Judge Allows Sony to Unmask Anybody Who Visited GeoHot Site

twiztidsinz · Mar 5, 2011

Law said:
Glad to see you don't have an actual answer.

Deal with it, IP addresses don't mean shit anyway.
Glad to see you don't understand how things work.

Old8oy said:

twiztidsinz said:

QUOTE(Old8oy @ Mar 5 2011, 01:06 PM)
This "ruling" by the judge sets no precedent for other companies to gain access since it is based on the agreement between Sony and Geohot

Click to expand...

Except for the precedent to GIVE OBSCENELY MORE INFORMATION THAN IS NEEDED.
But I'm sure you're right, wi r dum nd dunt reed stuf gud.

Also, you're deluded if you think the fact that Sony is Sony doesn't have anything to do with them being granted such a huge request.

Click to expand...

lol...missed this one

there is not precedent involved here because there is no "ruling" involved. Geohot is allowing access to this info, the judge just needed to sign off on it...

Sorry.. I didn't realize this topic has gone off on some left-field tangent. I thought we were still talking about the point of this topic: the Judge granting a subpoena for the IP addresses of anyone who accessed his site or watched his youtube vid.

retKHAAAN · Mar 5, 2011

WTF are you talking about??

Sony: "we want this info"

Judge: "no"

Geohot: "it's okay, for them to have it as long as the information is used only as defined in their request"

Judge: "okay, if that's what you want"

RoyalCardMan · Mar 5, 2011

So, right now Sony knows who I am? Sony knows WHO I AM?!
OH SHIT I AM ON THE WANTED LIST!

Really, I visited the site once. I am SO screwed.

I need my lawyer.

Sephxus · Mar 5, 2011

Old8oy said:
WTF are you talking about??

Sony: "we want this info"

Judge: "no"

Geohot: "it's okay, for them to have it as long as the information is used only as defined in their request"

Judge: "okay, if that's what you want"

Geohot's privacy is not at risk here. He can't just give permission to Sony. The judge had to order it.

twiztidsinz · Mar 5, 2011

Old8oy said:
WTF are you talking about??

Sony: "we want this info"

Judge: "no"

Geohot: "it's okay, for them to have it as long as the information is used only as defined in their request"

Judge: "okay, if that's what you want"

So... you're saying that Geohot said that it was OK for Sony to get the IPs?
I haven't read anything about that and it doesn't make sense at all.

The subpoena requires Google and other sites to turn over information (IP logs which are their property). Geohot nor his lawyers should have any say in the matter, as it is beyond their control to say what is and is not fine for a 3rd company who is not involved in this case to do.
If it was permission to log into Geohot's sites and get user statistic data that way, it would be fine because that is made available to Geohot. The subpoena is WELL beyond the scope of what is acceptable in this case. This is like saying 'Because Geohot went to a McDonald's every Thursday all the employees of that McDonald's who served him must give their name and address'.

retKHAAAN · Mar 5, 2011

Maybe you could try reading the actual document as opposed to relying on someone else's interpretation.

Both sides worked together to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to a level they agreed on. The document is fairly specific as to the information they are seeking and how they are using it. It is solely for the use of moving the trial from New Jersy to California...

They are not searching for pirates...
They cannot use the information gathered to sue other "hackers"...

Maedhros · Mar 5, 2011

Old8oy said:
Maybe you could try reading the actual document as opposed to relying on someone else's interpretation.

Both sides worked together to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to a level they agreed on. The document is fairly specific as to the information they are seeking and how they are using it. It is solely for the use of moving the trial from New Jersy to California...

They are not searching for pirates...
They cannot use the information gathered to sue other "hackers"...

Seriously, just stop trying. People here and on the scene sites will not understand this even if it was told by god.

retKHAAAN · Mar 5, 2011

Maedhros said:
Old8oy said:

Maybe you could try reading the actual document as opposed to relying on someone else's interpretation.

Both sides worked together to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to a level they agreed on. The document is fairly specific as to the information they are seeking and how they are using it. It is solely for the use of moving the trial from New Jersy to California...

They are not searching for pirates...
They cannot use the information gathered to sue other "hackers"...

Click to expand...

Seriously, just stop trying. People here and on the scene sites will not understand this even if it was told by god.

Finally... Something you and I can agree on

twiztidsinz · Mar 5, 2011

Old8oy said:
Maybe you could try reading the actual document as opposed to relying on someone else's interpretation.

Both sides worked together to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to a level they agreed on. The document is fairly specific as to the information they are seeking and how they are using it. It is solely for the use of moving the trial from New Jersy to California...

