Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

SONY sued for C$1billion OMGF

2456

Comments

  • SWGmodAlphaSWGmodAlpha Landover, MDPosts: 126Member

    Originally posted by Redemp

    The majority of you are chicken little extremists. Kudos to those who are actually keeping their head about this whole unfortunate affair.

     

    Heres a snippet...

    "All of the data was protected, and access was restricted both physically and through the perimeter and security of the network. The entire credit card table was encrypted and we have no evidence that credit card data was taken. The personal data table, which is a separate data set, was not encrypted, but was, of course, behind a very sophisticated security system that was breached in a malicious attack," Sony says it in its FAQ."

    So our CC info is encrypted, the personal data was not. They do elude to  the system safeguarding the personal data as being very sophisticated, which basicly spells out that they didn't think it would be breached as it was.

    So get off your high horses .. Hindsight is 20/20 and I promise that if the personal data had been encrypted the majority of you would be claiming their systems weren't adequate enough or some other nonsense.

    Now ...  Feel free to continue panicing and ranting in these threads.

    Remember ... its cool to hate SoE.

     

     

    P.S -- SWGModAlpha  :   I keep my tinfoil cap in my nightstand, the wife loves it.

    If all the data had been encrypted then nothing would have happend.

    If SOE had taken measures to insure their security was up to date and all pink slipped techies access rights removed, then likely nothing would have happend.

    Also, don't forget, history is ripe with real factual conspiracies and people living in those times did not know about them and thus the reason they are called conspiracies.  Every generation thinks there are no conspiracies during their life time and history has proven that head in the sand attitude wrong more times than can be counted.

    Btw, Tin Foil hats don't work and I suggest you keep KY on the nightstand for your wife.

  • gekkothegreygekkothegrey soddy daisy, TNPosts: 236Member

    Where can I signup. I play EQ2 myself, and love the community, but I freaking hate sony support they could careless about the players and imo they deserve this suit. Not even counting this issue if it where not for all the friends I have made in EQ2 I would have left because of sony's rude support staff long ago.

  • TUX426TUX426 Madison, WIPosts: 1,907Member

    Originally posted by Kaelano1

    SOE is a victim here. You must believe they did, in all good faith, attempt to protect said information.

    Uh huh. I don't. While true that they were the victims of a hacker, the FBI is involved and if the rumors I'm hearing are correct, there is blame to be shared by SOE as well for gross negligence.

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    I'm not entirely sure that she thought out that bit about trust before giving the quote.  If you had to trust an entity with private information, wouldn't a huge multi-national corporation be the last one on that list, instead of the first?

  • Lille7Lille7 Ljungskile, AKPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by Reizla



    "If you can't trust a huge multi-national corporation"

    I lol'd

  • vader999vader999 New YorkPosts: 136Member

    Just because Sony says they did something doesn't mean they did it.  If the said they made the best game ever, it doesn't mean they've made the best game ever (unless you're the most gullible person in the world).  If they say their security was AAA+++ it doesnt mean they didn't slack on it.  Since when was any corporate statement not full of PR spin?  Just because this news is as bad as it gets doesn't mean Sony have given full disclosure, I'd bet anything theres something they havent told us about mistakes or incompetence on their end.

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by bansan

    Do they have the standing to initiate a lawsuit?  No one has been damaged, yet, and I'm not sure you can sue for potential damage.

    For example, if you go eat at a restaurant and their food is contaminated with some disease.  Some people get it and some don't.  Obvious the people who get the disease can sue, as they have standing.  You haven't got it yet, but you are worried and spend the money to see a doctor.  I don't think you can sue for medical bills.

    Not sure, any armchair a lawyers want to weigh in?

    If you thought your personal information might now be out on the street, wouldn't you go through all of the effort of having everything changed.  The effort alone is worthy of compensation.  And then, could you be sure that you tied up all the loose ends?  Could something have slipped through?  Are you still at risk?  Having that on your mind for the next couple of years is something else that is worthy of compensation.

    It doesn't matter if Sony was negligent with their security measures or not (although it's looking like they were).  The fact is that they were responsible for safeguarding that information on behalf of their clients and they failed to do so.  As a result, their clients are now subject to hardship, a very broad term that can be applied to just about anything that makes one feel some kind of discomfort, and will likely be found to have a legal obligation to make reparations.  They don't need to be guilty of anything to still be held responsible.

