Topic: PSN = Privacy? Security? Never!

[TJ Spyke]

I will be disappointed for a minute, then shrug my shoulders and chalk it up to yet another wrongly made court decision (plenty of those exist).

[BlackNMild2k1]

So if you admit that his only "crime" is "blackmail", then that would mean that Sony was harassing him since what he was doing was not against the law, right?

I'm trying to gain an understanding of what your issue is and why you chose the stance that you have.

Man is peacefully hacking his own console, which I see no legal issue with, and Sony tells him that he can no longer manipulate the functions of the hardware that he owns to which he replies that Sony should just leave him alone since he is not breaking any law or he will share all his knowledge with the world on how to do the things he has been doing.

To my knowledge there is nothing wrong/illegal with "hacking" your own hardware and there is nothing wrong with telling people how they can hack their own hardware (as long as you don't hack it for them, and especially for profit).

So where exactly does everything go wrong for you?

[TJ Spyke]

Wait, what? Blackmail IS against the law. Sony was legally telling sites to stop violating the DMCA, and this guy tried to blackmail Sony into stopping. Then he confirmed that he broke the law and is a douche by releasing the info.

[BlackNMild2k1]

You say it's blackmail, but that may not be how everyone else sees it. He didn't demand anything from Sony only wanted them to leave him be to his non law breaking hobby.

To me is sounds more like Sony harassed him unless the the DMCA is something enforceable by law in another country other than the USA, then I don't really see what he was doing that was so wrong.

That is what I want explained. I don't know what the Hyper Visor is or how him hacking it would be illegal since hacking of your own hardware is not illegal.

[TJ Spyke]

He DID demand something from Sony, as has been stated several times. That makes it blackmail. Sony wasn't harassing anyone, they were telling sites that were hosting content they weren't allowed to to remove the content since they were violating the DMCA. He was upset because it was content he provided those sites, that is when he decided to blackmail Sony by threatening to leak the hacked info if they didn't stop trying to get those sites to follow the law.

[UncleBob]

to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.:

You mean like trying to force/coerce someone into stopping legal actions?

Wait, what? Blackmail IS against the law. Sony was legally telling sites to stop violating the DMCA, and this guy tried to blackmail Sony into stopping. Then he confirmed that he broke the law and is a douche by releasing the info.

Actually, what Sony was doing could constitute as harassment.  If I have a lawyer send you letters on a regular basis telling you what you're doing is illegal and I'm going to prosecute you, etc., etc and it turns out you're not doing something illegal then I could be in legal trouble myself.

As for the adapter situation - I think it goes to show that it is likely very legal (as there's been no court case otherwise) to do exactly what you were saying was illegal.

[BlackNMild2k1]

He DID demand something from Sony, as has been stated several times. That makes it blackmail. Sony wasn't harassing anyone, they were telling sites that were hosting content they weren't allowed to to remove the content since they were violating the DMCA. He was upset because it was content he provided those sites, that is when he decided to blackmail Sony by threatening to leak the hacked info if they didn't stop trying to get those sites to follow the law.

Were they US sites? because according to Wiki, the DMCA is an American Copyright Law and therefore may not be enforceable anywhere but in the US.

I'm not gonna pretend to know what is or isn't wrong here since i don't have all the facts of the case and don't really care enough to research it on my own, but that is why I'm trying to get it explained what exactly it is that he did wrong.

What content was illegal to be up? Modding/hacking your console is not illegal to my knowledge, as long as it's done in a way that is not intended for strictly illegal purposes, such as playing pirated software or bypassing certain network safety protocols (such as stealing personal info and things like that). So why was that info illegal to be put up?

[TJ Spyke]

I don't know which sites were targeted because I can't find that info. I am just going by how I see it and what the laws appear to say. I am not a lawyer though.

As for which info, a lot of the technical stuff in the system is patented or copyrighted or something like that and posting it was illegal. As far as I can tell, all the lawsuits have been about spreading the info rather than the hacking itself.

[NWR_insanolord]

If the way he obtained the information wasn't illegal, then neither was telling people what he found. Just because Sony doesn't want him to do it doesn't mean he doesn't have the legal right to do it. If he's done nothing illegal, Sony has no grounds to sue him for what you call blackmail.

[TJ Spyke]

It's not what I call blackmail, it's what the law calls blackmail.

