Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Sony IT

Sony Officially Blames Anonymous For PSN Hack 575

Posted by samzenpus
from the in-today's-sony-hack-news dept.
H_Fisher writes "In a letter to Congress, Kazuo Hirai, chairman of Sony's board of directors, blames hacker group Anonymous for making possible the theft of gamers' personal information. 'What is becoming more and more evident is that Sony has been the victim of a very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyber attack designed to steal personal and credit card information for illegal purposes,' Hirai wrote. He also indicated that Sony waited two days before notifying the FBI of the theft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Officially Blames Anonymous For PSN Hack

Comments Filter:
  • shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alphatel (1450715) * on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:23PM (#36026780)
    I officially blame Sony for being PSN hacked.
    • Anonymous? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:24PM (#36026806)

      hey!
      I didn't do crap!

    • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ouija147 (467204) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:24PM (#36026820)

      Anonymous my ASS

      Convenient scape goat

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually it was Anonymous Coward. My bad. I just wanted to play "global thermonuclear war" and suddenly I got all these credit card numbers.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:55PM (#36027266)

        Looking for credit card info? Anonymous tends to do things for idealogical reasons, AFAIK. There may be some overlap, but this sounds like organized crime. And yes, known vulnerabilities are things you should not be vulnerable to if you have credit card info for even two million people.

      • Re:shame game (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shentino (1139071) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:57PM (#36027294)

        Who scapegoated them?

        A professional cyber cracker may well opt to take advantage of anonymous's wrath by leaving a frame job behind.

        • Anonymous?
          bah!
          Not a chance!

          To me this looks like the work of the famous lone wolf known as "Somebody"!

        • Re:shame game (Score:4, Insightful)

          by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:13PM (#36027526) Journal

          Wha? Why would it have to go that far?

          This is a single file that sony "magically" came up with after the fact. This is more than a week later, and there's nothing they're showing to substantiate their claim. If there was an actual anonymous attack plan stating "let's steal sony's credit card info" prior to this event, then we might have a finger to point at anonymous.

          Instead, I'd bet my life savings that Sony planed this "anonymous framing document" themselves.

          I really hope this puts sony out of business.

        • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:30PM (#36027762)

          I'm guessing that Sony is scapegoating them because it's easier than figuring out who did do it. And even when/if they do figure out who it was, it's basically impossible to prove that that individual isn't in some convoluted way anonymous.

      • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:35PM (#36027790)

        The reason it took so long is because they were planning on using 'terrorists', but after the recent news they decided against it.

        Add "Anonymous" to the list of things that frighten the lay person and get stupid laws passed.
        Right after 'terrorists' and 'for the children'.

      • by N0Man74 (1620447)

        Anonymous my ASS

        Convenient scape goat

        Indeed. I think that the following quote shows they don't really understand the nature of Anonymous.

        'What is becoming more and more evident is that Sony has been the victim of a very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyber attack designed to steal personal and credit card information for illegal purposes,'

    • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _xeno_ (155264) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:29PM (#36026914) Homepage Journal

      They probably deserve the blame, too - they were apparently hacked via a "known vulnerability" [theregister.co.uk] although I don't think they've ever stated which one.

      • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ceswiedler (165311) * <chris@swiedler.org> on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:48PM (#36027974)

        From what I've heard, the vulnerability was in a library which was used by a piece of middleware which Sony relied on.

        Sony should have tracked vulnerabilities in indirect dependencies more carefully, but I'll bet that dozens of other companies which invest millions of dollars in security have similar issues. It takes a ridiculous amount of money and sacrificed features to harden a non-trivial setup against truly determined attackers. Sony had both a lot of valuable credit-card data and a lot of wrath from the tech world, and that's a dangerous combination.

    • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:32PM (#36026986)

      Same here.

      I fail to see any kind of plausible explanation why "We were busy defending ourselves from Anonymous" affected the poor design of their security structure.

    • by toastar (573882) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:37PM (#36027040)
      I think they meant anonymous as in they don't know who did it, not Anonymous the group.

