Anonymous takes down Playstation website and Playstation Network

[LaurenG]

AS SURE as night follows day, Internet hacktivist group Anonymous made good on its threats and started its campaign against Sony.

Earlier this week, Anonymous publicly called out Sony over its handling of Playstation hacker George Hotz, better known by his Internet handle geohot. At the time Anonymous didn't mention who or what it would be targeting, but some obvious and very public targets have already been hit.

Anonymous claims it has successfully carried out a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on Playstation.com, the Playstation store and the Playstation Network. However a hardcore splinter faction of Anonymous has also emerged with plans to go after Sony executives, employees and their families.

Previously Anonymous had focused on companies rather than individuals, although ACS Law's founder Andrew Crossley and HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr were personally tormented by the group. However the Anonymous offshoot calling itself Sony Recon is targeting not only high-ranking Sony employees but wants to gather information on their families.


http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2041179/anonymous-takes-playstation-website-playstation-network

I'm not liking their gathering of information on Sony employees family members among other things related to this article. :mad:

[ZombieHorde]

1. Sony was just trying to stop people from cheating while playing on-line games.

I don't understand why so many people are upset. Are people really that into cheating? So weird.

[Tunkamerica]

5. You misunderstand. Jailbreaking is not to cheat it is to play

burned games on the PS3. Legally or illegally obtained.

[blondeatlast]

14. So it's theft of intellectual property. Not okay. nt

[Tunkamerica]

73. Or backing up something that you've already bought on legally purchased

media. Or you can just look at it the way they want you to.

[blondeatlast]

10. That's what this was about? Sheesh.

Going after family members because you want to cheat--that's majorly disturbed.

[ZombieHorde]

21. Someone said they want to play burned games as well. Seems petty. nt

[Drale]

2. NOT cool

This is why groups like this are so dangerous, there are always factions within the group that want to take things further. Its a thin line between taking people who deserve it down a step and terrorism.

[TroglodyteScholar]

24. You still don't understand that Anonymous isn't a "group?"

If you don't get it by now, you won't.

[charlie and algernon]

27. no, a bunch of random hackers all just happened to hit playstation and sony at the same time

purely coincidental. :eyes:

[TroglodyteScholar]

46. I'm sorry, you'll have to some kind of point without use of the eye-rolling smiley.

That little guy is the get-out-of-jail-free card for people who have nothing worthwhile to say.

[Drale]

38. O I understand but it is a bunch of random hackers

Who use the same name and have started something that they can not control.

[Tunkamerica]

3. Which is why it was put into the article.

[MrCoffee]

7. Going after family members isn't newsworthy?

Are you implying that it was included solely to create anger against Anonymous? Or is targeting family members not newsworthy?

[Tunkamerica]

9. One kid on 4chan asking if anyone got info on Stringer's kids is

not newsworthy. It's not. Is it newsworthy if an anonymous poster on DU asks a stupid question? Because if it were...

[MrCoffee]

12. If DU were in the process of organizing attacks on companies, and someone asked that

I would say it was newsworthy.

My biggest "problem" with Anonymous is that it can't self-police. Going after someone's kids because you don't like a business decision they make is reprehensible. Even asking for information about someone's kids because you don't like a business decision they make is vile. That one kid on 4chan should be shamed and hounded the hell out.

[LaurenG]

11. No I've lost all respect for them. How dare they.

:mad:

[MineralMan]

29. They dare anything. They're Anonymous.

What is anyone going to do to them?

[TroglodyteScholar]

30. Lost all respect for whom?

Anonymous isn't a group. It's a cross-section of global Internet "culture" (for lack of a better word). It doesn't have "members" or "splinter groups." Whether families are being targeted or not, this article is sloppy and exposes the writer's inability to comprehend Anonymous. Heaping scorn on "them" for this is like cursing the ocean because it has a tendency to cough up a vast, destructive wave from time to time.

Why can't the media (or average Joes, for that matter) understand this about Anonymous?

