New compensation for PSN 2011 hacking (Canada only)

[Foxi4]

The affected parties were already reimbursed, I think it's unfair to demand more from Sony. Accepting the previous reimbursement should practically mean that you're no longer entitled to any compensation, but I guess this works differently in Canada.

 

[MegaBassBX]

BTW how did the hackers do it ?

 

[DaggerV]

sql injection

 

[ForteGospel]

What's so intellectual about whining about a few dollars until Sony gave Canada even more free stuff? I mean, honestly, it isn't as if the Welcome Back package was skimpy. It's plain greedy to keep pushing for more.

if you think 4 free games (2 for those who dont have both consoles) is rewarding enough for the potential of stolen names, birthdates and some credit card data then yes: canadians are damn greedy!

A hacker broke into the PlayStation video game online network and stole names, addresses and possibly credit card data belonging to 77 million people.
It is believed to be one of the biggest-ever internet security breaches of its kind.

source

suuuuuuuuuure, why would someone pursuit a lawsuit against one the biggests fucks up in the history of information security

 

[AshuraZro]

Because the lawsuits in the US get thrown out and the Canadian one goes through to the point of a settlement Canada is greedy. Perspective is a wonderful thing. It is important to be able to hold a company accountable for their failures like this security breach, win or lose. If this settlement or compensation is part of the terms Sony and the courts have agreed to then that's what it is.

And no, I don't intend to claim anything from this.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Oh Canada! You hurt Sony! lol

Almost like kicking a dead horse at this point....

 

[Foxi4]

Because the lawsuits in the US get thrown out and the Canadian one goes through to the point of a settlement Canada is greedy. Perspective is a wonderful thing. It is important to be able to hold a company accountable for their failures like this security breach, win or lose. If this settlement or compensation is part of the terms Sony and the courts have agreed to then that's what it is. And no, I don't intend to claim anything from this.

The company was held accountable - they paid a fine, they had to redesign their security systems, they gave away free content to the affected parties, they paid for credit card replacements. What else do you want them to do, exactly?

if you think 4 free games (2 for those who dont have both consoles) is rewarding enough for the potential of stolen names, birthdates and some credit card data then yes: canadians are damn greedy! suuuuuuuuuure, why would someone pursuit a lawsuit against one the biggests fucks up in the history of information security

Not a single person was in any way harmed during or after the attack, Sony offered credit card replacements to the affected PSN users for free and they've given out free stuff. Yes, you're being greedy.

This is what actually happened guys - Sony compensated for their blunder via means of giving away free games and PS+ subscriptions plus they paid the fine they were given for putting their customer's information in harm's way but some people didn't feel like they've received enough so they demaned more.

Now, if you chose not to accept the offered reimbursement, fine. If you did claim it though, you have no right to demand more.

Say, someone bumped your car and broke your headlight - the person asked if giving you $100 will settle the problem so that you two don't have to duke it out in the courts. You agree, sign an agreement, get the money, fix up your headlight but one day you wake up and figure: "You know what? I AM going to sue you after all!". That's what this is.

Oh, I forgot - they're worse than the mafia so we can just sue them as many times as we want to.

 

[AshuraZro]

The company was held accountable - they paid a fine, they had to redesign their security systems, they gave away free content to the affected parties, they paid for credit card replacements. What else do you want them to do, exactly?

What suggests I want them to do anything else, exactly? My point was that this course of legal action was taken in more regions than one and was done on just ground yet only one is viewed as greedy.

 

[Foxi4]

What suggests I want them to do anything else, exactly? My point was that this course of legal action was taken in more regions than one and was done on just ground yet only one is viewed as greedy.

By me? All of them would be.

The only possible scenario where this kind of action would not be a clear money grab would be when the user in question has stopped using PSN altogether and did not receive the Welcome Back package - this would mean that he was not reimbursed in any way and would be entitled to some kind of compensation.

The current customers which did receive the Welcome Back package should deal with it - they made their choice already. You can't eat the cake and still have it.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Entirely serious for a moment:

What entitles Canada to more compensation? I'm being dead serious. I'm using Wikipedia here, so if any of these details are off, feel free to let me know.

The outage lasted for 24 days. That isn't even an entire month, and I highly doubt anybody uses their PS3 as their exclusive way of using services such as Netflix. If that $8 was considered a legitimate reason to push for compensation, then I have to wonder just how petty a person can be. The outage already had cost Sony $171 million dollars, as well as the cost of all of the free items that would normally cost money from the Welcome Back package. The attack itself could have happened to absolutely any network. Sony was unfortunately the target, and even if their security was top tier, I'm sure people would have found a way to break through if they wanted in that badly. No credit card information was actually found to have been used in a malicious manner after the attack was made meaning that even if CC info was taken, it wasn't used against the victims.

All in all, this is fairly ridiculous. Nobody is entitled to more. Or would they rather PSN came back on in an entirely compromised fashion a few days after the attack just so they could sit on their asses and watch Arrested Development?

If you're arguing that Sony is not at fault, they clearly are for having stored personal data in plain text. If a bank leaves a vault full of cash wide open with no security and they get robbed, you don't think they're not at fault?

