The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology

When you watch politicians and judges make total fools of themselves on technology issues, sometimes you wonder if there just isn't a better system overall out there. Take, for example, the already ridiculous situation in which George Hotz (Geohot) has been gagged for his basic hack of the PS3, allowing it to re-enable a feature that Sony used to include, but has since removed.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
kneon3791d ago

Can we have a followup article - "The Articles about the PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Technology Journalists Who Don't Understand The Law"

smoothdude3791d ago

Another hacker trying to sell the idea that hacking is okay. If it were that great, please Mr. Hotz hack my fridge so I can also use it for baking!

nveenio3790d ago

I have this general rule that I try to follow. Since morality is, arguably, relative, I just live by the idea that if I have to justify something, I probably shouldn't do it. And that's what you have here...someone justifying something they know they shouldn't be doing.

HolyOrangeCows3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago ), I wonder who they're going to support. /s

Just another hacker or supporter that thinks "Sony is a big meanie! They 'stole' a feature when we hit 'agree' to update!" should hold up in court as an excuse to copy, manipulate, distribute copy-protected code.

young juice3790d ago

"George Hotz (Geohot) has been gagged for his basic hack of the PS3, allowing it to re-enable a feature that Sony used to include, but has since removed."

it was his fault it was removed in the first place. am i supposed to thank him?

"Remember, if he had done this same exact thing on an iPhone, it would be allowed. But because it's a slightly larger computer that you don't carry in your pocket, it means this could lead to jailtime."

wth does iphone have to do with the ps3? the author wrote an article talking about why the judges decision isnt justified and all he can talk about is TEH IPHONEZ. gtfo

i will acknowledge the article when its not full o crap

kaveti66163790d ago

"Since morality is, arguably, relative, I just live by the idea that if I have to justify something, I probably shouldn't do it."

Science would have gotten nowhere if you were at the wheel.

Darkfocus3790d ago

that could be arranged...the cooling process actually just absorbs heat(or generates heat and cold at the same time...depends on the type of fridge) and puts it out somewhere could just reverse it's innards...

Hitman07693790d ago

Yeah @kneon and @smoothdude said it all here, and as for the article its biased in the first paragraph. Techdirt are piracy apologetics/advocates in this piece.

HSx93790d ago

Is it just me or does GeoHot look cute in that pic?

Mahr3790d ago

"I just live by the idea that if I have to justify something, I probably shouldn't do it. And that's what you have here...someone justifying something they know they shouldn't be doing."

Yes, and Sony is trying to justify why they can arbitrarily take away the rights of consumers to modify property that we have bought and paid for.

Fortunately, the standards of evidence for winning a case are much stronger than those required to obtained a TRO. Hopefully this turns out like the Crippen case and gives the modding community that precedent we've been waiting for.

nycredude3790d ago

Are these sites for real?

PirateThom3790d ago

Are people still clinging to this illusion of "doing what I want with hardware I paid for"?

Yes, you can modify your own hardware, that's not a crime, Sony aren't even pressing for that. What is a crime, however, is distributing code which Sony own the copyright for without permission.

Here's a quick fact for you, you don't own ANY software you own, nor music or movies, you own a licence to use that media, not the actual media its self. The PS3 firmware is no different.

IcarusOne3790d ago

@kaveti, well said. Have a bubble. And I'll quote the genius again:
"if I have to justify something, I probably shouldn't do it."

Thankfully Ghandi, MLK, the founding fathers, Jesus, Patton, Bill Gates, JFK, Kruschev, Yeltzin, Einstein, Capernicus, Gallileo and the rest of the individuals who radically enhanced modern society didn't follow the same mantra.

Biggest3790d ago

How can you win an arguement that you're completely losing? Change the subject! Who cares about a single person's views on morality here? It doesn't matter. Sony made the cool dudes look less cool. Now they have to choice to act on more of their empty threats and further dig their grave, or shut up and walk away like a rational person would have done a while ago.

ziggurcat3790d ago

@ Mahr:

you own the hardware, not the software. that's not a difficult concept to grasp.

if you don't like that idea, then go ahead and rid yourself all of your software because you don't have ownership rights over any of that, either (including linux).

Mahr3790d ago

"What is a crime, however, is distributing code which Sony own the copyright for without permission"

Geohot didn't distribute anything that Sony 'owned'. The encryption key he posted is a number, and you cannot 'own' a number. Companies have tried to do so before -- and they have failed in every case that actually went to court because it amounts to saying 'I own the number 218423673532853294593457345345 8, and if you post it online, you owe me money!'

"Here's a quick fact for you, you don't own ANY software you own

Is that supposed to be some kind of Zen koan or something?

"you own a licence to use that media, not the actual media its self"

Right, and the difference between you and me is that you think that that is a good thing.

"The PS3 firmware is no different."

If anyone were trying to claim ownership over the PS3 firmware instead of trying to use freely-distributed custom firmware, this would be a legitimate point.

