3 ms·

"The Hotz incident was followed in February by a German police raid on the apartment of Alexander Egorenkov, another hacker who had distributed software that le

by 9999 15y ago

"The Hotz incident was followed in February by a German police raid on the apartment of Alexander Egorenkov, another hacker who had distributed software that let PlayStation consoles run homemade games. Other technology companies have found ways to channel hackers' energy without resorting to lawsuits. Microsoft (MSFT), for instance, permits hackers to unlock its Kinect gaming device and invites some of them to its conferences. Google (GOOG) pays white-hat hackers who help identify bugs. Sony is far more uncompromising, says Robert Vamosi, a senior analyst at security firm Mocana. "Hardware manufacturers like Sony just aren't very good about listening when a security researcher presents them with a flaw," Vamosi says. " That paragraph I just quoted up there is some of the sloppiest journalism I've ever seen. The analogy being drawn is completely without merit. Microsoft is "hacker" friendly because they allow people to fool around with the Kinect? And Sony is hacker unfriendly because they removed a feature (the Linux install option) that they feared would lead to massive piracy? And Google is just great because they offer bounties for security flaws? In what way are any of those facts similar? None of them are even referring to the same sort of "hacking." If Google made a game system that made its money based on licensing fees from software sales, it would do everything within its power to prevent piracy. Microsoft already does this. Running homebrew was not what Sony was trying to stop. What I'm about to say will probably be very unpopular here. Anyway, the "hacker" (I hate their usage here... they should say cracker) excuse that they are just trying to enable homebrew software is utterly laughable as well. As soon as Geohotz was successful, numerous other companies capitalized on it and went to that next (tiny, tiny, tiny) step to enable running pirated games. Should Sony have sued Geohotz? Probably not. But what did Geohotz honestly think people were going to do with his developments? Does he want people to keep making games for the PS3? Did he honestly think that people wouldn't immediately turn around and use his progress to pirate games? The ethics of this supposed "hacker" community leave a lot to be desired, and I truly wish we could return to the old usage of the term, and stop applying it to people that are really just safe crackers and thieves. Our laws are completely inadequate for addressing this kind of abuse now, and I dread to see what sort of draconian measures will be put in place in response to this sort of shortsighted, unethical, and lame "hacking." If you don't want a closed system, then don't buy it. This is what will give us more open systems in the future, not enabling pirates.

blhack 15y ago
The reason what you're saying is unpopular here is because it is fundamentally incorrect. What difference do you see between hacking your PS3 and hacking your kinect? How is hacking your ps3 "cracking"? In my opinion, and I suspect that the vast majority of technologically literate people would agree with me, what happened with the PS3 fits the classic definition of hacking perfectly.
- 9999 15y ago
  The Kinect hacks consisted of using the Kinect device for reasons other than originally intended. No laws were broken. The intent is basically pure. The hackers (because they are real hackers) just asked themselves "what else can we do with this hardware?" They broke no laws. They did no economic harm to MS, and if anything, helped them. On the other hand, the PS3 hack will primarily be used to enable piracy. That's it really. Did it initially enable homebrew games? Yes, but is that what the vast majority of people will use it for? You're deluded if you think otherwise. The problem I have with non-ethical non-consequentialist crackers like Geohotz is that they are not solving a legitimate problem in the first place. If you want to make open systems, then stop providing monetary support to closed systems in the first place.
  - shareme 15y ago
    its use beyond the original hacker is not the issue here..if it was we would never have encrypted email because at a certain point in time US gov outlawed all private encrypted software..when pgp was first programmed before it was released it was illegal to have any software that encrypted..and than the US gov agencies finally relented and allowed commercial software that encrypted.. Another example, If I hack the US ID card to see what data is stored on it..am I now a criminal by what the popular use of that hack is?
    - 9999 15y ago
      This is not actually a question of the law, but of ethics. Geohotz did not break any Federal law in doing what he did. If you know that providing something (the root key to the PS3) will enable massive piracy, should you do it? Here is his original post regarding the supply of the root key: " ~geohot props to fail0verflow for the asymmetric half no donate link, just use this info wisely i do not condone piracy if you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me. any of you 3. it'd be fun to be on the other side. ...and this is a real self, hello world although it's not NPDRM, so please wait to run... shouts to the guys who did PSL1GHT without you, I couldn't release this first piece of homebrew you can run put in service mode, put on usb stick, boot" So, in that initial post, he does not solicit donations (although he had before and does after). He then announces that he doesn't "condone piracy", then he solicits employment from the three major console manufacturers. What reason would they have to employ him? What he's doing just enables homebrew software, right? They don't really care about homebrew now do they? No, they care about piracy. So what he's really conveying here is this: "I just enabled massive piracy on the console that so far has been hardest to crack. I don't approve of it, but I know that's what it will actually be used for. Hey, why don't you give me some money so this won't happen again?" Sounds like extortion and accessory to theft to me. But our laws don't really work out that way. Yet. I don't want our laws to enable that. I want people with Geohotz' skill to be responsible and actually work with companies like Sony. Is it partially Sony's fault that he didn't? Maybe, but that's a tenuous conclusion at best (does anyone know if he ever privately gave this information to Sony? or if he even attempted to?). On the other hand, it's patently obvious that he knew exactly what his work would be used for, and released it to the masses anyway.