      Kinda like the guy who broke into my car and stole my radio/mp3 player was anonymous.
      • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Omnifarious (11933) * <eric-slash@omnifar i o u s.org> on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:44PM (#36027150) Homepage Journal

        The real mind bender is.. Is there a difference? I mean, Anonymous isn't exactly organized is it? It's just a convenient name people adopt sometimes.

    • Re:shame game (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eggplant62 (120514) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:39PM (#36027084)

      I blame Sony for not having security sufficient to prevent such an attack in the first place. What, did we have a Win '08 server facing the 'net without a firewall??

      • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:12PM (#36027504)

        I blame Sony for not having security sufficient to prevent such an attack in the first place. What, did we have a Win '08 server facing the 'net without a firewall??

        No, it was a PS3 that used to serve as a Linux firewall. Unfortunately they 'patched' it and now it doesn't run Linux anymore.

      • by geekmux (1040042)

        I blame Sony for not having security sufficient to prevent such an attack in the first place.

        You are aware that Mr. Hindsight has perfect vision, right?

        My point here is one can ALWAYS make your statement after the fact. Reality shows us that we have such things as 0-day vulns. In my opinion, Sony's failure was not so much getting hacked in the first place(which they do have their faults here, don't get me wrong), but more for failing to properly plan for this scenario.

        If we've said it once, we've said it 1,000 times...it's not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of "when". Proper planning for t

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR (28044)

      You can blame a home owner for not putting a good lock on their door but the person that breaks in should still go to jail.
      Blaming the victim is just lame.

  • oh Shit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:23PM (#36026786)
    They're on to us!
  • Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by festers (106163) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:23PM (#36026790) Journal

    "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"

    These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.

    • by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:27PM (#36026888)

      "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"

      These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.

      "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"

      These are not words I think of when discussing Sony.

      • by demonbug (309515)

        "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"

        These are not words I think of when discussing Anonymous. Give me a break.

        "carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated"

        These are not words I think of when discussing Sony.

        No kidding. PSN only got marginally worse once they shut it off.
        Maybe they are taking this opportunity to actually build a network that works and isn't embarrassingly slow.

    • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:30PM (#36026928)

      Sony is doing what all people in power do:
      - find a scapegoat.

      Reminds me of what my boss said, "I will not take the blame for the failure of this board. YOU will." Normally I would agree, but I told you that we should do additional testing to verify it works, but you said 'we don't have time'. LIKEWISE I suspect Sony's employees told them to add additional safety measures, but Sony's managers refused to spend the labor time/cost.

      So instead the managers are deflecting blame from themselves to the users.

      Bastards.

      • Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Idbar (1034346) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:02PM (#36027360)
        See, what baffles me is that they lock Blurays, Consoles, Google TVs, handsets to no point. They know they are not good at it because (except for the GoogleTVs) all of them have been hacked already.

        Yet they go around collecting information they know they are not good at protecting.
      • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:29PM (#36027728) Homepage

        - find a scapegoat.

        A good scapegoat isn't just someone who can take the blame, it's somebody who you're trying to attack or remove for reasons you can't actually state publicly. For instance, if The Boss has to pick between scapegoating Alice or Bob, they might pick on whoever's standing in the way of a plum promotion for their good friend Fred, regardless of whether Alice or Bob had more to do with the problem in the first place. Or if someone from country A attacked country B, if the leaders of country B wanted to attack country C but couldn't come up with a legitimate reason they might try to blame the whole thing on country C rather than country A.

        So I'm guessing Sony has it in for Anonymous for reasons totally unrelated to this breach.

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Would it be sophisticated and professional to *frame* anonymous?

    • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)

      by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:04PM (#36027392)
      If you read their statements, they blame Anonymous for DDOSing Mastercard and Visa for the breach on PSN. They spread Faux News style "information" by saying something that works out to "Anonymous was attacking people because of us (and a smaller attack on PSN that wasn't active at the time of the intrusion) and then the attack happened. We aren't saying that Anonymous did it, we are saying it looks like there's a link - We report - You decide." Of course, for making fun of our favorite un-news group, I'm sure I'll get modded/flamed, but it's something people are getting used to seeing in the news. When deliberate lies are spread as "fair and balanced news" from formerly reputable news organizations, why should we expect any less from corporations?