Let's say someone manage to figure out the recipe to Coca-Cola. The recipe is technically not patented (because that would require them to divulge what is in it). If that person threatened to reveal the secret unless Coke did something, that would be illegal even if the person didn't break the law to get the recipe. Whether this guy legally got the info or not, the action of blackmailing Sony is not legal.

[UncleBob]

It's not what I call blackmail, it's what the law calls blackmail.

Let's say someone manage to figure out the recipe to Coca-Cola. The recipe is technically not patented (because that would require them to divulge what is in it). If that person threatened to reveal the secret unless Coke did something, that would be illegal even if the person didn't break the law to get the recipe. Whether this guy legally got the info or not, the action of blackmailing Sony is not legal.

For the record, telling someone to do something or you're going to turn them in is blackmail as well.

I don't know which sites were targeted because I can't find that info. I am just going by how I see it and what the laws appear to say. I am not a lawyer though.

As for which info, a lot of the technical stuff in the system is patented or copyrighted or something like that and posting it was illegal. As far as I can tell, all the lawsuits have been about spreading the info rather than the hacking itself.

Patented is way different than copyrighted.

If it was copyrighted, then all that prevents him from doing is reproducing the code.  He wasn't doing that.

If it's patented, then there's nothing stopping him from reproducing the code or talking about how to work around it.  If you have a formula for a super-drug and patent it, then I take the formula, reproduce it with something different in it, I'm okay.  Happens all the time.

[Chozo Ghost]

Sony is guilty of blackmail because they threatened him with legal action if he didn't stop what he was doing.

[TJ Spyke]

It's not what I call blackmail, it's what the law calls blackmail.

Let's say someone manage to figure out the recipe to Coca-Cola. The recipe is technically not patented (because that would require them to divulge what is in it). If that person threatened to reveal the secret unless Coke did something, that would be illegal even if the person didn't break the law to get the recipe. Whether this guy legally got the info or not, the action of blackmailing Sony is not legal.

For the record, telling someone to do something or you're going to turn them in is blackmail as well.

So you are admitting he tried to blackmail Sony? At least we agree he broke the law. If you are referring to Sony, sending cease-and-desist letters to sites that are posting your stuff like that is not wrong. So Chozo is 100% wrong too. Sony has not not anything wrong in this situation, and it's funny to see you think they did.

[MegaByte]

http://ps3crunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Legal-Notice-Amir-Ariff2.pdf
It's interesting that the lawyer chose to use a case that is still in progress as his example violation case. Is it because there aren't any other cases that have been decided in their favor?

[NWR_insanolord]

It's not what I call blackmail, it's what the law calls blackmail.

Let's say someone manage to figure out the recipe to Coca-Cola. The recipe is technically not patented (because that would require them to divulge what is in it). If that person threatened to reveal the secret unless Coke did something, that would be illegal even if the person didn't break the law to get the recipe. Whether this guy legally got the info or not, the action of blackmailing Sony is not legal.

If Coca Cola were harassing that person and threatening legal action they had no grounds for prior to that, I doubt they'd be able to successfully go after him for blackmail even if that's technically what he did.

[Chozo Ghost]

If you are referring to Sony, sending cease-and-desist letters to sites that are posting your stuff like that is not wrong.

Sony doesn't own the copyrights to the hacks/software/documentation Graf posted. The law says that copyrights are automatically assigned to the author. Unless he stole something Sony made its not theft. If he wrote software or hacks himself then he owns it. Sony has no right to blackmail him to remove it.

Their legal action will go nowhere, because for one thing their case is groundless. For another thing, the stuff is already out there and can't be stopped now. Its like when a celebrity sex tape gets leaked on the net. It spreads like wildfire and its there for good. Graf can't recall it now even if he wanted to, and by all indications him being bullied and blackmailed by Sony is making him more determined than ever to continue to defy them at every turn.

[UncleBob]

If you are referring to Sony, sending cease-and-desist letters to sites that are posting your stuff like that is not wrong.

Dude, I don't write the laws.  Granted, this is US law, but...
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C41.txt

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Sony said "Hey, remove this (this being information that is very valuable to Sony) and we won't inform the authorities about your 'violations' of the 'law'."

That, my friend, is blackmail per US law.