"you own the hardware, not the software"

Right, and trying to run *my own* software applications on *my own* hardware is what Sony is trying to make illegal.

"if you don't like that idea, then go ahead and rid yourself all of your software"

If this is the quality of argument that can be expected from Sony's lawyers, then I'd say Geohot's in great shape.

JD_Shadow3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

You said "modding", which might be the word these articles HAVE to get through some of the thick heads that do nothing but kiss Sony's asses all the time. Can do no wrong, no matter WHAT they do. Hey, I love what Sony has done for the industry and the PS3, but why is every single article or comment that says anything besides "get em, Sony. We want to see blood," or "I hope Geohot's entire family dies in a house fire" met with those very same comments aimed at those who said them. No matter how flat a pancake is, it'll always have two sides.

Thing is, we're confusing "mod" and "hack" here. Some people call a mod a hack and vice versa. Some people don't think of a hack as something that people would do to commit things like identity theft, but rather to modify something to make it do something beneficial for everyone that the original manufacturers didn't originally have in there. I bet no one remembers when we used to place mod chips onto our NESs and Super NESs to have them place imported games (which the American systems couldn't do otherwise). If you did that, then you can probably understand what this basically is: a glorified mod chip. Would it be used for stuff like pirating? People have been pirating on the computer for YEARS! Should we get the comp makers to put things in to make sure we don't download music or movies from a torrent site? Does that mean we're bad people for using the computers that enable us to do said things? Does that make the computer just as evil as we're making this CFW thing out to be?

I also remember a message board where the owner modified the code to make it do things that the MB he bought a license for didn't originally do. It was a mod, but he repeatedly referred to it as a "hack". At no time did anything he added gave anyone any of our passwords or personal info.

Thus, I think we need to think of the terms we're using to describe what this is, but I feel me and others who try to change the terminology will be met with just as much opposition by those unwilling to even listen to the other side of things NOW! To not take Sony's side is, to them, siding with the cheaters and pirates, apparently. I didn't realize it ever came to that. I always felt we could separate cheats and pirates with those just wanting additional functionality that the PS3 doesn't usually have. I guess no one is able (or willing) to actually DO that.

Thing is, Thom, it's the hacking AND the modding that Sony is trying to go after, which is part of the problem. If they would go after the hacking (in the definition that the masses here are using for it) without going after the modding half of it, then it would be fine. Thing is, Sony is going after BOTH halves and claiming that there's only a whole, when there clearly are two completely different crowds that would be wanting to used CFW.

jadenkorri3790d ago

@ young juice
his hack on the iphone was his own code and it only "from geohots point of view in court" was to unlock the phone to allow to be used on other providers/carriers, which apple was not allowing. That's why he won the case. Granted it allowed custom firmware and piracy of course.

JD_Shadow3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

"Granted it allowed custom firmware and piracy of course."

You realize that line is all some of these posters need to say that the iPhone jailbreak shouldn't have been allowed, right? They won't ever just hear you out. I wonder how they think this Sony case is any different. Sure, what he actually did is a bit more severe, but as much as you can say he blackmailed Sony, you could also make the point that Sony might've tried to instigate a fight they knew they might not be able to win. Apple had a lot against them, so he probably didn't feel the need to go as far as he did to Sony (or never got to get to that point because everyone was on his side there due to Apple being too "hands-on" with their tech). The problem for Sony is that they might be trying to be too "hands-on" like Apple is. If they can prove that the are going after just the people that will use the CFW for detrimental things, then they could win. The second they reveal that they are also going after the people who would just want to play homebrew (though none exists just yet, for reasons I've gone over before) or add something like Linux to the system, then the judge will eat Sony alive. I think judges are also getting tired of companies that feel as though they can use the piracy/security route to screw everyone out of their consumer rights (which might work against Sony here, too;that act is becoming old).

By the way, why is it that much of a surprise that some of you refuse to read the article here? Some of you fail to read 3/4ths of the articles on N4G before going off in the comment sections. Why should you start now?

And I'm asking people to listen to the other side when no one has yet gotten that if you make a comment on a HHG article to bitch about his articles getting approved and getting heat, then it adds and creates the very problem you're bitching about. Good lord, I even forget what site I'm on sometimes.

nveenio3790d ago

You're looking at my statement the wrong way. Science isn't something that CAN be justified. It is based solely on facts and knowledge that can not be disputed. It's religion's (and "morality's) view of science that must be justified. And what does my "mantra" say?

Second, MLK, Ghandi, etc...those guys don't have to be justified, either. Human rights shouldn't have to be justified. Instead, denying them to someone based on race, religion, etc is what has to be justified. And, what does my mantra say?

You're looking for a way to invalidate what I said, when what I said doesn't have to be validated, it's just true. Of course, people who want to do what they want because "damn everyone else"...well, they'll do everything they can to argue with common sense. Which basically makes my disagreers no better than...well...Nazis...