[LaurenG]

34. Whatever - this "subgroup" are jackasses. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

43. This "subgroup" is nothing but some people who decided to do some stupid shit...

...and perhaps claimed to be Anonymous, as well, although I don't really see anything proving that. Yep, people targetting families are losers. But putting this on Anonymous is just a cowardly media tactic to foster the common misinterpretation of what Anonymous is.

There's not membership card. There aren't secret meetings and handshakes. Anonymous is amorphous. Anyone can be Anonymous.

Sloppy reporting feeding sloppy comprehension....

[LaurenG]

50. Why are you supposing no one understands but you

How else would I say that the ones that did this are dirt bags. Please knock it off, you made your point. OK?!

[MineralMan]

53. Yeah. We're all morons who know nothing about the Internet.

Never mind that most of us have been on it since it began, and even before on its predecessor. Some folks think they understand things better than the rest of us. It's sorta funny, really.

[BobbyBoring]

59. That's morans

[TroglodyteScholar]

56. Everyone is exposing just how little they understand.

Or how little effort they go to in expressing themselves. Either way, I won't be convinced I'm wrong to point it out.

[MineralMan]

57. Indeed. Everyone.

[TroglodyteScholar]

60. Forgive me.

Everyone I've replied to in this thread.

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. Guess that invalidates my whole position, huh, Mr. Pre-Internet?

[LaurenG]

61. I don't think you're wrong to point it out or clarify it

I think its helpful to be steered in the right direction. You seemed like you were getting upset because I wasn't using the correct terminology to describe what I was trying to say.

[TroglodyteScholar]

65. I'm upset because it perpetuates a misperception that's been fostered by mainstream reporting.

Sorry, but I think the words we use have meaning, and we need to be careful that the meaning we want to convey is served well by the words we choose.

[charlie and algernon]

4. So playstation takes out a hacker/cheater & so Anonymous members decide to go after family members?

VERY not cool.

[Tunkamerica]

6. where is everyone getting cheater from?

[blondeatlast]

13. The first reply--I'd welcome you to refute that that is the reason with

credible sourcing.

[charlie and algernon]

18. fine, hacker, I have to ask you, does going after a hacker, make it ok

to go after families of executives? Hell, why the fuck does going after a hacker make it ok to even launch attacks in the first place? They should all be thrown in jail.

[ZombieHorde]

36. From me. All this started with PS's new terms of service. Hackers really getting pissed

they would no longer be able to connect to Playstation Network (psn) with altered ps3s.

This forum is for ps3 nerds. Realize some of the posters are children.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/2000401-playstation-3-online-and-playstation-store

[TroglodyteScholar]

32. Members?

Do you have even the SLIGHTEST understanding of Anonymous?

Members? Are you kidding me?

[charlie and algernon]

42. you can deny it all you want, but someone organized the playstation attacks

someone organized the attacks on the credit card companies. It wasn't like a bunch of random hackers ALL had the same idea and the same plan at the EXACT same time without ANY guidance.

[TroglodyteScholar]

48. Yes, SOMEONE organized all kinds of different nonsense on the Internet since it's been around.

You continue to act as though this weeks "someone" has anything to do with last week's or next week's.

Think it through, please.

[MineralMan]

8. Anonymous is an organization(?) of thugs and hoodlums.

You may like some of the things they do, but they're indiscriminate in their Internet vandalism. Someday, they'll take down a site you use.

Screw 'em!

[LaurenG]

15. I think that was my point. And yes they sure come in handy

against giant corporations but to be vindictive against Sony and its employees and family members when the guy they did it for was so clearly in the wrong was unpardonable.

[MineralMan]

16. OK. I repeated it, then. And no, they don't come in handy.

Thugs and hoodlums are thugs and hoodlums. I cannot support Anonymous in any way. There are legal ways to do things. A site you like is next.

[LaurenG]

17. I got that you don't like them. nt

[MineralMan]

19. I'm not fond of any kind of criminals.

You like them when they attack someone you don't like. That's encouragement for the group as a whole. You don't get to pick and choose when it comes to hoodlums and criminals. They don't care what you think, either way.

