ISPs Must Take Responsibility For Sony Movie Leaks

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this person doesn't understand the internet.

“Piracy is a huge international problem. The recent cyber-attack on Sony and subsequent release of films to illegal websites is just one high-profile example of how criminals exploit others’ Intellectual Property,” Weatherley writes in an email to TF. “Unfortunately, the theft of these films – and their subsequent downloads – has been facilitated by web-hosting companies and, ultimately, ISPs who do have to step-up and take some responsibility.”
Click to expand...
 
Might as well sue the government for providing the roads for bank robbers, for educating the criminals, for making sure the criminals were taken care of.

Don't forget suing the car companies that sold them the cars, and the gas companies for providing them with the gas!
 
ShamisOMally said:
Might as well sue the government for providing the roads for bank robbers, for educating the criminals, for making sure the criminals were taken care of.

Don't forget suing the car companies that sold them the cars, and the gas companies for providing them with the gas!
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing about the roads....
 
next their goign to sue the power companies for providing power to the servers
 
Romale23 said:
next their goign to sue the power companies for providing power to the servers
Click to expand...

Your right, it all starts there. I mean if the power company didn't offer electricity to the general public none of this non-government sanctioned hacking would occur!

Damn you big power!
 
Well, in all fairness, the quote taken from the article by Steve was made by a politician. Have there actually been many occasions when politicians actually know what the hell they're talking about before opening their big mouths?
 
ShamisOMally said:
Might as well sue the government for providing the roads for bank robbers, for educating the criminals, for making sure the criminals were taken care of.

Don't forget suing the car companies that sold them the cars, and the gas companies for providing them with the gas!
Click to expand...

It looks like every one of us came to this thread to make this same comment. I agree with you as well.
 
All the jokes we make about politicians and their technological ignorance definitely get some chuckles, but the grim reality is how sad the situation is when due to ignorance perceptions can shape reality (laws) and not the other way around.

This situation is just dangerous and mass education is needed so that everyone from the elected politicians and judges to the general public has at least a rudimentary grasp of how things work. After all who in their right mind would make a decision to have surgery based on the opinion of an architect or truck driver so why do the untrained think they can speak about technology?
 
Ultima99 said:
All the jokes we make about politicians and their technological ignorance definitely get some chuckles, but the grim reality is how sad the situation is when due to ignorance perceptions can shape reality (laws) and not the other way around.

This situation is just dangerous and mass education is needed so that everyone from the elected politicians and judges to the general public has at least a rudimentary grasp of how things work. After all who in their right mind would make a decision to have surgery based on the opinion of an architect or truck driver so why do the untrained think they can speak about technology?
Click to expand...

What I want to know is why politicians seem to think that it's NOT their job to research and learn in detail about the things they legislate. Or I suppose I should say that I want to know why that's generally considered acceptable. It's ultimately the fault of the general population for voting for these clowns.

As Don Henley said, we get the government we deserve. But the few of us who do care about the issues and about politicians end up getting the government that 99% of us deserve (by voting for those clowns).
 
Everyone's got the right idea. The problem with our logic is that WE aren't in this for the money. If they actually address the problem, the politicians stop getting paid, which is really all they care about. They get paid, they get reelected.

When someone breaks into my home and steals something, is that the fault of the police? Nope; personal accountability. It's my problem because I didn't secure my home. There's no money for the politicians in passing a law that mandates I secure my belongings (nevermind the possible constitutionality). Instead, they'd go after his parole officer, the prison system, his doctor, or someone else with money or a high profile. Similarly, it's a company's job to secure their own belongings. Tell them to take some of the CEO's bonus and put it towards security. Let's focus on the actual issue, shall we?

The same logic works for murder, drunk driving, drug use, and sex assault. Most often, those who commit these crimes have mental health issues (e.g. addiction, depression, etc). Why isn't this addressed? There's no one out there willing to pad the politician's coffer if they fund mental health research. In fact, they'd need to FIND money in order to do so. What fun is that?
 