  • bansanbansan blah city, MOPosts: 367Member

    Originally posted by Unlight

    *snip*

    You are mixing personal opinion with legal opinion.  To have standing to sue someone, you have to prove that you were damaged.  Now, does that include in some way potential damage, is what I want to know.  Since this is a criminal break-in, and they will likely to be found negligent or grossly negligent, it should be less promising for people who are not, in fact, damaged.

    To take an extreme example, if someone threatens to kill you but doesn't do anything to that effect, you can't legally do much to them.  Even thought this person could potentially kill you, you probably won't be able to get them locked up in jail (restraining order, maybe).  You certainly couldn't sue them in civil court for "wrongful threat."

  • TardcoreTardcore MinskPosts: 2,325Member

    Originally posted by Xzen

    Meh. Just some people after some quick cash.

    That could describe both the people bringing the lawsuit AND many people's opinion of SOE.

    Remember folks, you can bring litigation against anyone. It doesn't mean you are going to win.

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • wow.pwns111wow.pwns111 Ottawa, ONPosts: 108Member

    Originally posted by Spentzar

    Do they mean a billion as in 1,000,000,000? (one thousand millions) or as in 1,000,000,000,000 (one million millions) because if it's the latter they might as well just go f*** themselves because they will not see that kind of money out of Sony. Overall the case will probably be dismissed or the price heavily reduced because that is not the "cost of credit monitoring service and fraud insurance coverage for two years." Not by a long shit. It's like the lawyers in that law firm literally pulled out their shlongs and smacked it against a calculator a few times and decided on the biggest arbitrary number the calculator could handle. It must have been an expensive scientific one because a regular calculator only goes up to like 9 digits.

    A billion in Canada is the same as it is in America. One thousand Million.

    "We have barred the gates, but can not hold them for long...
    They have taken the Bridge and the Second Hall...
    We can not get out. The end comes.
    Drums, drums in the deep. They are coming..."

  • grukmuckgrukmuck Ionia, MIPosts: 2Member

    Originally posted by bansan

    Do they have the standing to initiate a lawsuit?  No one has been damaged, yet, and I'm not sure you can sue for potential damage.

    For example, if you go eat at a restaurant and their food is contaminated with some disease.  Some people get it and some don't.  Obvious the people who get the disease can sue, as they have standing.  You haven't got it yet, but you are worried and spend the money to see a doctor.  I don't think you can sue for medical bills.

    Not sure, any armchair a lawyers want to weigh in?

     

    Actually this is a failed argument.  In most food places (Most generally restaraunts) have notices stating about the consumption of RAW meats.  Because they issue this warning, a person who gets sick off it doesn't have the right of a lawsuit anymore.  Same reason McDonalds now uses warning statements on their coffee lids/cups, because of that one incident a lady got burned and sued.  With the warnings in place the company is no longer held for what a consumer might end up having done to them. (As long as documents/warnings are issued of course).

     

      Now how many of these people that are claiming lawsuits or even just complaining about what's going on has fully READ the EULA for Sony/SOE?  This is why most any lawsuit will not see anything.

     Example, for those angry with SOE for things that play EverQuest2.

    http://help.station.sony.com/cgi-bin/soe.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=12248

      Now consider most every game company has a simliar agreement replacing EverQuest2/SOE with said companies name.  Am I a fanboy of Sony/SOE, no not really, I've played/play a product or two of theirs, because I enjoy the title.  Do I think they could have done more to prevent this type of thing from happening? Sure, but so can every other company out there.  Will this hurt Sony/SOE?  Probably not, as most the people who are complaining or have used a product of theirs, will still being using them at some point and time.  Weither its a mmo from SOE, or buying playstation consoles, games or products.  Don't forget movies, and various other things Sony has a hand in.

  • angerbeaverangerbeaver Dorval, QCPosts: 871Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Unlight

    If you thought your personal information might now be out on the street, wouldn't you go through all of the effort of having everything changed. 

     

    No, I've been in the phone book along with a million other people. It has my name, address and phone number. Also available to anyone to look through. I'm not disagreeing with most things said I just sort of disagreed with that 1 sentence (depending on what "personal information" you are referring to)

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,481Member Uncommon

    EULA doesn't trump the law.  So even if it is in the EULA but violates law they can be in trouble.