They are not searching for pirates...
They cannot use the information gathered to sue other "hackers"...
I have read it, and it doesn't change any of the facts that this is too broad and shouldn't have been left up to defendants/plaintiffs to decide. It brushes aside the EFFs letter saying it is a moot point and says that any further letters from the EFF would be rejected.

The trial should take place in New Jersey and NOT California as that is where George Hotz lives and committed his "crimes".
Everything I've read says Sony wants to move the trial from New Jersey to California, which I interpret as it already being under way in some form in New Jersey (But I'm probably "wrong" in your eyes and you'll come up with some stupid pointless blather about "well Sony is in California so blah blah blah U R RONG! REED MOAR!") which I think the fact that Sony got a California judge to issue the subpoena should speak more against Sony's actions than anything.

QUOTE(Maedhros @ Mar 5 2011, 02:49 PM) Seriously, just stop trying. People here and on the scene sites will not understand this even if it was told by god.

Then why are you here, adding your pointless comments?
Why "dirty" yourself with the "unwashed masses"?

retKHAAAN · Mar 5, 2011

it doesn't brush aside the EFF's letters...

It makes it clear that these are not the same, overly broad subpoenas that the EFF wrote the letters about and that both the defendant and the plaintiff have agreed on that fact.

Bunie · Mar 5, 2011

Sony has the ability to do whatever they want, It's CRAZY. You can believe this to be the rantings of a madman, but i know it's true.
Sony has the ability to have people killed, and have done it before. They invoke this when they feel they are in danger of being exposed, or when they feel there is money to be had.
I'm surprised GeoHot has yet to kick the bucket, however i suppose that would appear a bit TOO coincidental.
I don't like Sony. They hold the people on their music label hostage, and somehow are able to win the even the stupidest cases in court. Sony is basically like the Corporation of the Illuminati.

retKHAAAN · Mar 5, 2011

Bunie said:
Sony has the ability to do whatever they want, It's CRAZY. You can believe this to be the rantings of a madman, but i know it's true, Sony has the ability to have people killed, and have done it before. They invoke this when they feel they are in danger of being exposed, or when they feel there is money to be had. I'm surprised Geohot has yet to kick the bucket, however i suppose that would appear a bit TOO coincidental.

I don't like Sony. They hold the people on their music label hostage, and somehow are able to win the even the stupidest cases in court. Sony is basically like the Corporation of the Illuminati.

Best comment in the last 19 pages

Bunie · Mar 5, 2011

Old8oy said:
Best comment in the last 19 pages

Seriously, Look up Michael Jackson's speech about Sony. MJ screwed them out of MILLIONS of dollars, talked bad about them, even said one of their main people abuses his wife. Later, MJ Died. "Drug overdose." Doctor didn't do it, and MJ wasn't given enough to do it.

Shortly after that. BAM! Movie based on the concert, put together by Sony. New record deal with the MJ Estate for 7 new albums, all under Sony.

Coincidence? I personally, Think not.

Joe88 · Mar 5, 2011

Bunie said:
Old8oy said:

Best comment in the last 19 pages

Click to expand...

Seriously, Lookup Michael Jackson's speech about Sony. MJ screwed them out of MILLIONS of dollars, talked bad about them, even said one of their main people abuses his wife. Later, MJ Died. "Drug overdose." Doctor didnt do it, and MJ wasn't given enough to do it.

Shortly after that. BAM! Movie based on the concert, put together by Sony. New record deal with the MJ Estate for 7 new albums, all under Sony.

I'll really do hope your trolling...

Maedhros · Mar 5, 2011

twiztidsinz said:
Old8oy said:

Maybe you could try reading the actual document as opposed to relying on someone else's interpretation.

Both sides worked together to narrow the scope of the subpoenas to a level they agreed on. The document is fairly specific as to the information they are seeking and how they are using it. It is solely for the use of moving the trial from New Jersy to California...

They are not searching for pirates...
They cannot use the information gathered to sue other "hackers"...
I have read it, and it doesn't change any of the facts that this is too broad and shouldn't have been left up to defendants/plaintiffs to decide. It brushes aside the EFFs letter saying it is a moot point and says that any further letters from the EFF would be rejected.

The trial should take place in New Jersey and NOT California as that is where George Hotz lives and committed his "crimes".
Everything I've read says Sony wants to move the trial from New Jersey to California, which I interpret as it already being under way in some form in New Jersey (But I'm probably "wrong" in your eyes and you'll come up with some stupid pointless blather about "well Sony is in California so blah blah blah U R RONG! REED MOAR!") which I think the fact that Sony got a California judge to issue the subpoena should speak more against Sony's actions than anything.

QUOTE(Maedhros @ Mar 5 2011, 02:49 PM) Seriously, just stop trying. People here and on the scene sites will not understand this even if it was told by god.

Click to expand...