      It's possible the two were linked. Perhaps Sony deliberately reduced security to improve uptime with a DDOS. Perhaps the targeted attack was planned and ready for a while and they waited until Sony was busy with other security matters or wanted to deflect the blame. "Linked" doesn't mean "caused by" or even "influenced by" in that the attacks would likely have happened even if Anonymous didn't exist. But that the timing may have been adjusted, however slightly, by Anonymous's actions. But it's not like someone DDOSing Sony from Anonymous said "Wow, I just hacked the Gibson, let's see what's in this garbage file..."
    • Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jonner (189691) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:06PM (#36027434)

      Anyone who has read TFA will not find this the least bit insightful, though the Slashdot headline is extremely misleading as usual. Sony said they had been the "victim of a very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated criminal cyber attack designed to steal personal and credit card information for illegal purposes," but did not blame Anonymous for that. They said they were under a DDOS attack from Anonymous at the same time as the security breach and the two events may or may not have been related.

  • They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"

    • by zill (1690130)
      Obviously Anonymous managed to perform a man-in-the-middle attack between Sony and Congress.
    • They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"

      The old adage applies "It takes one to know one." Sony isn't professional or highly sophisticated, and they wouldn't know what that looked like if it hacked their network and stole all their data...

    • by RichMan (8097)

      > They called Anonymous "very professional, highly sophisticated"

      Obviously they have never been to 4chan.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:24PM (#36026802)

    Dont have the competency or skill to run your network correctly?
    Dont know who else to blame when your on the hook for a class action and liability in the billions?

    Blame Anonymous.

  • While a particular group may have been responsible for the data theft, Sony is still responsible for the irresponsible storage that they used to enable the theft. Good (industry standard) practices around credit card retention, such as gateway tokenization, would have drastically reduced the financial implications. There would still have been privacy implications, but by not storing card numbers they'd actually have made the information much less appealing to hackers as well.

    • by g0bshiTe (596213)
      No to mention the 2 day lapse between the time the noticed the information was compromised and when they notified the FBI of the breach. I was under the impression that anyone that had credit card data on clients are liable for full quick disclosure of a breach as soon as it is noticed.
    • by DarkOx (621550)

      Ok,

      So how accountable should Sony ( a victim ) be for/to their end users also victims? I mean this seriously. In a world of tangibles its not even clear. Lets say you lent me your laptop and left it in my unlocked car at a the mall. When return to my car its gone. Now I was negligent about protecting your laptop. Clearly its the thief's fault its missing but I really should replace your computer if it can't be found after a day or two.

      Now we are in the world of intangibles, Sony did a poor job of prot

  • "...steal..." (Score:5, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:24PM (#36026816)
    The fact that the attack involve the theft of credit card data, as opposed to just shutting down the network, screams "not Anonymous" to me. You know, given how Anonymous tends to just shut things down with DDoS attacks, or occasionally overwrite a web page with one that spreads some message.
    • by billcopc (196330)

      Yep, most Anonymous attacks involve masses of non-technical users joining a LOIC DDOS. It's essentially a human "botnet", just as cheap and effective too!

    • If Anonymous had stolen the data, it would be on TPB/Bittorrent right now. Remember HBGary?
    • by jank1887 (815982)

      FTFA:

      "The attack that stole the personal data of millions of Sony customers was launched separately, while the company was distracted protecting itself against the denial of service campaign, Sony said.

      Sony said it was not sure whether the organizers of the two attacks were working together."

      I.e., it's anonymous's fault. We were busy dealing with their crap and didn't notice someone coming in and stealing stuff.

    • Re:"...steal..." (Score:4, Interesting)

      by eepok (545733) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:36PM (#36027808) Homepage

      So very this. I'd mod you up if I could.

      The common and fashionable sentiment is "Anonymous is a scapegoat for the Sony Conspiracy" or "Sony just needs a scapegoat for their failure..." when the defense of Anonymous should be exactly as you stated: It's not their MO.

      Anonymous, to date, has shown itself to be mischievous (sometimes malicious) and extremely precise in their targeting. They have never represented themselves to be a for-profit hacking crew and they're smart enough to know that such actions are hurting the innocent users more than the company. Thus, the copying of millions of accounts' financial information cannot rationally be tied to them on history alone.

