8 posts • joined 17 Apr 2011
Isn't it amazing...
how so many, including myself and the ONS, assumed it was true/plausible? I guess we're thinking *when* the next big hack will be, not *if* there will be another big hack.
I completely agree,
although I've read in the morning papers that he was a serious danger to himself and threatened to kill himself on a few occasions, once as young as 10, other times just because his mum wanted to remove the internet to try and help him. So, I guess they might be thinking that if they let him go, he will kill himself.
I think we need to ask ourselves, "how can we punish/rehabilitate these hackers who are mentally unstable, without having another episode of McKinnon syndrome?" Because Ryan will most likely be convicted for attacks in the USA as well, and I'm sick of the Americans trying to have their way with OUR citizens.
Our ludicrous law that UK citizens can be extradited to America on the basis of no evidence should be removed. I think McKinnon has been given the chance to be on trial here, but the law still stands.
I think, as an aside, we, and the media, are not realising how hard this must be for his family now and over the years; imagine having a child/sibling who was so cut off that you barely saw him.
I feel for all of them.
[Hopefully convincing title here]
The tragic thing about that is most people don't really care, because their own lives are difficult and complicated enough.
Also, there's the knock-on effect from tax avoidance that, logically, they can afford to lower prices more then their competitors, which undoubtedly masks the tax avoiding devil underneath for most consumers, as they can barely afford anything nowadays.
I'm not saying that people are ignorant and selfish; it's just many won't have a choice.
Perhaps now, they can pay the rest of the tax that they owe.
But surely, it would give PSN members piece of mind from the start, knowing that their credit card details were encrypted; but I guess you're sort of right and wrong when you say that we don't want to throw the hackers another bone, because I see it like this:
If the encryption was strong ("industry standard", as I understand it), then telling the hackers what type of encryption would make no difference; they wouldn't be able to brute force it in any reasonable length of time!
I think this is an indication that the encryption of users' vital data was not good enough.
How come they didn't say this from the VERY START!?
1. Why did they originally warn that bank account details may have been stolen and not mention that they're encrypted?
2. Why not encrypt ALL users' info?
3. Why not state the kind of encryption?
This is rubbish; don't believe this crap from Sony.
So that's 50m PS3s paid for...
... but still legally owned by Sony.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Analysis BlackBerry's turnaround relies on a secret weapon: Its own network
- Hire and hold IT staff in 2015: The Reg's how-to guide