GeoHot-PS3

Let's make a group to help GeoHot, the PS3 jailbreaker who is in court right now for wanting to run Linux on his system. For starters, who wants to DDOS Sony's website? If successful, let's try and gain entry to SCEA developer's group =D

WARNING: The next plane to leave to New York will be blown up.
Truthfully Yours,

Jiihad

>>1
Nah, it's a worthless venture.

>>1
What, so you can carry on using it how you're not meant to? There's a thing called "Terms of service". Go fuck yourself and stop justifying and supporting a scriptkiddie who allows hacker and piratefags to screw it up for everyone.

I hope the judge slams that gavvel down and sends him to drop the soap hell.

Signed,
Fuck you.

"Terms of service"
service has nothing to do with it. the PS3 is a piece of hardware. if i own a piece of hardware i should be able to use it however i want provided i'm not hurting anyone.

>>5
You obviously never read the small print of the TOS that appears on the box, in the manual or on the internet updates. You're an idiot if you ignore those and wonder why if it comes to the worst, Sony sends cops knocking at your door because you wanted to "use it how [you] want".

>>6
Don't bother.  >>5 doesn't understand what a contract is: if he were forced to sign it directly, he'd just get the equipment from a less savory source and manipulate it beyond the listed terms of service anyway, just to not give them the satisfaction.

>>7
Just as well. Hackerfags can never be reasoned with

>>6
>>7
>>8
Stupid fucking troll(s)! I don't recall ever signing a contract to buy a game console.

If you register a warranty or use PSN then yeah, there's a contract. Hotz probably did and Sony probably will use that. But they'd still be suing him either way. That's not what this case is about. Sony doesn't want people jailbreaking their devices. And the only reason they're suing is to send a message to other would be hackers.

Now, I'd like you dumb cunts to explain to me exactly what's immoral about jailbreaking a piece of hardware.

It's funny how, of all political systems, ownership is most consistently disrespected in capitalism.

>>9
This is what was meant by you not understanding it.  We're not talking about morality and; of course you weren't made to sign a contract directly.  That's why I said "if he were forced to sign it directly."

You didn't sign any contracts?  what about Sony?  You may not care about agreements, spoken, written, consentual, or anything like that, but the product you bought has a lot of that in the background that they've made with others in regards to its production, current and future.  Then, they also have their own interests and concerns in the matter.  And you find yourself bewildered why they would sue a person over the product?  You believe the world begins (and ends?) with what you can easily see and with what you choose to read and regard.

>>11
Sony should just not be retarded instead of blaming its loss of profits on its customers. PC manufacturers don't have Sony's problems.

>>12
PC manufacturer's utilize this method to make a profit, the connectivity and interchangeability of different cards and modules.  Sony is following a different policy.  If you understand that, then you're the one who's being unaccommodating.

>>13
And Sony is the one who is being retarded. I guess it's their freedom to lose money.

>>11
We're not talking about morality
Yes, we are. Because if Hotz wasn't acting immorally there would be no reason to "hope the judge slams that gavvel down and sends him to drop the soap hell."

And you find yourself bewildered
Awfully presumptuous of you. I'm not bewildered by anything. Sony is suing because they are protecting their interests (profit). And if what was meant by "terms of service" is Sony's obligations to other parties then it was communicated very poorly.

>>15
At the risk of moving towards talking about D&D alignments, is this a matter of morality or one of legality?  Even if you believe in some degree of absolutes, the two don't always travel in lockstep.

Awfully presumptuous of you.
You'll pardon me then.  I still feel it shortsighted for someone not to realize those things mattered on a level that could affect them.

Oh look, Geofag just cemented his guilt by running away
http://uk.kotaku.com/5784973/ps3-hacker-flees-the-long-arm-of-sony-for-south-american-freedom
It's one thing to be found guilty for fucking with a product he wasn't meant to fuck like that, but run away like a pussy after?
Weak.

Inb4 moralfag.

At the risk of moving towards talking about D&D alignments, is this a matter of morality or one of legality?  Even if you believe in some degree of absolutes, the two don't always travel in lockstep.
I couldn't agree more. But it's a matter of both. I personally think it's more important to be moral than law abiding though, and most people would probably agree. And honestly I don't see how a person could make any kind of judgment on this sort of thing without considering morality.

http://geohotgotsued.blogspot.com/2011/03/fearmongering.html

>>17
Well don't you feel stupid?