      I really don't think Anonymous did this and I think Sony just needs *a* target of blame ASAP. In my opinion, anonymous is a *scapegoat of convenience*, given their vocal opposition to the modding community.

      Tinfoil Hat Time: Maybe a for-profit hacking crew executed this attack knowing Anonymous would be target #1, thus giving them sufficient smoke screen.
      Hmmm...

  • Anonymous already denied it and, AFAIK, they don't do sneaky attacks and do not steal personal info.

      • Re:!Anonymous (Score:5, Informative)

        by sqrt(2) (786011) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:34PM (#36027012) Journal

        There is no official "anonymous" and there is no leadership or command structure. It's a concept, an idea to describe an emergent system of hacktivism. Saying anonymous is responsible for this (or anything) is like saying democracy is responsible for causing the wars in the middle east. You're mixing up an idea, an ethos, with an organization.

        • by harl (84412)

          lol

        • Re:!Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)

          by powerlord (28156) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:51PM (#36027222) Journal

          There is no official "anonymous" and there is no leadership or command structure. It's a concept, an idea to describe an emergent system of hacktivism. Saying anonymous is responsible for this (or anything) is like saying democracy is responsible for causing the wars in the middle east. You're mixing up an idea, an ethos, with an organization.

          Yes, but when an organization runs around saying they are attacking targets, and when that organization has no real leadership (collective/mob), they also can't cry foul if someone co-opts their name, claims to be part of them (since they have no real membership requirement or leadership, whose to say), and decides to either:

          1) Partake in the attack even though it has been officially "called off" (hey, just because most of Anonymous might be clueless, doesn't mean some of it can't hack/crack with the best of them.

          2) Use your name as a convenient scape goat to pin their crime on (okay, we take as much data as we can, and point the finger at THOSE guys over there).

          Either which way, saying "Anonymous Denied all Responsibility, It MUST BE SONY'S FAULT!" is the biggest LOL of them all.

          Its the fault of the malicious idiot who attacked and broke into the network. Yeah, Sony should have done a better job securing the data, but that does not absolve the THIEF of responsibility (in spite of what most slashdotters seem to think).

        • Re:!Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)

          by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:23PM (#36027658)

          Saying anonymous is responsible for this (or anything) is like saying democracy is responsible for causing the wars in the middle east. You're mixing up an idea, an ethos, with an organization.

          Are you equating the loosely-affiliated group Anonymous with a concept like democracy, or are you redefining the common definition of Anonymous as a loosely-affiliated group to now mean anyone involved in hacking or online attacks for an ideological reason other than financial gain? I've never heard proponents of democracy, or any other ethos, say something as cheesy as "We are [ethos]. We are Legion. Expect Us." The words "we" and "us" clearly identify people as a group. That is, even Anonymous thinks they're a group and not just an ethos. They are not an ethos, they are a group of people with some common world views, regardless of whether or not they have an official roster.

          It's perfectly reasonable that a not-for-profit attacker would in fact steal valuable information just to steal it, not necessarily to release or sell it. It makes Sony look much worse, and costs them more, to have their customers' financial and personal data stolen, even if that information never actually gets used or released. In addition, it's not Sony's customers that Anonymous wants to attack, it is Sony itself. It doesn't serve their goals to release customer information, all they need to do is steal it. In other words, it would fit in with the idea of revenge against Sony to simply do as much damage to them as possible even if you don't plan on benefiting directly from the attack.

      • Except they didn't. They posted company emails to show the incompetence of the CEO and claimed credit for it. They didn't steal credit card, address, or other personally identifiable information and then denied it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by harl (84412)

          Anonymous disagrees with you.

          "The attackers went one better than this, however: they dumped the user database for rootkit.com, listing the e-mail addresses and password hashes for everyone who'd ever registered on the site."

          There was also the little bit about posting personal info about spouses and children of HBGary employees.

  • Doesn't sound likely to me. Anonymous have done many things, but stealing user information hasn't been one of them until now.

    I wonder if Sony did it themselves with the intention of pinning it on Anonymous?

