13 Apr 2011
Anonymous, the loosely connected hacktivist group infamous for last year’s “Operation Payback” that forced Visa and MasterCard offline for a time, has recently set its sights on Sony.
Before it all kicked off I heard a few low rumblings on Twitter, and checked the Anonymous homepage, where I found the following (abridged) statement:
“You [Sony] have abused the judicial system in an attempt to censor information on how your products work. You have victimised your own customers merely for possessing and sharing information, and continue to target every person who seeks this information. In doing so you have violated the privacy of thousands.”
It concluded chillingly: “Now you will experience the wrath of Anonymous.”
I say concluded, actually there is a sentence after that referring to Sony executives’ private parts, which you can research for yourselves, should you be so inclined.
The beef arose when Sony brought legal proceedings against two hackers, George Hotz and Graf Chokolo, after they released code required to develop firmware for Sony’s PlayStation 3 console.
Last year’s Operation Payback campaign was founded, at least apparently, on high moral principles such as free speech and open government.
Part of its motivation was to defend Wikileaks, and its founder Julian Assange. Firms deemed to be hostile to the whistleblowing web site were subjected to sustained attacks.
For a while, Anonymous was winning. PayPal, having frozen funds owed to Wikileaks, agreed to release them.
Part of me admired Anonymous. It stood up for its beliefs, and used the tools at its disposal to make its point.
But this latest campaign, which Anonymous calls “#Opsony”, has lost me. The group is outraged because Sony is defending its intellectual property. Where once I saw free-speech campaigners championing the little guy against heavy-handed governments, I now see power-mad kids who have found a pointy stick.
Anonymous’s web site even proclaims the group the “Lords of the Internet”. It seems more Lord of the Flies to me.
I called Sony just before its sites started going down, and no one knew anything about it. I imagine they found out pretty quickly, after the PlayStation Network went down, shortly followed by its European support site and others.
It may not be related, but Sony’s shares are down 1.4 per cent on the NYSE at the time of writing.
Anonymous chose V, the hero of the graphic novel series V for Vendetta as its figurehead. In the novels, V stands alone against a totalitarian government. I’m not convinced he would approve.
For the record, graf_chokolo (single person sued by Sony) was looking to restore functionality that Sony took away from the PS3.
The original PS3 was sold with the ability to run Linux. Months later, Sony revoked this ability leaving the consumer with no recourse whatsoever. A feature that we paid for was removed. Sony has no right to sue this person, and that is what has raised the ire of Anonymous.
Amazing that a "journalist" such as yourself couldn't grasp that. Then again, you're relying on twitter feeds for your information...
Posted by: Joh Bin 29 Apr 2011
I think anonymous who wrote 'Thought this through?' has missed point. Whom is stealing from Whom?
If we (the consumer) buys something and pays the asking price then we have paid for the right to do whatever we like with it as long as that is for our own personal use.
I also believe that if any of us has the brains to work out how to make that product more useful to ourselves or others then we have the right, nay - duty, to pass that information on so that all who wish to might make use of it. Let them make their own decisions on what they then do with it, based on their own code, we are not here to police others' morals or intentions; this must remain a matter for an individual's own conscience.
Personally, I have never bought into the 'buying the licence, not the product' con trick these industries have spawned.
Where restrictive practices such as these erode any person's freedom of use, speech or expression they are to be held in contempt and exposed for what they are; unfair practices designed solely to gain maximum profit for the least effort.
When I was a lad we called that by its true name; sharp practice! Something no decent company would have any truck with.
'Operation Payback' was inspired and one in the eye for the miscreant companies targeted. Such companies as those, who think they have some inalienable right to censor or restrict the freedoms of the rest of us, who seem to think they are all-powerful and untouchable, have been put on notice; if you kick out at those you thought defenceless, don't act so hurt and surprised when they bite back.
I applaud Anonymous' aims and endeavours and wish them success in the future.
Posted by: Brumboy 14 Apr 2011
Sony sued a person for enabling people to do what they want with a product they've paid good money for. Just because he enabled people to do something that can be used illegally, doesn't mean he's condoning it. The fact that Sony sued him for doing so is outrageous, and that's the point that Anonymous were making. They saw a person being punished for providing people with information.
Mr Sumner, you also forget that Sony is not an innocent company. Several years back they were dragged through the mud for putting rootkits on their audio cds. That, and they also removed a crucial feature of the PS3... The ability to install Linux on it. They're being sued by the people for that too, by the way.
It's no wonder they attracted the attention of as you call them, "pointy stick wielding power-mad kids". To you they may be just that, but to me... they're the only group willing to stand up and do something about big companies that try to make an example out of people like George Hotz. People who want to relinquish the iron fist control that the creators of a product hold.
To me, Sony should have known better. And I bet in the future, they'll think twice before dragging someone gutsy enough to do what George did into court.
Posted by: Anonymous 14 Apr 2011
It's about being told what you can do with your own property. It's government and corporations getting too involved with our lives. I bought a PS3, I should be able to do WHATEVER I want with it. I paid for it, I own it, simple as that. Greg was made to look like a villain for releasing code that allowed users access to the PlayStation's core systems and processes, to be able to alter it to suit their wants and needs.
It's no different if you bought a car and then modified it with bigger wheels and a suspension kit because you wanted to go 4 wheeling with it. For those that argue that what Greg did allowed people to pirate games and other media easier onto their PS3, I ask this: Should we then also take away CD-Rewritable drives, as that allows us to make backups of our software that we weren't allowed to?
If we "ban" or criminalize every "enabling" technology, then we have zero innovation, no technological progress, and a totalitarian society where the Government tells us what we can use, how we can use it, and we have no say in the matter whatsoever.
Posted by: Anonymous 13 Apr 2011
It is about time people, anonymous or not, stand up against these big companies! They have shown time and time again they care nothing for the rights of their consumers or rights of the people in general. No trust for big corps. and big money. BRAVO Anonymous!!!
Posted by: April 13 Apr 2011
Have your say on this article
Newsletters
Latest stories from Ecommerce
You may also like
Ecommerce jobs
Technology Patent Wars
Case studies from large organisations across all sectors
... And rich media, and flexible working, and peaks in traffic ...
Upcoming Events
Join us for this Computing web seminar, in which the Head of BI at the Co-operative Group Nick Colebourn will be explaining just how he reigned in the Group’s sprawling database estate and how significant savings were realised and data quality improved as a result.
Date: 31 May 2012
Time: 11:00 AM
Live June 13th 11:00am: Register now. During this web seminar we will be looking at the sorts of incidents that can bring data centres grinding to a halt and what can be done about them.
Date: 13 Jun 2012
Time: 11:00 am
Receive the latest jobs direct to your inbox
Are you being paid what you are worth?
