4 ms·

Quit it with this hippy tech youth crap. The guy committed a crime. Get over it. It's time for him to face justice. I swear, some people are retarded.

wnight 15y ago
Quit it with this codger pissing his diaper routine. I know blindly following the law is seeming more important as you get old but the "crime" consisted of sending malformed data and it caused games to go offline. Get over it. It's time to require Sony to run their business properly instead of investigating children as if they were mobsters. I swear, some people are retarded.
- coderdude 15y ago
  This isn't blindly following the law. So someone hacks your site and we praise the hacker and condemn you? Someone breaks the lock to your front door and we applaud the burgler and make fun of your lock? Get real. I'm sick of this attitude. Just because I understand right from wrong doesn't make me some kind of lackey for the law dogs. People with your attitude convey the wrong message. You don't like Sony, I get it. But you think it's OK to hack people and destroy property as long is it's against someone you don't like and that is not OK.
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    If I had taken the possessions of thousands of people, and promised to keep them safe in my house, and then a burglar broke in and stole everything. I deserve to be condemned. sure, the burglar should be punished for the simple crime of theft that he committed. but I took the possessions of thousands of people and failed to make them secure, despite promising to do so. Especially if I took all those possessions and then used a 5 dollar lock from the local shop, instead of investing in something that may actually make secure the possessions I promised to keep safe.
    - coderdude 15y ago
      That is a terrible analogy. It's as if you were given peoples' posessions but you had someone working around the clock to find a way into your home to deface you. You're condemning Sony's engineers for missing something, even if it was a "simple" something. This LulzSec guy, however, did act in malice. He's the one who leaked information, after all.
      - bandushrew 15y ago
        it is a terrible analogy, I agree. I didn't choose it. anyway, lets keep beating on it. If I were to agree to keep the possessions of thousands of people safe under my roof, I would expect to have someone working around the clock to find a way into my home. I am not condemning Sony's engineers at all, I dont know any of them, but even so it is my absolute belief that they knew damn well how broken the system was, and that they told their management repeatedly that it needed to be fixed or customer data could be at risk. I am condemning Sony, if they agree to take my possessions and to keep them secure, they had better damn well expect to have a continuous stream of people deliberately attempting to break in.
      - wnight 15y ago
        He's, allegedly, the one who made the leak public. Yes. But that data was leaking for a long time and we have no way of knowing who else collected it. If I had thought Sony was secure I'd actually be better off now, with my card visibly leaked, than before where only the bad guys had access to it. If my card was fraudulently used I'd have been in a bad position before the leak was known - I'd be assumed to be a criminal until I proved that I didn't make the purchases. After the leak became public I'd be more likely to get reasonable treatment from my credit card company.
  - sophacles 15y ago
    Let's play the "more appropriate analogy" game: Say you take your valuables to a bank to put in a safe deposit box. They position themselves as a leader in safe deposit box technology. Then one night a burglar notices that the boxes are protected simply by a piece of cardboard panted to look like a real door, and there are no other security systems. Further the locks on the boxes can be opened by merely tapping them in the right place with a screwdriver. He takes your stuff in the heist. Are you pissed at the burgler? Of course. Are you pissed ath the bank? You should be ... But by your logic, we should ignore the facts regarding the bank's complete lack of proper safe deposit box handling and security. Obviously they must have tried real hard, and their statements about good security are no match for the evil burglar.
    - coderdude 15y ago
      That was not my logic at all. Just because Sony should be held to higher standards and just because they should be in trouble maybe for having a security flaw (like they're the only ones? It's just fashionable to hate Sony's divisions), this doesn't discount my very first point that you shouldn't downplay the fact that this person committed a crime. A very real crime that you wouldn't be defending if you liked Sony instead of disliked them. My problem is we go to hold criminals accountable for real life crimes that you wouldn't want committed against yourself and then you get these online people whining that they are heroes somehow. It's ridiculous.
      - sophacles 15y ago
