Originally Posted by kael03
The difference between your analogy and what happened is Sony knew that their system was compromised with Anonymous' initial video saying they had access to the user database but wouldn't touch it. The analogy of the guy that left his front door open compared to the Chernobyl defense is weak. The analogy best suited for this is the guy leaving his front door open, was told he would get robbed if he did that, and continued to leave said door open and get robbed.
You must've missed the last bit where they said they had access to the entire PSN servers. They broke through the security protocols in place and warned Sony they did so.
There's a difference between using the server (logging onto PSN) and accessing the rest of the server's systems. Which is exactly what Anonymous was talking about and what happened. When you log onto the PSN server, you log into your specific user data, you don't have access to anything else but your own specific sector of data. Anonymous stated they had access to everything, and everything was taken. They bypassed the security previously in place and could access anything and everything, not a small area.
You're basing this all off a video. What they say is exactly this: "This is why Anons all over the world are attacking sony, and not PSN login servers, which we have access to but are refraining from attacking. We are not after the players."
Does that say they have access to 'user databases' anywhere? No, and it doesn't even imply it. It also doesn't imply that they have 'bypassed the security previously in place and could access anything and everything.' At all. Only thing it implies is that they are able to 'attack' the PSN servers, if they so desired to do so. Which they also state that isn't their goal. At all. You're misunderstanding shit here.
Not only that, but they also have stated that they didn't do shit to PSN. It really is an issue on sony's end, according to them. So if you're going to take everything you read on some blog as 100% factual information, then Sony wasn't in any way negligent with their security because nothing actually got stolen. So your "The fact that their database was compromised says they weren't adequately secured" statement is still stupid, even if we ignore the whole illogical shit, because it was never compromised. "It's an internal problem with the company's servers. "
It's called basic research. When AnonOps posts on Anonymous' website declaring they didn't condone this attack, it means AnonOps is responsible for Anonymous. What part of that aren't you getting? They even stated that it was possible some Anons were working independently, but AnonOps didn't plan the hack. AnonOps runs Anonymous. They're the ones that plan the attacks and sends out fliers and videos declaring the attacks. AnonOps is the core leadership of the entire Anonymous group.
Okay. What is "Anonymous' website"? Where does AnonOps state they are "responsible for Anonymous"? Or "AnonOps runs Anonymous"? Basic research, right? Should be easy to post some links.
Keep digging the hole. ; )