Top comments on both this wired article and other linked ones has the code[2].
This judge is sorely out of touch with what's going on.
Also, "Sony is also asking Judge Illston to order Google to surrender the IP addresses [.pdf] and other identifying information of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on Hotz’ private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December."
...take from that what you will.
Searching[3] for the strings in question[4] yields 11k+ results.
Edit: OK, he's not really a VP. He's a character played by Jerry Lambert. The advertising company Deutsch/LA controls his Twitter feed. And check out the titles he gives himself in their ads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgwNyb80L0s&playnext=1...
This is discovery for a trial, right? What's newsworthy about this? You don't have a right to be free from search and seizure period, only to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which is to say: (1) demands to compromise your privacy and security have to be mitigate by due process, and (2) Congress can't in the long run be allowed to enact laws that unduly compromise that due process.
It isn't the DMCA per se that's allowing Sony to search the guy's drive, is it? It's civil law procedure. Companies routinely have to fork over years and years worth of mail spools for similar reasons.
> Sony is also asking Judge Illston to order Google to surrender the IP addresses [.pdf] and other identifying information of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on Hotz’ private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December.
Do you think the above is "reasonable" per definition? In essence, anyone who stumbled across some page where the youtube video was embedded is now suspect. Anyone who made comments on twitter is now suspect. And if you slide down the slippery slope, all of us are now suspect for discussing it here on HN.
The above is excessive, and hence, unreasonable. The lawyers of the plaintiff intentionally asked for the moon, gift wrapped, and the judge agreed. The lawyers from Sony did their job correctly, as they are expected to ask for everything they possibly can to help their case. The judge, Susan Illston, failed to do her job. She was supposed to take the expected unreasonable requests from the lawyers, weigh their merit, and rule on a limited compromise to both enable discovery and protect the privacy of the people. The discovery process is not an excuse for excessive privacy invasion.
That's just the above issue of other parties.
As for the issue of searching the hard disk of George Hotz... --it's an interesting debacle. Discovery is very important but it comes down to where and how one draws the lines. Opinions of reasonable and unreasonable will vary.
This was exactly what I dove into the comments to say. You're 100% correct; this is routine discovery.
Look, do I like the merits of Sony's arguments? Absolutely not. Do I hope this kid wins? Yes. But there's nothing that nuts going on so far; save your anger for the verdict.
As an aside, who ever is advising Sony is an idiot. The bad publicity this is getting Sony has already far outweighed the value of any verdict they get (in both monetary and deterrent value), and anyone could have seen that before they even filed the lawsuit.
hmmm, your definition of due process seems to be different than "good things happen to people we like, bad things happen to people we don't like." Are you sure that's how things are supposed to work?
Ah kids, gather here by the fire with me, and let me tell you a story of the olden times when you bought a car and could do whatever the hell you wanted with it. Because when you bought the car, you made it your property. You could modify it in whatever way you want. Sure, there were rules if you wanted to take it our for a ride, because others could get hurt. But if you were doing it just for the fun at home, no-one could stop you. You could even go over to your neighbor's house and help him change his car, too. Those were the times.
If, by "end well", you mean "the judge readily conceded that there was no practical way for this to happen and apologized for the ill-thought-out demand", then know (by reading just a few sentences further) that this already happened.
The accused has to led the accuser inspect his data? Scary!
I sure hope they use forensic standards such as not the actual hard drive but an image of it. Otherwise the chances to plant some evidence are truly disturbing.
Sony won't be involved directly with any part of the forensics.
Their attorneys will contract with a forensics firm who will make an image of the drives (using a write-blocked device like the ones made by Wiebetech or an Encase Fastbloc).
Analysis will not be performed on the actual drive, but on the image.
The defendant's attorney will also receive a copy of this image, ensuring that chain of custody was followed (or else they can sure to try and argue that the evidence has been tampered with).
The images will be checksummed, and I would argue that the odds of evidence being tampered are pretty slim in this instance.
Every geek in the world thinks and says this whenever any legal proceeding involves inspecting hard drives. In the real world, it's just not that big a deal. There are chain-of-custody rules that apply any time digital evidence is handled in court. The reality is that the penalty for deliberately planting evidence would be so severe, the likelihood of success so uncertain, that no major corporation (or their zillion-dollar law firm) would risk it over a small-ball case like this.