        I never once declared there wasn't a crime. Nor did defend it. I didn't even declare it should be downplayed. I said it should not be overhyped. There is a difference. Please stop putting words in my mouth (erm.. fingers). You know what I don't want?: to be hacked or robbed. I think it is fine that we hold people accountable for it and punish their actions (provided it is appropriate for the crime). You know what else I don't want?: I don't want my supposedly secured info made available to the first guy with an sql-injection. I think the asshats who let this hacking-101 trick past should also be accountable and punished. It's kind of funny: you seem to think that Sony not be the only people with security flaws is somehow mitigating, but if someone said "Recursion isn't the only hacker your know" you would probably jump down their throat. I think that responsibility should go two ways and you are getting all sorts of worked up over it.
  - wnight 15y ago
    Ugh, physical analogies. That's my point. You're stuck in a world of things. Where things go missing or get broken. This is data. Physical laws apply badly, especially when applied in fear by people who hardly seem to understand the domain. A webserver is giving out data. "Hacking" it is just tricking it into not checking what it's handing out. Imagine a webserver as a really dumb employee. "Give documents in the first box, labelled 'public' to anyone. ..." If you've ended up telling that employee to give a copy of your financials to anyone who asks for it, because you forgot to tell them it wasn't a public document, it's your fault. Not only would preventing this in law involve criminalizing many protocol errors and mistakes but it merely serves to hide the real problem - trusting inherently weak security.
- epo 15y ago
  Recursion was 23, hardly a child, or are you saying Recursion was retarded?
sophacles 15y ago
You know the phrase "throw the book at him" and the idea of justice are not identical right? "Throwing the book" is about finding and (over)zealously prosecuting (with much fanfare) for every possible offense, no matter how loosely associated to the actions that offense may be. Justice is about fairly metting out punishment and consequences for actions. The very act of throwing the book at one person for a wrong and ignoring the wrongs of another is antithetical to justice. This was my point. I never said Recursion was right in his actions, nor did I say he should not be punished. In fact, I'm pretty sure I lost a lot of respect for lulzsec over this one, when they stopped focusing on those they claimed were the problem and caused "collateral damage", and think there should be consequences for that. Further, whether you agree with the message or not, this type of loud targeting of everyone that doesn't belong to the club, while not mentioning the faults of the big players, is what lulzsec was claiming to be fighting against. Throwing the book puts a certain amount of weight into those statements, no? Simply arresting and prosecuting without all the hoopla and moving on would seem far more effective if you were really against all the "hippy tech youth crap". NOTE: cut it with the absurd name calling. This is not grade-school, if you don't like my position state your disagreements.
- coderdude 15y ago
  I highly doubt he breathed as much into "throw the book at him" as you have to defend your position. My name-calling is not absurd. What is absurd is your opinion on this matter. You're part of a vocal minority that doesn't care if someone commits a crime if it satisfies your personal anti-corporate agenda.
  - n09n 15y ago
    I think a large part of their supporters don't care if someone commits a crime if it is done in a sufficiently shameless and entertaining way. Just look at Sabu's tweet.
  - sophacles 15y ago
    I very clearly stated I care that a crime has been committed. I don't have an anti-corporate agenda. I have an agenda, but it is simply that we take care to ensure that: 1. the punishment fits the crime, not that we do our worst to everyone who breaks a law ever - this is unreasonable. 2. that in our attempts to find justice in one case, we don't ignore a hundred others because our bloodlust. 3. that we assess the responsibilities of companies to their customers and recognize liability and that large coffers are tools which can be used to unbalance the system. I apologize that I have offended you with my long writing about my position on this, I don't know any one sentence platitudes or slogans on which to hang my position. You see, I have thought about it a lot, and none of the simple statements seemed to cover my thoughts fully nor appropriately. Yes, your name calling is absurd - it won't change my mind and doesn't really even offend me, just slightly annoys me because it doesn't add to the conversation. It obviously hasn't made you feel any better, you still seem pretty angry. I am actually curious why you think my postion is absurd. Would you mind telling me, using adult language and responding to the opinions I actually wrote about, not the ones you are claiming (those contradict statements I have made so I am not sure how you got them).