Skirge01 said:
Everyone's got the right idea. The problem with our logic is that WE aren't in this for the money. If they actually address the problem, the politicians stop getting paid, which is really all they care about. They get paid, they get reelected.

<snip>
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with the overall post, I have to disagree that WE aren't in it for the money, the only difference being is that we aren't looking to profit from it, but instead want to pay as little as possible for as much bandwidth and data as possible.
 
This is like blaming auto manufacturers for get away vehicles.

Excuse mongering is ignorant and inefficient in any business model.

Rather than place blame, address how you got caught with your pants down, not that people see you with your pants down.

Pathetic greed led to this security breach, how about you fucking budget in security, rather than giving just one off your top dogs a 200K bonus.

(This entire fiasco could've been avoided most likely for even less. Fucking greedy morons at Sony pictures)
 
Fucktards will make fucktard statements. By applying dipshit's own logic, maybe ISP's should take responsibility for allowing his ignorant comments to make it to my computer and blacklist him from ever using the web again.

Sony chose to connect those systems housing their movies (and whatever other IP that got targeted) on systems that were (ultimately) accessible by means of the internet. They are just as much to blame as the insidious asshats that hacked in to said systems.
 
DejaWiz said:
Fucktards will make fucktard statements. By applying dipshit's own logic, maybe ISP's should take responsibility for allowing his ignorant comments to make it to my computer and blacklist him from ever using the web again.

Sony chose to connect those systems housing their movies (and whatever other IP that got targeted) on systems that were (ultimately) accessible by means of the internet. They are just as much to blame as the insidious asshats that hacked in to said systems.
Click to expand...

While Sony is to blame for their security, or lack of, but blaming them for someone stealing their stuff would be like blaming you if someone breaks into your house because you chose to live there.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
While Sony is to blame for their security, or lack of, but blaming them for someone stealing their stuff would be like blaming you if someone breaks into your house because you chose to live there.
Click to expand...

No, it would be like choosing to live in a bad area (i.e. the internet) you knew was bad and using some crappy lock (Kwikset, for example) that can literally be picked in 5 seconds. Oh, and you're an asshole to a lot of the people around you, always calling the cops on them and trying to sue them for civil problems that your lobbying turned into criminal problems, even when you can't prove anything against them. Then when someone breaks in and steals your TV, you whine about how unfair it was. Sure - the robber is still a criminal and deserves to be caught - but you'd also be partially responsible for not properly securing your stuff. You should have reinforced your door frames and used grade 1 locks including deadbolts, or you shouldn't have moved to a bad area (i.e. Sony should have kept this stuff off of internet-accessible machines).
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
While I don't disagree with the overall post, I have to disagree that WE aren't in it for the money, the only difference being is that we aren't looking to profit from it, but instead want to pay as little as possible for as much bandwidth and data as possible.
Click to expand...

No clue where you're from, but "I'm in it for the money" is a saying here in the US which means that you're into [something] to get money, not trying to avoid paying money.
 
Ultima99 said:
All the jokes we make about politicians and their technological ignorance definitely get some chuckles, but the grim reality is how sad the situation is when due to ignorance perceptions can shape reality (laws) and not the other way around.

This situation is just dangerous and mass education is needed so that everyone from the elected politicians and judges to the general public has at least a rudimentary grasp of how things work. After all who in their right mind would make a decision to have surgery based on the opinion of an architect or truck driver so why do the untrained think they can speak about technology?
Click to expand...

The really insidious thing is that there is actually a good chance that they know exactly how the internet works and what they are saying is bullshit, but they are saying it because the media companies are stuffing their pockets with cash. Politicians are mostly just legislation creators and mouthpieces for whomever is funding them.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
While Sony is to blame for their security, or lack of, but blaming them for someone stealing their stuff would be like blaming you if someone breaks into your house because you chose to live there.
Click to expand...