So how did they find out he was tinkering with his ps3? I could unscrew my ps3 and stick components up my ass if I wanted and they'd never know, if I had a ps3 that is.

>>19
To be honest, I don't. Because I don't go round hacking the fuck out of systems in ways I shouldn't be doing. I'd feel pretty stupid myself if I did that and then wondered why cops and lawyers came round to take all my stuff away.

>implying piracy is the only reason to hack

>>20
Yeah. Seriously, this is bullshit. I can do whatever I want with something that I legally bought as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. In no way is he infringing on Sony's rights: it's not their item any longer. It's his.
Now if he stuck the components up THEIR asses on the other hand...

>>17
inb4 cocks floating across a blue sky

>>23
Interesting dilemma. Usually when you stick something into someone else's shithole without permission it is quite a situation, but what if the individual on the receiving end has intellectual property rights on that object? If the action does not cause grievous trauma or permanent damage does that not mean they are anally masturbating themselves?

Looks like OP has got it's wish.
We're gonna getcha, Sony!

People here are fucking retarded. This isn't about piracy, or Geofag making software he knows could be used to pirate/hack consoles. He's in hot water because he publicly released the codes/keys that Sony, as a company owns, hence he's practically stolen and given them out without prior permission, and all the while attaches his name to it going "HURRR Ima steal your codes. You better hire me so I can stop people doing it".

Geofag wanted attention. Now he's getting it. The fact he spurts all his bullshit such as "I don't play games, I just wanted to buy the system" and the "Well I didn't know Sony had an American brance", releases a rap video about him fucking up Sony and asks for donation money, then goes on Holiday just conveniently during his legal case, makes "You mad" photos and previously endorsed the use of software to randomly ban legitimate customers from the Playstation Network makes me want to just punch him in the face with a crowbar for knuckledusters.

AnonOps DDOS'd http://sonypictures.co.uk/ this weekend. They were kind of effective, but I don't really see the point... first, how does censorship (via DDOS) promote free speech? And secondly, why attack a minor site that no one visits in the first place? It makes life a little tough for some of the sysops or IT guys, but that's really it...

>>27
They miss the point: They think they're proving one, but everyone forgets about it after a few hours/days when the target is back online. It's akin to a kid who thinks torturing one ant with a stick is actually destroying an entire nest.

It really is kind of pathetic.

oh, and playstation.com is down

>>28
Nice try. The corporations are actually  a bit freaked out, because of the amorphous nature here. Why do you think they're putting so much energy into HBGary and all that?

>>30
Which is why the corporations can, and have, acquired the means to rat out some of the offenders. It happened back when all the Wikileaks anonymous support was at its peak. I believe about 5 anons got caught.

Noone can truly hide their identity if the government are determined.

>>30
It's still pathetic regardless. Plus the anons are only doing this because they know if Geofag gets beaten, they're wide open for a beating as well.

>>31
Proving my point: that the government is "determined", and thus do care and this is making a difference here.
>>32
You're the same guy who cries "troll" when your losing an argument, aren't you? Nice tactic: name-calling. Let me know when you get passed up to the fifth grade.

>>33
Regardless of your opinion; If the government is "determined" it's because they want to catch whoever was performing anonymous internet vandalism on their websites. It's called protecting their interests.

Secondly, I'm not the only who calls him Geofag. And when did I even use the word "Troll"?

>>34
Point is: it's not useless. They do care.
And if I was wrong about who you are, I apologize, but your use of the word "pathetic" rang a bell.
"Geofag" actually makes me laugh :)

>>35
It's a fitting name for him, considering how he's been acting through this entire thing. He could have done all this stuff anonymously and I'm sure most people would have just treated him as some wacko and Sony would'nt have had this court case. He would have been able to get away with it. He had to attach his name to it. I guess that's why the "Hacktivists" are DDOSing Sony sites: Geofag has become a convinient mascot for them to rally behind. It was the same thing with Julian Assange or Bradley Manning until they got bored of that and moved on.

Basically that is why I'm finding it very hard to take Anonymous seriously in any way.

>>36
And yet, you yourself are anonymous...

>>37
But I don't condone anything they do, especially when they turn to vigilantism

>>38
Do you mean" I don't condone everything they do"?

>>39
No, I mean agree with what they do unless it's one of those very rare instances that everyone can agree on like bashing the WBC