That's why we have laws. Even Robin Hood was a criminal.

Finally, if you consider Anonymous to be engaging in civil disobedience, why are they hiding who they are? Civil disobedience involves going to jail for your actions, just like Martin Luther King did, and Gandhi and Thoreau before him. Lacking the willingness to stand up for what you do, there is no civil disobedience, only lawbreaking.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Actually, some laws are just flat-out fucking wrong. Period.

I don't think pot smokers, or folks who married interracially before Loving v. Virginia, or people who engaged in consensual adult gay sex in Texas before the Lawrence decision, for instance, deserve scorn. Not in any way, shape or form. But what do all those groups have in common? They are, or were, "criminals".

Simply being a criminal does not put one in the wrong. Sometimes, the law is wrong.

[MineralMan]

26. We have mechanisms to change laws.

So, I guess you think Anonymous harassing families of Sony employees is OK? How would you justify that, if you don't mind? Anonymous is nothing but a bunch of hoodlums. You like them when they do something you agree with. How about when they don't? Same group. Same hoodlums.

If you don't like a law, work to change it or engage in open civil disobedience against it. Your Loving v. Virginia example is a perfect one for a law that was changed through legal action.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. It was. And until it was changed, interracial couples who married were criminals.

So if an interracial couple in, say, 1920 couldn't get the law changed, immediately, were they supposed to just suck it up, because, hey, we don't want mineralman to think we're "criminals"? If a gay couple in Texas in 1985 wanted to spend some time together in the privacy of their own home, I suppose rather than having sex, they should have spent every waking second either abstaining or working to get the law changed.. because NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AT ALL TIMES... right?

I'm not commenting on "Anonymous" or the right-ness or wrong-ness of their actions; but I am disputing your contention that breaking all laws is equally morally unjustified, in all circumstances, and that the mere category of "criminal" somehow makes one morally deficient. It doesn't. I broke the law against smoking pot a shitload in my reckless youth. Do I regret it? No. Do I think it made me morally deficient? No. Is the law fucking absurd? Yes. Should it be changed? Yes. Will it be changed? Hopefully, but maybe not. If it isn't, it's still a bad law, because it's not the government's fucking business if consenting adults want to smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes.

[MineralMan]

37. Civil disobedience.

Not anonymous lawbreaking. You may not be talking about Anonymous, but I am. If they want to go public and engage in open civil disobedience, I'm on their side. If they hide behind anonymity, I'm not.

I smoked dope, too. I knew I was breaking a law. I stopped when it mattered to me if I was arrested for it. Had I been caught, I'd have shrugged and though that I was caught for breaking that law.

I didn't engage in civil disobedience regarding dope smoking, except for a few legalization rallies where far too many people were openly smoking for the police to deal with. Then, I again accepted the risk.

This thread is about Anonymous. None of them are engaging in civil disobedience to try to get a law changed. That the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss inequitable laws, click the Post button and start a new thread. You'll have an ally in that thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Actually, you made blanket statements about ALL "criminals", even fictional ones like Robin Hood.

You can't make a point and then complain when someone responds to it.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. not only that, but they're rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

[TroglodyteScholar]

33. You also demonstrate a lack of understanding.

You even called out yourself out--"organization(?)"

"Screw 'em!" is a meaningless statement because you're directing your sentiment at a "group" that isn't.

[MineralMan]

41. As you please. They have an open meeting place where they gather.

That's an organization, just like DU is. You are part of that organization by being an active member here. The difference is that you are not really anonymous, and can be found, if necessary by law enforcement. So, you moderate your statements, perhaps. I don't know.

4Chan is the gathering place for this organization(?). The little hoodlums meet there and plan their little adventures. Some you approve of and some you may not. The fact is that they're hoodlums.

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. 4Chan is only an aspect of Anonymous, but sloppy reporters and sloppy consumers...

...just want to set the two concepts side-by-side and condemn away.