  • sudosudo Tel-AvivPosts: 697Member Uncommon

    You show them how the things are done in The Home Depot, Natasha!

     

    http://ca.linkedin.com/in/mnatasha

    "Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted.
    Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world."
    Hans Margolius

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by bansan

    Originally posted by Unlight

    *snip*

    You are mixing personal opinion with legal opinion.  To have standing to sue someone, you have to prove that you were damaged.  Now, does that include in some way potential damage, is what I want to know.  Since this is a criminal break-in, and they will likely to be found negligent or grossly negligent, it should be less promising for people who are not, in fact, damaged.

    To take an extreme example, if someone threatens to kill you but doesn't do anything to that effect, you can't legally do much to them.  Even thought this person could potentially kill you, you probably won't be able to get them locked up in jail (restraining order, maybe).  You certainly couldn't sue them in civil court for "wrongful threat."

    The definition of "damage" can be very open-ended, much like "mental anguish".  The mere fact that you might feel threatened enough to have to change all sorts of information online, maybe closing accounts, having cards reissued, or anything along those lines could easily qualify.  This is where Sony can be held culpable, even if no charge of negligence is ever proven.  If it can be shown that jumping through all the hoops required to ensure your identity and financial information has been made safe again is a reasonable and expected reponse to having it compromised by Sony, that alone could make the case for civil liability.

    But I do agree on one thing -- this is my personal opinion and not a legal opinion.  I'm not a civil litigator of any sort so I'm just taking a guess.

    I'm sure that there must be some sort of precedence set for data theft cases already.  I'm curious to see how they were handled.

  • ThomasN7ThomasN7 87.18.7.148 1, NJPosts: 6,690Member

    Goodbye Sony, it was nice knowing you while you lasted.

    30
  • VrikaVrika FinlandPosts: 2,591Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bansan

    To have standing to sue someone, you have to prove that you were damaged.  Now, does that include in some way potential damage, is what I want to know. 

    I can't speak for American legal system, but for Finlands legal system:

    You can't sue for potential damage, but you can sue for the costs caused by making sure there isn't damage and costs required to limit the damage. Eg. if someone tries to infect you with a disease and you need to visit a doctor and take some medicine, the doctor's bill and medicine costs are damage caused to you even if you won't end up sick. Similarly if the judge finds that people need to take ID theft protection to limit the damage of their data being stolen, the cost of ID theft protection would be damage caused to those people who took the protection.

  • grukmuckgrukmuck Ionia, MIPosts: 2Member

    Originally posted by waynejr2

    EULA doesn't trump the law.  So even if it is in the EULA but violates law they can be in trouble.

    I think you need to start reading your EULA's.  As by agreeing or accepting one you go into a type of contract with the company your clicking "accept" with.  It's no different then signing a contract with a contractor for a housing situation.  If you signed it stating you will pay the sum on the agreement, then by law your eligble to have to pay it unless the contract was voided because somewhere/somehow the contractor failed to uphold his part.

      Now in the EQ2 EULA it states and I quote:

    "We cannot ensure that your private communications and other personally identifiable information will not be disclosed to third parties. For example, we may be forced to disclose information to the government or third parties under certain circumstances, or third parties may unlawfully intercept or access transmissions or private communications."

    And further down stating because you accept the EULA (in order to use/play any SOE product) they are not held responsible for the above quote.  So yes, in this case because as a consumer using the product and you "accepted" it, it does trump law.  As it is a binding contract BY law.

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by angerbeaver

    Originally posted by Unlight

    If you thought your personal information might now be out on the street, wouldn't you go through all of the effort of having everything changed. 

     

    No, I've been in the phone book along with a million other people. It has my name, address and phone number. Also available to anyone to look through. I'm not disagreeing with most things said I just sort of disagreed with that 1 sentence (depending on what "personal information" you are referring to)

    If your credit card information was also published in the phone book with your name, I think that would problematic.  It sounds like this may have been stolen as well, which is something that would concern me. 