I've got cameras, large dogs, secure containers, and firearms to protect my family and house. They may be able to break in, but they aren't going to be getting away (with anything) due to my SECURITY.
 
Skirge01 said:
No clue where you're from, but "I'm in it for the money" is a saying here in the US which means that you're into [something] to get money, not trying to avoid paying money.
Click to expand...

I'm from the US, Western NY to be more specific, and I understand what the saying means, but I simply felt I needed to point out that our concern is also money, even if it is trying to avoid spending it, as opposed to turning a profit.

Companies want to do less and make more, while the costomers want more for less but ultimately the motivation for all sides is money.
 
DejaWiz said:
I've got cameras, large dogs, secure containers, and firearms to protect my family and house. They may be able to break in, but they aren't going to be getting away (with anything) due to my SECURITY.
Click to expand...

And yet even with those protections your still vulnerable, even if you don't want to admit it. Sure your reduced the risk, but not to zero.

Anything on the new is basically the same, companies can reduce the risk of a hack as much as possible, but as long as they are connected to the outside they are still at risk to one degree or another.

Could Sony not connect their systems to the net? Sure, but they would be giving up the benifits gained from being connected to the net.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
companies can reduce the risk of a hack as much as possible
Click to expand...

And the problem is that they don't. The problem is that businesspeople are so focused on cost reduction that they absolutely refuse to consider other viewpoints. Internal politics results in departments like IT having to fight to get the budget they need, and it's not just a one-time fight but an ongoing, ever-present issue. A business will need a certain budget for IT, but businesspeople don't understand this. They, like the execs at Home Depot, say stupid, shitty things like, "We sell hammers." And boom, issue is closed. IT is screwed.

And who gets the blame when this happens? IT.

Someone previously mentioned that Sony's IT department is probably not going to get the funding it needs to fix this problem, even though this isn't the first time they've been hacked. PSN has been hacked many times before, too. If the decision-makers at Sony would have gotten their heads out of their asses the first time, they'd have realized that IT needs do not go away just by refusing to fund them, and they would have fixed the funding problem and followed up to make sure that IT itself was making the changes necessary to use the proper amount of funding to actually fix their problems.

No security can be perfect, but the worst threat to security is that businesspeople control the flow of cash in a company while often refusing to actually understand the company's needs.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
And yet even with those protections your still vulnerable, even if you don't want to admit it. Sure your reduced the risk, but not to zero.

Anything on the new is basically the same, companies can reduce the risk of a hack as much as possible, but as long as they are connected to the outside they are still at risk to one degree or another.

Could Sony not connect their systems to the net? Sure, but they would be giving up the benifits gained from being connected to the net.
Click to expand...

There is always a risk, but I've addressed it as best as I can.

Back on the topic of Sony...I think it would be a safe assumption to say that they have the capability to actually block any and all access to the systems with critical IP through the use of managed switches or even the extreme extent of the tried and trusty method of outright unplugging the network cables to these systems to sever access until it was needed.
 
Also - and I'd like to edit my post to add this but stupid forum rules prevent it - rumor is that it was an inside job. Not sure if this is true or not, but that sort of thing is essentially impossible to prevent. Especially in a large, public company like Sony. It's not like there is a single owner who can personally interact with any (potential) employee (not that even being able to do that would catch every single person who might do such a thing).
 
I think Sony is the one that needs to take responsibility for the leaks. It isn't like this is the first time they've been hacked. And apparently their security got worse after the last one.
 
dandragonrage said:
And the problem is that they don't. The problem is that businesspeople are so focused on cost reduction that they absolutely refuse to consider other viewpoints. Internal politics results in departments like IT having to fight to get the budget they need, and it's not just a one-time fight but an ongoing, ever-present issue. A business will need a certain budget for IT, but businesspeople don't understand this. They, like the execs at Home Depot, say stupid, shitty things like, "We sell hammers." And boom, issue is closed. IT is screwed.

And who gets the blame when this happens? IT.