4Chan does, indeed, have a membership composed mostly of little creeps. But I think you've bought the media hype that 4Chan=Anonymous, and that's simply bullshit. If you want to call someone hoodlums, call out 4Chan. Lashing out at Anonymous shows that you're just eating up what the media's trying to feed you.

[MineralMan]

54. I've bought nothing. I've been active online since before the Internet

as we know it existed. I know exactly what's going on. As I said, you know nothing about me at all, yet you're making pronouncements about what I do and do not know.

It's not becoming to you. Truly, you do not know me.

[TroglodyteScholar]

58. Fella, "you don't know me" isn't an argument.

Appealing to your online longevity also shows that you have nothing meaningful to say here. I was connecting to computer networks before the Internet became available to John Q.Public, too, but for some reason I don't find that relevant in the least.

I don't need to know you to see that you're lashing out from a position of ignorance.

[Union Scribe]

74. Neither is "but you just don't understand them!!!"

Repeating it over and over is especially not an argument.

[Dappleganger]

22. Remember, they do it for lulz.

Not in it for the Nobel Prize, heh.

[madinmaryland]

25. Is this the same group that was releasing classified documents and corporate documents?

Sounds like this gang has a personal vendetta against Sony.

[MineralMan]

28. They're hoodlums. They act out of juvenile frustrations.

Sony? Because they're limiting their ability to steal intellectual property? Really?

Hoodlums, one and all.

[TroglodyteScholar]

39. You don't know WTF you're talking about.

If you still talk of Anonymous in terms of judging "them," especially "one and all," you're either not too bright or have been too lazy to think clearly about what, exactly, Anonymous is.

My advice would be to get a clue before forming such a strong position.

Edit: typo

[MineralMan]

44. Oh, I have a clue about Anonymous. You know nothing about

me.

[TroglodyteScholar]

55. Yes, you've shown just how extensive your understanding is.

I don't need to know anything about you as a person to know that the words you're posting about Anonymous show a clear lack of understanding.

[madinmaryland]

40. Is it the same group?

Denial of Service is a crime.

That being said, are you opposed to the release of classified documents as Wikileaks did? Also where do you stand on the release of documents from whistleblowers of corporate documents?

[MineralMan]

47. I've made myself clear about that wholesale release of documents.

I'm against it. As for whistleblowers, I admire them as long as they come forward and make their case. Otherwise, not so much. Without openness, there is no civil disobedience.

[madinmaryland]

69. I guess that leaves us in disagreement. I see it as the whistleblowers using

Wikileaks to make their case. In reality, what you are suggesting, is a huge deterrent to whistleblowers coming forward for the obvious reasons.

I see civil disobediance as what happened in Wisconsin over the last couple of months. I see no real comparison between the two.

[TroglodyteScholar]

35. It's not a group at all. This should all be so obvious.

Anonymous is whoever claims to be Anonymous on a given day. What's so hard about that?

[madinmaryland]

45. I've asked a question and no one can give me a fucking answer other than

nit-pick about whether they are group or saying they are hoodlums.

:wtf:

[MineralMan]

51. See my #49 below.

[LaurenG]

63. lol

maybe they're both. What was your question? ;)

[madinmaryland]

67. See post #25. I had to go back and

reread what I posted!

Just another night in GD!

[MineralMan]

49. No. That was wikileaks. Anonymous attacks websites of which

they disapprove. Different organizations or whatever they are. They're not wikileaks. Not at all. They used wikileaks to justify some of their actions. This had nothing to do with that.

[madinmaryland]

66. Thanks. Why can't they attack that sites that send out spam emails for viagra??

Now that would be nice to see!

[blondeatlast]

68. +1, LOL!

[ChromeFoundry]

62. Good. Sony deserves this, and more.

They brought it on themselves when they used DMCA to gather data illegally.

Fuck them.

[inna]

72. +

[OhioChick]

64. Hit them in the wallet....

Sony Can Collect IP Addresses of PS3 Hacker's Site Visitors

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=578234

[Blue-Jay]

71. They'll have no luck collecting IPs.