Who really cares anyways? I'm not going to feel sorry for a company having to pay more compensation for a security breach that inconvenienced their users and possibly left their personal information at risk. The cost of giving a couple free XMB themes and 50% off PSN+ is pennies to a corporation as large as them. If anything, this should be celebrated as Sony (and other companies learning from this incident) will take extra care to ensure an attack like this doesn't happen again.

 

[Foxi4]

Who really cares anyways? I'm not going to feel sorry for a company having to pay more compensation for a security breach that inconvenienced their users and possibly left their personal information at risk. The cost of giving a couple free XMB themes and 50% off PSN+ is pennies to a corporation as large as them. If anything, this should be celebrated as Sony (and other companies learning from this incident) will take extra care to ensure an attack like this doesn't happen again.

I think he had more of a problem with users being reimbursed twice for the same thing rather than with Sony having to dish out cash - it's not about money, it's about a principle.

 

[Nathan Drake]

I think he had more of a problem with users being reimbursed twice for the same thing rather than with Sony having to dish out cash - it's not about money, it's about a principle.

Yep. It was the idea that these people continued to use their PS3, accepted the Welcome Back package, and still saw it as right to push for more, as if saying somehow Sony hasn't done and paid enough. I'm not justifying the reason the attack happened or the fault that Sony carries, but when you've already accepted the reparations given, what right do you have to ask for even more?

 

[Foxi4]

Yep. It was the idea that these people continued to use their PS3, accepted the Welcome Back package, and still saw it as right to push for more, as if saying somehow Sony hasn't done and paid enough. I'm not justifying the reason the attack happened or the fault that Sony carries, but when you've already accepted the reparations given, what right do you have to ask for even more?

Yep. Double Jeopardy says "hi", the company's being punished for the same blunder twice. If someone thought that the compensation is not sufficient at the time, he or she shouldn't have accepted it, which weeds out quite a few users from the "to be compensated" pool.

 

[Rydian]

If someone thought that the compensation is not sufficient at the time, he or she shouldn't have accepted it

lolwut

If somebody makes you an apology cupcake and the choice is the cupcake or nothing, you're supposed to not take the cupcake if you think the apology should come with a full cake instead and hold out for a possible full cake in the future?

And here you are saying NOT to be greedy? To try to hold out for more?

 

[Foxi4]

lolwut

If somebody makes you an apology cupcake and the choice is the cupcake or nothing, you're supposed to not take the cupcake if you think the apology should come with a full cake instead and hold out for a possible full cake in the future?

And here you are saying NOT to be greedy? To try to hold out for more?

I outlined my logic earlier with the headlight incident.

Say, someone bumped your car and broke your headlight - the person asked if giving you $100 will settle the problem so that you two don't have to duke it out in the courts. You agree, sign an agreement, get the money, fix up your headlight but one day you wake up and figure: "You know what? I AM going to sue you after all!". That's what this is.

If you are offered a cupcake as an apology, then eat the cupcake (thus "forgiving" the apologizing party), you cannot be in your right mind if you demand another cupcake.

Now, if you refused to accept the cupcake and said "It's gonna take a little bit more than that for me to forgive you", you are entitled to a different type of compensation, but then and only then.

 

[Rydian]

I don't think the compensation was "so we don't have to go to court", because didn't it comes months after the incident?

 

[Foxi4]

I don't think the compensation was "so we don't have to go to court", because didn't it comes months after the incident?

After the incident was looked into (including federal agencies looking into it) and a little bit before PSN went back online, yes. Keep in mind that Sony had to deal with a lot of stuff on the side outside of just reimbursments - they had to pay for any credit card replacements (they covered that in some regions), patching security, disclosing data to the Police, F.B.I and so-on and so-forth. It was a rather long process since it was a massive hack, yes.

And the way I see it, if you accept reimbursement of any kind, you have been compensated and should not be entitled for further compensation for the same thing.

 

[Rydian]

I don't agree with that, because it's not a choice of one compensation or another. If the original choice is a cupcake or nothing then no fucking duh people are going to choose the cupcake even if they would be eligible for a full cake if somebody else was doing the decision.

Sony likely knows this, which is why the second round of compensation is specifically created to work in tandem with the first, because it's "the rest of it".

 

[Foxi4]

I don't agree with that, because it's not a choice of one compensation or another. If the original choice is a cupcake or nothing then no fucking duh people are going to choose the cupcake even if they would be eligible for a full cake if somebody else was doing the decision.

Sony likely knows this, which is why the second round of compensation is specifically created to work in tandem with the first, because it's "the rest of it".

You're only eligable to get a full cake if you haven't been compensated yet. You can't ask for compensation for the same thing twice, that's unsound logic. It's not supposed to work in-tandem with the first "round" of compensation - there are no compensation "rounds" outside of Canada.

These "prizes" are a direct result of a lawsuit, you can't say that they were in any way planned as the "second round". We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

At the end of the day, people who did choose their compensation and took advantage of it have no grounds to demand more than they've received the way I see it - if they refused to accept the compensation given and wanted to have a choice - that's a different story entirely. A lot of them haven't though in which case the headlight analogy does apply. When you get $100 on the road for your headlight, you don't sue for another $100 - you were already compensated.

 

[Rydian]

These "prizes" are a direct result of a lawsuit, you can't say that they were in any way planned as the "second round". We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Hold up. I did NOT say "planned". I said "designed".