by 9999 15y ago

blhack 15y ago

The reason what you're saying is unpopular here is because it is fundamentally incorrect. What difference do you see between hacking your PS3 and hacking your kinect? How is hacking your ps3 "cracking"? In my opinion, and I suspect that the vast majority of technologically literate people would agree with me, what happened with the PS3 fits the classic definition of hacking perfectly.

9999 15y ago
The Kinect hacks consisted of using the Kinect device for reasons other than originally intended. No laws were broken. The intent is basically pure. The hackers (because they are real hackers) just asked themselves "what else can we do with this hardware?" They broke no laws. They did no economic harm to MS, and if anything, helped them. On the other hand, the PS3 hack will primarily be used to enable piracy. That's it really. Did it initially enable homebrew games? Yes, but is that what the vast majority of people will use it for? You're deluded if you think otherwise. The problem I have with non-ethical non-consequentialist crackers like Geohotz is that they are not solving a legitimate problem in the first place. If you want to make open systems, then stop providing monetary support to closed systems in the first place.
- shareme 15y ago
  its use beyond the original hacker is not the issue here..if it was we would never have encrypted email because at a certain point in time US gov outlawed all private encrypted software..when pgp was first programmed before it was released it was illegal to have any software that encrypted..and than the US gov agencies finally relented and allowed commercial software that encrypted.. Another example, If I hack the US ID card to see what data is stored on it..am I now a criminal by what the popular use of that hack is?
  - 9999 15y ago
    This is not actually a question of the law, but of ethics. Geohotz did not break any Federal law in doing what he did. If you know that providing something (the root key to the PS3) will enable massive piracy, should you do it? Here is his original post regarding the supply of the root key: " ~geohot props to fail0verflow for the asymmetric half no donate link, just use this info wisely i do not condone piracy if you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me. any of you 3. it'd be fun to be on the other side. ...and this is a real self, hello world although it's not NPDRM, so please wait to run... shouts to the guys who did PSL1GHT without you, I couldn't release this first piece of homebrew you can run put in service mode, put on usb stick, boot" So, in that initial post, he does not solicit donations (although he had before and does after). He then announces that he doesn't "condone piracy", then he solicits employment from the three major console manufacturers. What reason would they have to employ him? What he's doing just enables homebrew software, right? They don't really care about homebrew now do they? No, they care about piracy. So what he's really conveying here is this: "I just enabled massive piracy on the console that so far has been hardest to crack. I don't approve of it, but I know that's what it will actually be used for. Hey, why don't you give me some money so this won't happen again?" Sounds like extortion and accessory to theft to me. But our laws don't really work out that way. Yet. I don't want our laws to enable that. I want people with Geohotz' skill to be responsible and actually work with companies like Sony. Is it partially Sony's fault that he didn't? Maybe, but that's a tenuous conclusion at best (does anyone know if he ever privately gave this information to Sony? or if he even attempted to?). On the other hand, it's patently obvious that he knew exactly what his work would be used for, and released it to the masses anyway.