Someone previously mentioned that Sony's IT department is probably not going to get the funding it needs to fix this problem, even though this isn't the first time they've been hacked. PSN has been hacked many times before, too. If the decision-makers at Sony would have gotten their heads out of their asses the first time, they'd have realized that IT needs do not go away just by refusing to fund them, and they would have fixed the funding problem and followed up to make sure that IT itself was making the changes necessary to use the proper amount of funding to actually fix their problems.

No security can be perfect, but the worst threat to security is that businesspeople control the flow of cash in a company while often refusing to actually understand the company's needs.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree, although I will point out that it's been my experience that it's rare for any department to get the buduget they ask for. Often the problem becomes, how the resources are used, although we'll never know if that was the case here.


dandragonrage said:
Also - and I'd like to edit my post to add this but stupid forum rules prevent it - rumor is that it was an inside job. Not sure if this is true or not, but that sort of thing is essentially impossible to prevent. Especially in a large, public company like Sony. It's not like there is a single owner who can personally interact with any (potential) employee (not that even being able to do that would catch every single person who might do such a thing).
Click to expand...

Yep, even the NSA wasn't able to keep someone from walking out with a ton of their data, and I'm willing to bet they spend for more on security, computer and physical, then Sony could ever dream of.


DejaWiz said:
There is always a risk, but I've addressed it as best as I can.

Back on the topic of Sony...I think it would be a safe assumption to say that they have the capability to actually block any and all access to the systems with critical IP through the use of managed switches or even the extreme extent of the tried and trusty method of outright unplugging the network cables to these systems to sever access until it was needed.
Click to expand...

Well the problem is, any assumptions we make are based on nothing but our own biases. I am not a fan of Sony, and I believe that have to take security far more seriously, but I'm not willing to blame them based on nothing but my dislike for for company.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Well the problem is, any assumptions we make are based on nothing but our own biases. I am not a fan of Sony, and I believe that have to take security far more seriously, but I'm not willing to blame them based on nothing but my dislike for for company.
Click to expand...
I'm able to blame them because who else is there to blame? How one feels about the company isn't relevant to anything. If you're claiming it's the job of ISPs to secure the networks of private corporations best of luck with that.
 
JeffDC said:
I'm able to blame them because who else is there to blame? How one feels about the company isn't relevant to anything. If you're claiming it's the job of ISPs to secure the networks of private corporations best of luck with that.
Click to expand...

No, I never said that nor was I trying to imply that, what I said earlier is the one to blame for the theft is the person who committed the crime, not the company that was victimized.
 
There was a file list on pastebin that showed all the files on their servers, and a couple of the files listed were pirated films themselves. So someone working at Sony was pirating movies. :p
 
PornoSatan said:
There was a file list on pastebin that showed all the files on their servers, and a couple of the files listed were pirated films themselves. So someone working at Sony was pirating movies. :p
Click to expand...

It looks like someone at Sony leaked a lot of this internally. Many doubt North Korea's involvement entirely.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
While I don't disagree with the overall post, I have to disagree that WE aren't in it for the money, the only difference being is that we aren't looking to profit from it, but instead want to pay as little as possible for as much bandwidth and data as possible.
Click to expand...

That concept right there is called capitalism. But companies today HATE the idea of competition. So they spend a lot of money to force out competition. Even going as far as bankruptcy.

Just look around and you'll find that capitalism is very dead. ISPs are a monopoly. Microsoft is a monopoly. If they aren't monopolies then they'll price fix. In some cases they'll even use extortion. Look at what happened with Intel and AMD back when the Athlon 64 was kicking butt. Intel told retailers that if they sold AMD then Intel would fight back with higher prices.

We as consumers just want a fair market because it works best for us which is usually paying as little as possible for the most. But the only way to fight back is to get government involved which is not capatalism. But when a company becomes a monopoly then government is the only thing that'll stop them. Also, monopolies got to where they are by paying off our government to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top