[TJ Spyke]

You really have a warped interpretation. I will give an example: I see someone selling drugs out of their house, I tell them to stop or I will report them to the police. Under your bizarre and false logic, I could be sued for blackmail. And that is not what happened here. Sony told these sites to stop making the info available (from all reports I have seen, they never threatened to do anything). This guy decided to break the law and blackmail Sony by threatening to release this info if they didn't stop. Sony did the right thing by reporting him to German authorities, who then preceded to raid his house. He decided to be a douche and cast away and potential defense by then posting the info.

[UncleBob]

You really have a warped interpretation. I will give an example: I see someone selling drugs out of their house, I tell them to stop or I will report them to the police. Under your bizarre and false logic, I could be sued for blackmail.

As you said, this isn't what happened here.
The information being posted on the sites (legally) was damaging to Sony.  The had something to gain by forcing these sites to remove the information - and these sites had a lot to lose by removing them (web hits, ad space, etc.).
Call your local police or an attorney.  Ask them if it's legal to tell someone to give you something valuable in exchange for you not turning them in for doing something "illegal".  Let me know what they say.

[TJ Spyke]

Sony wasn't demanding anything in exchange, they were just telling the sites to take down info they legally had no right to host. I have said this multiple times, and that is the fact in this situation based on what we know.

[NWR_insanolord]

If by "what we know" you mean "what Sony wants us to think," then you're absolutely right

[TJ Spyke]

Based on what we know, meaning just that. The facts that are not in dispute. All the details are not known, but what we do know does not look good for the guy.

[BlackNMild2k1]

http://ps3crunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Legal-Notice-Amir-Ariff2.pdf
It's interesting that the lawyer chose to use a case that is still in progress as his example violation case. Is it because there aren't any other cases that have been decided in their favor?

They must be really confident that they will win* this case other wise it would kill both cases to have once citing another as a backbone right?


*read: outspend defendant till they can no longer afford further legal counsel.

[lolmonade]

 I'm struggling a bit with the overuse of the words "illegal", "shady", and the possible misuse of the words "hacker", "pirate", and "blackmail"

Firstly, can someone here prove that what GeoHot and Graf did was illegal?  I'll admit I might have a hole in my argument here, but as far as I know, the case against GeoHot is a civil case, not criminal (Link in case anyone needs clarification on differences between the two).  Meaning that technically no law is being broken, as otherwise they would be pursuing putting Geohot in prison instead of suing him .  This is a case more reminiscent of Sony suing Geohot for breach of contract (Terms of Service agreement, I believe) as well as violating the DMCA, which I think is unreliable at best, because:

1) Absolutely no-one reads Terms-of-Service
2) Reading the DMCA, the only things I thought they could put him accountable for are sections protecting the copyright of video games (which Geohot has claimed he has not pirated), and a section regarding unauthorized hacks of cell phones for the sake of putting them on another network, which has recently been negated.  Since the cell phone provision is the closest to the Geohot case because of the questions of the user's rights to ownership of their hardware, I would assume the DMCA would be a bit neutered, if not useless as an argument.

There is a distinct difference between a "hacker" and "pirate" in context of these cases.  A person doesn't have to be a hacker to be a pirate (or vice versa), but that also doesn't mean that they can't be both as well.  It's a bit baseless and biased to say that all hackers are pirates, or that all pirates are hackers.

I actually do agree with TJ Spyke that what Graf threatened Sony with would be considered blackmail (Yes, I know it's not exactly a scholarly source, and I'll gladly listen to counterarguments).  What he threatened to release was something of definite value that could damage their business if released.  The way I read one article is that he threatened to release info from Sony's hypervisor, so wouldn't that technically be Sony's intellectual property that he's threatening to release? 

I don't care for people using the words "shady", because it's simply an adjective used by people of both sides for the sake of belittling or putting into doubt the merits of either side.  Whether you think GeoHot is a smelly pirate hooker, or that Sony is the Shinra corporation in disguise, using insults towards the parties in this issue or other forum members just undermines your own arguments by making you look overly biased.  Let's put aside the vitriol and hate, and have some rational arguments here .   

[NWR_insanolord]

If you think this is vitriol and hate you should have been here a couple weeks ago. After two locked threads, the third time appears to be the charm; this thread has seen some strong disagreements, but things have been civil and rational for the most part.