wnight 15y ago

Quit it with this codger pissing his diaper routine. I know blindly following the law is seeming more important as you get old but the "crime" consisted of sending malformed data and it caused games to go offline. Get over it. It's time to require Sony to run their business properly instead of investigating children as if they were mobsters. I swear, some people are retarded.

coderdude 15y ago
This isn't blindly following the law. So someone hacks your site and we praise the hacker and condemn you? Someone breaks the lock to your front door and we applaud the burgler and make fun of your lock? Get real. I'm sick of this attitude. Just because I understand right from wrong doesn't make me some kind of lackey for the law dogs. People with your attitude convey the wrong message. You don't like Sony, I get it. But you think it's OK to hack people and destroy property as long is it's against someone you don't like and that is not OK.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  If I had taken the possessions of thousands of people, and promised to keep them safe in my house, and then a burglar broke in and stole everything. I deserve to be condemned. sure, the burglar should be punished for the simple crime of theft that he committed. but I took the possessions of thousands of people and failed to make them secure, despite promising to do so. Especially if I took all those possessions and then used a 5 dollar lock from the local shop, instead of investing in something that may actually make secure the possessions I promised to keep safe.
  - coderdude 15y ago
    That is a terrible analogy. It's as if you were given peoples' posessions but you had someone working around the clock to find a way into your home to deface you. You're condemning Sony's engineers for missing something, even if it was a "simple" something. This LulzSec guy, however, did act in malice. He's the one who leaked information, after all.
    - bandushrew 15y ago
      it is a terrible analogy, I agree. I didn't choose it. anyway, lets keep beating on it. If I were to agree to keep the possessions of thousands of people safe under my roof, I would expect to have someone working around the clock to find a way into my home. I am not condemning Sony's engineers at all, I dont know any of them, but even so it is my absolute belief that they knew damn well how broken the system was, and that they told their management repeatedly that it needed to be fixed or customer data could be at risk. I am condemning Sony, if they agree to take my possessions and to keep them secure, they had better damn well expect to have a continuous stream of people deliberately attempting to break in.
    - wnight 15y ago
      He's, allegedly, the one who made the leak public. Yes. But that data was leaking for a long time and we have no way of knowing who else collected it. If I had thought Sony was secure I'd actually be better off now, with my card visibly leaked, than before where only the bad guys had access to it. If my card was fraudulently used I'd have been in a bad position before the leak was known - I'd be assumed to be a criminal until I proved that I didn't make the purchases. After the leak became public I'd be more likely to get reasonable treatment from my credit card company.
- sophacles 15y ago
  Let's play the "more appropriate analogy" game: Say you take your valuables to a bank to put in a safe deposit box. They position themselves as a leader in safe deposit box technology. Then one night a burglar notices that the boxes are protected simply by a piece of cardboard panted to look like a real door, and there are no other security systems. Further the locks on the boxes can be opened by merely tapping them in the right place with a screwdriver. He takes your stuff in the heist. Are you pissed at the burgler? Of course. Are you pissed ath the bank? You should be ... But by your logic, we should ignore the facts regarding the bank's complete lack of proper safe deposit box handling and security. Obviously they must have tried real hard, and their statements about good security are no match for the evil burglar.
  - coderdude 15y ago
    That was not my logic at all. Just because Sony should be held to higher standards and just because they should be in trouble maybe for having a security flaw (like they're the only ones? It's just fashionable to hate Sony's divisions), this doesn't discount my very first point that you shouldn't downplay the fact that this person committed a crime. A very real crime that you wouldn't be defending if you liked Sony instead of disliked them. My problem is we go to hold criminals accountable for real life crimes that you wouldn't want committed against yourself and then you get these online people whining that they are heroes somehow. It's ridiculous.
    - sophacles 15y ago
      I never once declared there wasn't a crime. Nor did defend it. I didn't even declare it should be downplayed. I said it should not be overhyped. There is a difference. Please stop putting words in my mouth (erm.. fingers). You know what I don't want?: to be hacked or robbed. I think it is fine that we hold people accountable for it and punish their actions (provided it is appropriate for the crime). You know what else I don't want?: I don't want my supposedly secured info made available to the first guy with an sql-injection. I think the asshats who let this hacking-101 trick past should also be accountable and punished. It's kind of funny: you seem to think that Sony not be the only people with security flaws is somehow mitigating, but if someone said "Recursion isn't the only hacker your know" you would probably jump down their throat. I think that responsibility should go two ways and you are getting all sorts of worked up over it.
- wnight 15y ago
  Ugh, physical analogies. That's my point. You're stuck in a world of things. Where things go missing or get broken. This is data. Physical laws apply badly, especially when applied in fear by people who hardly seem to understand the domain. A webserver is giving out data. "Hacking" it is just tricking it into not checking what it's handing out. Imagine a webserver as a really dumb employee. "Give documents in the first box, labelled 'public' to anyone. ..." If you've ended up telling that employee to give a copy of your financials to anyone who asks for it, because you forgot to tell them it wasn't a public document, it's your fault. Not only would preventing this in law involve criminalizing many protocol errors and mistakes but it merely serves to hide the real problem - trusting inherently weak security.
epo 15y ago
Recursion was 23, hardly a child, or are you saying Recursion was retarded?

sophacles 15y ago

You know the phrase "throw the book at him" and the idea of justice are not identical right? "Throwing the book" is about finding and (over)zealously prosecuting (with much fanfare) for every possible offense, no matter how loosely associated to the actions that offense may be. Justice is about fairly metting out punishment and consequences for actions. The very act of throwing the book at one person for a wrong and ignoring the wrongs of another is antithetical to justice. This was my point. I never said Recursion was right in his actions, nor did I say he should not be punished. In fact, I'm pretty sure I lost a lot of respect for lulzsec over this one, when they stopped focusing on those they claimed were the problem and caused "collateral damage", and think there should be consequences for that. Further, whether you agree with the message or not, this type of loud targeting of everyone that doesn't belong to the club, while not mentioning the faults of the big players, is what lulzsec was claiming to be fighting against. Throwing the book puts a certain amount of weight into those statements, no? Simply arresting and prosecuting without all the hoopla and moving on would seem far more effective if you were really against all the "hippy tech youth crap". NOTE: cut it with the absurd name calling. This is not grade-school, if you don't like my position state your disagreements.

coderdude 15y ago
I highly doubt he breathed as much into "throw the book at him" as you have to defend your position. My name-calling is not absurd. What is absurd is your opinion on this matter. You're part of a vocal minority that doesn't care if someone commits a crime if it satisfies your personal anti-corporate agenda.
- n09n 15y ago
  I think a large part of their supporters don't care if someone commits a crime if it is done in a sufficiently shameless and entertaining way. Just look at Sabu's tweet.
- sophacles 15y ago
  I very clearly stated I care that a crime has been committed. I don't have an anti-corporate agenda. I have an agenda, but it is simply that we take care to ensure that: 1. the punishment fits the crime, not that we do our worst to everyone who breaks a law ever - this is unreasonable. 2. that in our attempts to find justice in one case, we don't ignore a hundred others because our bloodlust. 3. that we assess the responsibilities of companies to their customers and recognize liability and that large coffers are tools which can be used to unbalance the system. I apologize that I have offended you with my long writing about my position on this, I don't know any one sentence platitudes or slogans on which to hang my position. You see, I have thought about it a lot, and none of the simple statements seemed to cover my thoughts fully nor appropriately. Yes, your name calling is absurd - it won't change my mind and doesn't really even offend me, just slightly annoys me because it doesn't add to the conversation. It obviously hasn't made you feel any better, you still seem pretty angry. I am actually curious why you think my postion is absurd. Would you mind telling me, using adult language and responding to the opinions I actually wrote about, not the ones you are claiming (those contradict statements I have made so I am not sure how you got them).