    • More likely, Anonymous has become a convenient name to throw around whenever someone cracks a security system. Poorly designed security system? Just blame Anonymous when someone pulls off a successful attack. The media makes Anonymous sound like some sort of invincible, unstoppable hacker/wizard/demigod army (or should I just say, "Hackers on steroids"), so nobody will blame you when you blame Anonymous.

      If people only knew that Anonymous is just a bunch of teenage script kiddies...
      • by Amouth (879122)
        you know if Anonymous is actually responsible i want Sony to provide Proof of that - else it's just slander.
        • by powerlord (28156)

          FTFA:

          We also informed the subcommittee of the following: ...

          - We discovered that the intruders had planted a file on one of our Sony Online Entertainment servers named "Anonymous" with the words "We are Legion." ...

          Well, it may be slander, but they claimed (Under Oath?), that they were informed that Anonymous was responsible for the break-ins on the SOE servers. I don't think they actually said "Anonymous is behind the attacks", they just listed the evidence they have found since then.

          Sony itself freely admits that Anonymous may have not been involved in the attack itself, but states that the initial intrusion seems to have happened at the same point that the initial Anonymous DoS attack did, and that the initia

  • by Bo'Bob'O (95398) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:26PM (#36026848)

    Some how none of that seems to point to Anonymous in any way.

  • Wait, what... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:26PM (#36026864) Journal

    Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.

      The attack that stole the personal data of millions of Sony customers was launched separately, while the company was distracted protecting itself against the denial of service campaign, Sony said.

      Sony said it was not sure whether the organizers of the two attacks were working together.

    So they know Anonymous DDOS'ed them, and Anonymous have admitted this too.

    They also were attacked separately where the theft took place. They don't know if these groups were working together. They blame the latter on Anonymous too. How did they draw that final conclusion??

    • Re:Wait, what... (Score:5, Informative)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:33PM (#36026990)

      Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.

      This quote is more disturbing as far as I am concerned. Sony was not defending itself against Geohot, since Geohot never attacked Sony nor did Geohot sue Sony. Geohot was defending himself in a lawsuit filed by Sony.

      Talk about slanting things...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Machtyn (759119)
        Legalese. They defended their IP against Geohot's hacking. Whether we see it like that is a different story. Most of us see it as Geohot had to defend his ownership of hardware from Sony. IANAL, but I think the law sees both as correct until a judgment is made.
    • by dasdrewid (653176)

      They also were attacked separately where the theft took place. They don't know if these groups were working together. They blame the latter on Anonymous too. How did they draw that final conclusion??

      If A=B, and B=C, then C="Anonymous fucking did it!" That's basic logic right there.

    • Re:Wait, what... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by chemicaldave (1776600) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:35PM (#36027030)

      Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.

      Did they really claim to be defending themselves against a "hacker" in court? Don't they mean "suing"? And isn't it unfair to lump the hackers who stole the information with completely different hacker, Geohot? Who the fuck wrote this article?

    • by Rob Kaper (5960)

      They being Reuters, Sony - as you quoted - didn't draw that conclusion. They mentioned the ongoing attack and of course it would seem relevant, but they carefully denied knowing of any relation between the two.

    • Re:Wait, what... (Score:4, Informative)

      by _xeno_ (155264) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:38PM (#36027068) Homepage Journal

      If you read the letter (which is made needlessly annoying by the fact that it's scanned in and the raw text isn't made available, fuck you very much Sony), you'll see that on page 2 [flickr.com] they explain:

      When Sony Online Entertainment discovered this past Sunday afternoon that data from its servers had been stolen, it also discovered that the intruders had placed a file on one of those servers named "Anonymous" with the words "We are Legion."

      So that's how they come to that conclusion. Which I guess means we can blame Anonymous, in so much as anyone calling themselves Anonymous is Anonymous.

      Not that I really believe that the attacker really is "Anonymous," but they do make a good scape goat. And who knows, maybe the attacker did decide that this attack might as well be carried out under the "anonymous" banner.