Then why are you here, adding your pointless comments?
Why "dirty" yourself with the "unwashed masses"?

I'm just reading and commenting without adding anything, you guys can go on on this train of hatred for all I care.
His point was clear and is the truth, but it reached the point where people will not agree or not change their oppinions because of that, you can just agree or disagree with what Sony is doing.
IP numbers can only give location used like that... the information they could gather about people is prohibited to be shared by ISP's, they made it clear what it was for.

tl;dr: I'm a trollbait. I agree with what he and other people in other forums have said, you don't.

EDIT:
HAHAHAHA, oh wow! @Bunie's commentary.

Bunie · Mar 5, 2011

Site is crashing? Sony has become enraged with our posts!

get to the trenches!

EDIT:

lol was getting 502 errors and massive lag.

Sephxus · Mar 5, 2011

@Old8oy
Just because Geohot agreed to the subpoenas, it does not mean he is able to grant permission to Sony. The Judge had to order it. The Judge had to consider opposing sides, which is why you see EFF’s involvement all over the document. You seem to loop together Geohot and individual privacy rights. Just because Geohot does not care about some individuals’ privacy, it does not mean that those individuals also don’t care. EFF speaks for those individuals.

It isn’t a something that the Judge blindly had to agree on, as you make it seem.

Note: Don’t presume I do not agree with all other points you mentioned. You have some facts there, but I don’t think they add much to defend your first post.

@ Maedhros
What is his point? Maybe you should find out before calling everyone here ignorant.

Old8oy said:
these comments are hilarious. everyone is posting with their fists in the air against sony and the judge and completely missing the situation.

the judge didn't "grant" sony access to this stuff...

geohot's defense and sony reached an agreement on providing the info from geo's personal accounts. the judge merely signed at the dotted line.

geohot's defense wouldn't have agreed to this if they didn't think it would help his case. they're more concerned about protecting their client then they are a bunch of pirates.

retKHAAAN · Mar 5, 2011

The defense's assistance in defining the scope of the subpoenas directly led to the judge ordering them. Up until this point, all requests by Sony had been denied. The judge did his job.

Maedhros · Mar 5, 2011

Sephxus said:
@Old8oy
Just because Geohot agreed to the subpoenas, it does not mean he is able to grant permission to Sony. The Judge had to order it. The Judge had to consider opposing sides, which is why you see EFF’s involvement all over the document. You seem to loop together Geohot and individual privacy rights. Just because Geohot does not care about some individuals’ privacy, it does not mean that those individuals also don’t care. EFF speaks for those individuals.

It isn’t a something that the Judge blindly had to agree on, as you make it seem.

Note: Don’t presume I do not agree with all other points you mentioned. You have some facts there, but I don’t think they add much to defend your first post.

@ Maedhros
What is his point? Maybe you should find out before calling everyone here ignorant.

Old8oy said:

these comments are hilarious. everyone is posting with their fists in the air against sony and the judge and completely missing the situation.

the judge didn't "grant" sony access to this stuff...

geohot's defense and sony reached an agreement on providing the info from geo's personal accounts. the judge merely signed at the dotted line.

geohot's defense wouldn't have agreed to this if they didn't think it would help his case. they're more concerned about protecting their client then they are a bunch of pirates.

Click to expand...

When did I called anyone ignorant here? Seriously...

The point is: Sony is not using this info to prejudice other consumers or people, just to make a point and change the court to California. I don't give shit if you agree or not with these actions, and that's why it's pointless discuss this. The "damage" was done already, just support or boycott. People have enough inteligence to reach a conclusion after reading the document.

RoyalCardMan · Mar 5, 2011

Bunie said:
Old8oy said:

Best comment in the last 19 pages

Click to expand...

Seriously, Look up Michael Jackson's speech about Sony. MJ screwed them out of MILLIONS of dollars, talked bad about them, even said one of their main people abuses his wife. Later, MJ Died. "Drug overdose." Doctor didn't do it, and MJ wasn't given enough to do it.

Shortly after that. BAM! Movie based on the concert, put together by Sony. New record deal with the MJ Estate for 7 new albums, all under Sony.

Coincidence? I personally, Think not.

So, your saying that Sony could have killed Micheal Jackson because of what he said?
That is a conspiracy I should look into.

*ducks under a desk* If they know where I live, than I am going to get assassinated here soon...

Judge Allows Sony to Unmask Anybody Who Visited GeoHot Site

Taiju Yamada Fan

Well-Known Member

DS App Studio™ Developer

Well-Known Member

Taiju Yamada Fan

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Taiju Yamada Fan

Well-Known Member

#1 Princess

Well-Known Member

#1 Princess

[λ]

Well-Known Member

#1 Princess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

DS App Studio™ Developer

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum