 n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1 K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
- jjcm 16y ago
  I'm getting 28,900 results for the erk string: http://www.google.com/search?q=C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A+7E+B8+46+50+9F+93+B2+38+E7+70+DA+CB+9F+F4+A3+88+F8+12+48+2B+E2+1B#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A+7E+B8+46+50+9F+93+B2+38+E7+70+DA+CB+9F+F4+A3+88+F8+12+48+2B+E2+1B%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=649be7798417a8e0 http://www.google.com/search?q=C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A...
  - 16y ago
kleiba 16y ago
Ah kids, gather here by the fire with me, and let me tell you a story of the olden times when you bought a car and could do whatever the hell you wanted with it. Because when you bought the car, you made it your property. You could modify it in whatever way you want. Sure, there were rules if you wanted to take it our for a ride, because others could get hurt. But if you were doing it just for the fun at home, no-one could stop you. You could even go over to your neighbor's house and help him change his car, too. Those were the times.
- jonhohle 16y ago
  Not only that, but you could run a business where all you did was modify cars for other people!
mmb 16y ago
Sounds like a use case for a TrueCrypt hidden volume.
pig 16y ago
52 comments. tptacek has made 48 of them.
daimyoyo 16y ago
And if he encrypts the data behind true crypt and refuses to give the key, what then? Will he be thrown in jail?

77 points by ssclafani 16y ago

> The judge also backed off on an order that Hotz “retrieve” the code from anybody who he may have forwarded it to. Good to see the judge is knowledgeable in this area! I'm sure this will end well.

tptacek 16y ago
If, by "end well", you mean "the judge readily conceded that there was no practical way for this to happen and apologized for the ill-thought-out demand", then know (by reading just a few sentences further) that this already happened.
- logjam 16y ago
  Uh, "readily conceded?" The judge took several weeks to finally realize that she made an "ill-thought-thought out demand" to "retrieve the codes".
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Several weeks is milliseconds in legal hearing time. Have you ever taken something simple to actual civil court before? It doesn't look like this got dragged out; the defense objected to the request, the judge reconsidered, and then apologized. What more can you reasonably ask for?
    - mtarnovan 16y ago
      I could reasonably ask for the judge to have the common sense not to make such an outlandish request in the first place.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        You just made a comment at least two other people made before you, so I'll let my answers to those stand here too.
        mtarnovan 16y ago
        I was just answering your pseudorhetorical question in a semi-satirical way.
- jerf 16y ago
  It's a little disturbing the order was ever made, though, because the fact that information can't be retrieved isn't some unique computer complication, it's just generally true. There aren't any media in which you can uncommunicate. (A couple of computer media try to hack it in but they can't recover copies either.) If I were being tried by a judge who did that, I would realize that I've basically already lost, pretty much no matter what happens next. (Which in this case is probably a null issue. This is an open-and-shut DMCA violation. I disagree with the DMCA but that doesn't change the fact that it's an open-and-shut DMCA violation.)
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I'm not even a little bit disturbed the order was made. I'm thrilled that the judge backed off and apologized for making the request. Tells me that she's actually listening to the defendant; will be helpful down the road.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    There's not much detail about the order, but it seems reasonable to me. Don't interpret code strictly as the bits, but possibly as media. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, unless you're the kind of person who makes corrections like "it's not a movie, it's a DVD containing a movie". "Defendant gave the code to person X. He should get it back." Here, "the code" could reasonably be a USB stick, a printout, or whatnot. If the request didn't make clear it was distributed over the internet, why would the order?
- gisenberg 16y ago
  The order being made at all is what I'm most concerned about. This is an important case about technology with a judge that demonstrably does not understand technology. Perfect recipe for a lose-lose situation.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    First, we're probably hyperventilating about the extent to which this request was nonsensical. It could have been an oversight on the judge's part, or there could have been a rationale behind the request that simply didn't turn out to be reasonable in hindsight. We may never know, because the judge (properly) conceded the point quickly. Second, it is not the job of a judge to "understand technology". We may not even want judges that are specifically steeped in technical knowledge. What we need them to be is fair arbiters of the law and of the ways the law allows facts to be introduced into evidence.
    - vilya 16y ago
      Surely in a case which revolves around technology like this it's reasonable to expect the judge to have some technical knowledge? The job of a judge is to interpret the law as it applies to a particular case; if they have no knowledge of the context in which the case has arisen they could very well come up with a bad/nonsense interpretation.

aw3c2 16y ago

The accused has to led the accuser inspect his data? Scary! I sure hope they use forensic standards such as not the actual hard drive but an image of it. Otherwise the chances to plant some evidence are truly disturbing.