  • by JackSpratts (660957) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:28PM (#36026902) Homepage
    Whilst I was admiring the gentle sway of her shapely derriere somebody stole my laptop!
  • The attack that stole the personal data of millions of Sony customers was launched separately, while the company was distracted protecting itself against the denial of service campaign, Sony said.

    Because we all know that keeping your network secure involves someone personally inspecting each packet as it comes in. With all of Sony's packet inspectors distracted by the DDOS the hackers were able to sneak their packets through undetected.

  • You have to admit...blaming Anonymous for the attack sounds a lot better and less embarrassing as stating "Yeah, some 17 year old kid in Toledo managed to hack us and pull all your private information because we don't have our s&*t together." I don't blame them for pointing at Anonymous. After all, Anonymous pointed their finger at Sony not but a month prior.

  • That's the translation of Sony's Japanese doublespeak. (Notice it resembles Toyko Power's doublespeak of why the nuclear meltdown is not a danger to nearby customers.)

  • Logical Fallacy on Sony's part. Post hoc ergo propter hoc [fallacyfiles.org] . Or as many on /. like to say "Correlation is not causation".

    • by EQ (28372)

      augh hit submit instead of continue editing ...

      This isn't to say Anon's members are blameless, and legally off the hook. A case can be made they were unknowingly but maliciously contributing factors. Its the malice part that will push law enforcement and prosecutor's buttons - they knew what they were doing was wrong/criminal and did so anyway. Without malice, its simple negligence; with malice, you may have a contributory criminal violation. The law is kinda funny like that - along for a minor prank, someone does a felony act (prior unknown to you)

  • Sony may have blamed Anonymous for the attack, but they're not accusing Anonymous of executing the attack itself. They said the following:

    • They found a file named "Anonymous" on their servers that contained the text "We are Legion."
    • They were too distracted by Anonymous' DDOS freakshow to notice the real intrusion that was taking place.

    Granted, Sony can say anything to cover their butts, but Hell... The hackers could have just as easily left an "Osama wuz here" file. Would that mean Al Qaida definitely did

  • by hilldog (656513) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:46PM (#36027170)
    I got a letter in the mail yesterday May 3rd advising me my info may have been hacked. Weird since I don't have a play station and have not played an online Sony game in over a decade (12 years maybe more) and then I canceled my subscription. Which brings me to a question why is information that old still being kept where it can be cracked?
  • by b4upoo (166390)

    Why point blame at Anonymous. The Russians love this kind of hack and apparently China also wishes to have such an illegal industry as well. Before anyone spouts off about blame they need some serious proof.

  • To turn a phrase... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @01:52PM (#36027232)
    FTFA:

    Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony defending itself against a hacker in federal court in San Francisco.

    Meanwhile in reality:

    Sony said on Wednesday that Anonymous targeted it several weeks ago using a denial of service attack in protest of Sony attacking a hacker in a hopeless attempt to control information that had already slipped far out of it's control in federal court in San Francisco.

  • They hired professional investigators, what, last night to track down who did this, and then this morning, ta-da, it's Anonymous!

    Anon is becoming the al-Qaeda of the Internet - the generic name used for "anybody who does this sort of thing." Hackers ARE Anonymous, in the same way Curads ARE "Band-Aids" and Puffs Plus ARE "Kleenex" and Sharp copiers ARE "Xerox machines".

  • Apparently (Score:5, Funny)

    by microbee (682094) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:17PM (#36027578)

    Sony would have blamed Bin Laden had he not been killed by the US earlier this week. They had to find some other scapegoat so that's why it took so long for their official blaming.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday May 04, 2011 @02:38PM (#36027828) Homepage Journal
    i wonder if sony can sink lower. default, problem-free blaming - screwed up ? blame anonymous. nuclear accident ? blame anonymous. martian invasion ? blame anonymous. i can see unlimited use for this 'blame anonymous' thing.
  • very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated

    Is this supposed to be the same "Anonymous" that's supposed to have its home on 4chan's Random board? 'Cause none of these qualities bring those users to mind.

    I suggest Sony look elsewhere. I'm pretty sure "very carefully planned, very professional, highly sophisticated" and "Anonymous" are mutually exclusive possibilities.

Always think of something new; this helps you forget your last rotten idea. -- Seth Frankel

Working...