(Like 'm0nastic points out, Sony can also pay a pittance relative to their legal fees to contract this out to Mandiant).
Not much of a compromise. Who wants a computer that can't run Linux, an MP3 player that only plays ATRAC, and a digital camera that can't take SD cards?
Sony is an evil company, and their products don't make up for it.
[+] [-] shii|15 years ago|reply
Top comments on both this wired article and other linked ones has the code[2].
This judge is sorely out of touch with what's going on.
Also, "Sony is also asking Judge Illston to order Google to surrender the IP addresses [.pdf] and other identifying information of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on Hotz’ private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December." ...take from that what you will.
Searching[3] for the strings in question[4] yields 11k+ results.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[2]: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/playstation3-hacker...
[3]: http://www.google.com/search?&q=erk:+C0+CE+FE+84+C2+27+F...
[4]:
erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70
[+] [-] sp332|15 years ago|reply
Edit: OK, he's not really a VP. He's a character played by Jerry Lambert. The advertising company Deutsch/LA controls his Twitter feed. And check out the titles he gives himself in their ads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgwNyb80L0s&playnext=1...
[+] [-] jjcm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|15 years ago|reply
Sony isn't trying to put the genie back in the bottle, they're trying to punish the kid who uncorked it.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
It isn't the DMCA per se that's allowing Sony to search the guy's drive, is it? It's civil law procedure. Companies routinely have to fork over years and years worth of mail spools for similar reasons.
[+] [-] jcr|15 years ago|reply
> Sony is also asking Judge Illston to order Google to surrender the IP addresses [.pdf] and other identifying information of those who have viewed or commented about the jailbreak video on Hotz’ private YouTube page. The game maker is also demanding that Twitter provide the identities of a host of hackers who first unveiled a limited version of the hack in December.
Do you think the above is "reasonable" per definition? In essence, anyone who stumbled across some page where the youtube video was embedded is now suspect. Anyone who made comments on twitter is now suspect. And if you slide down the slippery slope, all of us are now suspect for discussing it here on HN.
The above is excessive, and hence, unreasonable. The lawyers of the plaintiff intentionally asked for the moon, gift wrapped, and the judge agreed. The lawyers from Sony did their job correctly, as they are expected to ask for everything they possibly can to help their case. The judge, Susan Illston, failed to do her job. She was supposed to take the expected unreasonable requests from the lawyers, weigh their merit, and rule on a limited compromise to both enable discovery and protect the privacy of the people. The discovery process is not an excuse for excessive privacy invasion.
That's just the above issue of other parties.
As for the issue of searching the hard disk of George Hotz... --it's an interesting debacle. Discovery is very important but it comes down to where and how one draws the lines. Opinions of reasonable and unreasonable will vary.
[+] [-] voxmatt|15 years ago|reply
Look, do I like the merits of Sony's arguments? Absolutely not. Do I hope this kid wins? Yes. But there's nothing that nuts going on so far; save your anger for the verdict.
As an aside, who ever is advising Sony is an idiot. The bad publicity this is getting Sony has already far outweighed the value of any verdict they get (in both monetary and deterrent value), and anyone could have seen that before they even filed the lawsuit.
[+] [-] tedunangst|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elai|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kleiba|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonhohle|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gisenberg|15 years ago|reply
Good to see the judge is knowledgeable in this area! I'm sure this will end well.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aw3c2|15 years ago|reply
I sure hope they use forensic standards such as not the actual hard drive but an image of it. Otherwise the chances to plant some evidence are truly disturbing.
[+] [-] m0nastic|15 years ago|reply
Their attorneys will contract with a forensics firm who will make an image of the drives (using a write-blocked device like the ones made by Wiebetech or an Encase Fastbloc).
Analysis will not be performed on the actual drive, but on the image.
The defendant's attorney will also receive a copy of this image, ensuring that chain of custody was followed (or else they can sure to try and argue that the evidence has been tampered with).
The images will be checksummed, and I would argue that the odds of evidence being tampered are pretty slim in this instance.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
(Like 'm0nastic points out, Sony can also pay a pittance relative to their legal fees to contract this out to Mandiant).
[+] [-] sukuriant|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squeezingswirls|15 years ago|reply
Never ever again I'm going to purchase a Sony product.
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
Sony is an evil company, and their products don't make up for it.
[+] [-] pig|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daimyoyo|15 years ago|reply