    Really, if someone wanted to take advantage of you specifically, there's likely enough information out there to make it possible right now.  I feel the only real protection we have is to remain below the radar.  But once someone focuses on you because your name along with a bunch of information about you appears on a list in their hands, you no longer have that protection.  That would make me want to err on the side of caution and do something to make sure my defenses are shored up.  If you bring this scenario to your bank, they would probably advise the same.

    I'm lucky enough not to be a victim in all this.  But if I was an SOE client, or ever had been, I would already have been on the horn with my bank to find out what can be done to make sure I'm a safe as I can be.  I'd rather be called paranoid than reckless.

  • twodayslatetwodayslate Almost Mexico, CAPosts: 724Member

    Originally posted by Spentzar

    Do they mean a billion as in 1,000,000,000? (one thousand millions) or as in 1,000,000,000,000 (one million millions) because if it's the latter they might as well just go f*** themselves because they will not see that kind of money out of Sony. Overall the case will probably be dismissed or the price heavily reduced because that is not the "cost of credit monitoring service and fraud insurance coverage for two years." Not by a long shit. It's like the lawyers in that law firm literally pulled out their shlongs and smacked it against a calculator a few times and decided on the biggest arbitrary number the calculator could handle. It must have been an expensive scientific one because a regular calculator only goes up to like 9 digits.

    One million millions is called a trillion.  Canada doesn't have their own unique set of rules for numeric progression, and nobody is going to sue a corporation for national debt-levels of money (yet).

  • XzenXzen Los Alamos, NMPosts: 2,607Member Common

    http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/04/sonys-response-to-the-u-s-house-of-representatives/

     

    It's pretty much confirmed that Anon is behind the whole thing. Theft has never really been their MO. It was all for the lulz.

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by grukmuck

    Originally posted by waynejr2

    EULA doesn't trump the law.  So even if it is in the EULA but violates law they can be in trouble.

    I think you need to start reading your EULA's.  As by agreeing or accepting one you go into a type of contract with the company your clicking "accept" with.  It's no different then signing a contract with a contractor for a housing situation.  If you signed it stating you will pay the sum on the agreement, then by law your eligble to have to pay it unless the contract was voided because somewhere/somehow the contractor failed to uphold his part.

      Now in the EQ2 EULA it states and I quote:

    "We cannot ensure that your private communications and other personally identifiable information will not be disclosed to third parties. For example, we may be forced to disclose information to the government or third parties under certain circumstances, or third parties may unlawfully intercept or access transmissions or private communications."

    And further down stating because you accept the EULA (in order to use/play any SOE product) they are not held responsible for the above quote.  So yes, in this case because as a consumer using the product and you "accepted" it, it does trump law.  As it is a binding contract BY law.

    I think you've probably focused on exactly what SOE will be using for their defense.  It will also probably be exactly what will be targetted by the attorney's bringing the suit.  Just because it's in an EULA doesn't mean it can't be struck down by a judge.  I'm interested in seeing how well it will hold up.

  • lthompson94lthompson94 Memphis, TNPosts: 194Member

    Originally posted by Spentzar

    Do they mean a billion as in 1,000,000,000? (one thousand millions) or as in 1,000,000,000,000 (one million millions) because if it's the latter they might as well just go f*** themselves because they will not see that kind of money out of Sony. Overall the case will probably be dismissed or the price heavily reduced because that is not the "cost of credit monitoring service and fraud insurance coverage for two years." Not by a long shit. It's like the lawyers in that law firm literally pulled out their shlongs and smacked it against a calculator a few times and decided on the biggest arbitrary number the calculator could handle. It must have been an expensive scientific one because a regular calculator only goes up to like 9 digits.

    LOL - What are you talking about?  A billion is a billion dude, there's only one.  And I'm sure it was a good calculator.

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by Xzen

    http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/04/sonys-response-to-the-u-s-house-of-representatives/

     

    It's pretty much confirmed that Anon is behind the whole thing. Theft has never really been their MO. It was all for the lulz.

    Hopefully that means that Sony's clients aren't as bad a shape as they could have been. 

    I just hope Anonymous sticks to harassing Scientology after this mess has blown over

  • spades07spades07 YesPosts: 847Member

    it's probably right action is taken by that $1bn is probably excessive. I can see the claim for the identity-protection thing- that costs £7.00/month here. If someone's calculation of $1000 dollars per person that almost appears to be 10 years worth..

Sign In or Register to comment.