sukuriant 16y ago
I wonder if, for situations like this, you could have a neutral third party image your drive, keep one for themselves and push the image over to Sony.
- m0nastic 16y ago
  You won't likely find such a party in cases like this. What is more likely is that each side will hire a forensics firm to image the drive, and as long as both their checksums match, than there isn't much disagreement.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    I remember one P2P case that was swiftly dropped because of smart lawyering by the defendant's lawyers. To deal with the "expedited discovery" bit, the lawyer himself took custody of their hard drives. As an officer of the court, he could take responsibility for preventing evidence from being destroyed. He then offered to make it available to third-party forensics experts for imaging, and they would be able to get a ruling from a judge concerning exactly which things those experts would be ordered to search for (rather than letting the plaintiff's lawyers trawl through everything at their leisure). I'm not quite clear on how much of that is happening here. One might hope this would be the ordinary procedure, but I have to worry about any judge who signs an order telling someone to retrieve information from the internet, period. I realize it was swiftly reconsidered and amended. For that, I give them due credit, even though I worry about any state of affairs wherein an absurd order could be issued in the first place.
m0nastic 16y ago
Sony won't be involved directly with any part of the forensics. Their attorneys will contract with a forensics firm who will make an image of the drives (using a write-blocked device like the ones made by Wiebetech or an Encase Fastbloc). Analysis will not be performed on the actual drive, but on the image. The defendant's attorney will also receive a copy of this image, ensuring that chain of custody was followed (or else they can sure to try and argue that the evidence has been tampered with). The images will be checksummed, and I would argue that the odds of evidence being tampered are pretty slim in this instance.

tptacek 16y ago

This is discovery for a trial, right? What's newsworthy about this? You don't have a right to be free from search and seizure period, only to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which is to say: (1) demands to compromise your privacy and security have to be mitigate by due process, and (2) Congress can't in the long run be allowed to enact laws that unduly compromise that due process. It isn't the DMCA per se that's allowing Sony to search the guy's drive, is it? It's civil law procedure. Companies routinely have to fork over years and years worth of mail spools for similar reasons.

tedunangst 16y ago
hmmm, your definition of due process seems to be different than "good things happen to people we like, bad things happen to people we don't like." Are you sure that's how things are supposed to work?
- tptacek 16y ago
  I absolutely do not understand what you are trying to say with this comment. Can you make your point more directly? My point is: hard drives and mail spools get handed over to the opposition in civil cases all the time. It's called "discovery".
  - SteveArmstrong 16y ago
    And his point seemed to be a simple joke on how most people expect the justice system to work. No big deal.
    - tedunangst 16y ago
      yes.
  - mentat 16y ago
    I believe he was being sarcastic.
  - 16y ago

squeezingswirls 16y ago

What a f* initiative from The Master of Rootkits Company. Never ever again I'm going to purchase a Sony product.

jrockway 16y ago
Not much of a compromise. Who wants a computer that can't run Linux, an MP3 player that only plays ATRAC, and a digital camera that can't take SD cards? Sony is an evil company, and their products don't make up for it.
- danudey 16y ago
  Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

shii 16y ago

Streisand effect[1] for the win. Top comments on both this wired article and other linked ones has the code[2]. This judge is sorely out of touch with what's going on. Also, "Sony is also asking Judge Illston to order Google to surrender the IP addresses [.pdf] and other identifying information of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on Hotz’ private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December." ...take from that what you will. Searching[3] for the strings in question[4] yields 11k+ results. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [2]: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/playstation3-hacker-files/#comment-144418485 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/playstation3-hacker... [3]: http://www.google.com/search?&q=erk:+C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A+7E+B8+46+50+9F+93+B2+38+E7+70+DA+CB+9F+F4+A3+88+F8+12+48+2B+E2+1Briv:+47+EE+74+54+E4+77+4C+C9+B8+96+0C+7B+59+F4+C1+4Dpub:+C2+D4+AA+F3+19+35+50+19+AF+99+D4+4E+2B+58+CA+29+25+2C+89+12+3D+11+D6+21+8F+40+B1+38+CA+B2+9B+71+01+F3+AE+B7+2A+97+50+19R:+80+6E+07+8F+A1+52+97+90+CE+1A+AE+02+BA+DD+6F+AA+A6+AF+74+17n:+E1+3A+7E+BC+3A+CC+EB+1C+B5+6C+C8+60+FC+AB+DB+6A+04+8C+55+E1K:+BA+90+55+91+68+61+B9+77+ED+CB+ED+92+00+50+92+F6+6C+7A+3D+8DDa:+C5+B2+BF+A1+A4+13+DD+16+F2+6D+31+C0+F2+ED+47+20+DC+FB+06+70 http://www.google.com/search?&q=erk:+C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F... [4]: erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19 R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17 n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1 K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70

jjcm 16y ago
I'm getting 28,900 results for the erk string: http://www.google.com/search?q=C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A+7E+B8+46+50+9F+93+B2+38+E7+70+DA+CB+9F+F4+A3+88+F8+12+48+2B+E2+1B#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A+7E+B8+46+50+9F+93+B2+38+E7+70+DA+CB+9F+F4+A3+88+F8+12+48+2B+E2+1B%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=649be7798417a8e0 http://www.google.com/search?q=C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F7+5B+D0+7A...
- 16y ago

kleiba 16y ago

Ah kids, gather here by the fire with me, and let me tell you a story of the olden times when you bought a car and could do whatever the hell you wanted with it. Because when you bought the car, you made it your property. You could modify it in whatever way you want. Sure, there were rules if you wanted to take it our for a ride, because others could get hurt. But if you were doing it just for the fun at home, no-one could stop you. You could even go over to your neighbor's house and help him change his car, too. Those were the times.

jonhohle 16y ago
Not only that, but you could run a business where all you did was modify cars for other people!

mmb 16y ago

Sounds like a use case for a TrueCrypt hidden volume.

pig 16y ago

52 comments. tptacek has made 48 of them.

daimyoyo 16y ago

And if he encrypts the data behind true crypt and refuses to give the key, what then? Will he be thrown in jail?