IcarusOne3790d ago

I didn't realize so many gamers on n4g were closet Republicans.

snipes1013790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

@inveni0...I'd love to hear your views on the war in Iraq, or any war in general. What I'm getting at is: that line of thought is not equipped to deal with life's complexities, different religions, or different cultures perspectives. Things are not that simple there are too many variables in human nature to simply say that (almost, except for science in your opinion which is also up for debate) anything that needs justification is wrong.

EDIT: "Wrong" here meaning "things you should not be doing." At some times, doing right by one side wrongs another and both sides can at the same time be good, but in different ways. You are thinking in black and white and the world is anything but that. Correct any holes you see in what I am saying.

EDIT: For shits and giggles, I will give you an example of something from my own life. My friend last year told me he had six months to live and that the disease he had been diagnosed with was terminal. He didn't however, want me to tell any of our other friends. After some thought, I decided to tell our friends. They needed to mentally prepare for what was going to happen to our friends and it would be selfish of me to keep that to myself. It caused a lot of anger in my friend and betrayed his trust in me (inherently wrong, no?) but it allowed for me friends to treat him better and be closer to him in his final months on earth. There is bad and good there and discovering which was which required justification. Was I wrong because I had to justify that?

nveenio3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

I boil my thoughts on the war down to this: If a leader is guilty of genocide, that leader must be stopped. We did it with Hitler, and no one complained there. We also retaliated at Pearl Harbor, and no one complains to this day. More people died in 9/11 (and the vast majority were NOT soldiers of war), but everyone is throwing a fit because gas is too high. Whether or not that leader has access to WMDs does not matter (Hitler did not). What matters is that, for the sake of humanity, if you have the power to prevent the mindless assassination of thousands of innocent people, why should that action need justification? Are there negative consequences to that action? Of course. That's life. But that doesn't negate the fact that you do your duty as a human being.

Your betrayal of your friend was wrong. I know you think you helped your other friends "cope", but that wasn't your business. Your other friends weren't in danger. It's not like your sick friend said, "I'm a schizo, and I'm probably going to kill someone I love. Please don't tell anyone." Your friend came to you and said (basically), "Hey, I have this problem, and I just need to talk about it because it's eating me alive. I wouldn't even tell you, but I trust you, and I just need to say some things out loud." And you took that and betrayed it. That's wrong. And you had to justify it. The right move would be to go back to your sick friend and explain your concerns. Give him a moment to consider it. Then, let him make the decision.

It's true that doing the right thing can be difficult for some people--that it can have a negative impact. But there's no unwritten rule that says the right thing to do does right by everybody. Sure, we can write stories where there's no logic. Let me give you an example: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" But that's a straw man argument. It doesn't exist to help anyone, it exists only to argue something that is illogical at its foundation.

That being said, what you've shared only reinforces my belief. So, I stand by my earlier statement.

IcarusOne3790d ago

Sorry inveni0, but life just isn't that simple. It'd be nice if it was. One day you and your mantra are going to run head long into the wall that we call reality. And it's going to hurt like hell. Good luck to you when that happens.

snipes1013790d ago

THAT is the point I am making that if by doing right by one person requires that you wrong others, how is that right either? You had to justify my other option by saying "it is none of my business" because while you may think that the welfare and comfort of your friends is none of your business, I do. Is that wrong? I don't think so and in the end ultimate good was done for the rest of my comment stated in that we were all closer for it in the end.

Also saying that right for some people is wrong for others works both ways. If both sides of an argument or controversy have their goods and bads and you choose one over the other, you NEED justification as to why one was a better choice. You can't pick one over the other and then, when asked why, simply say "oh I don't know because it was the right way." That is not acceptable.

Mahr3790d ago

"Human rights shouldn't have to be justified."

Precisely. People don't have to justify their right to run custom firmware. Sony very much has to justify taking that right away.

nveenio3790d ago

Sticking "because" at the end of a statement doesn't mean that everything following is a justification. For instance, if I say, "One plus one equals two, because that's math," I haven't justified anything. I've simply explained it. But I shouldn't have to explain it, should I? If someone doesn't know that one plus one is two, they should be able to deduce that fact by applying simple logic.

Conversely, morality is not an objective matter. I believe I've already stated this. Morality is subjective. Because it is subjective, people will salute any position with morality that does them the most justice. Unless it's something incredible, they will always lean toward the most glamourous solution. I can give you hundreds of examples of this, and you can fire back with hundreds of your own. Religion alone is a hotspot for this kind of thought.

Here's an example that we can agree on, though...well...unless you're a bigot... I'm assuming you aren't. So, let's carry on with a hypothetical situation, shall we? You're a German during Hitler's reign. A family of Jews come to your home in the countryside, and they ask you for food and water. They are cold and hungry, so you allow them in. While there, a group of Nazi soldiers knock on your door. Your wife and three kids are the first thing to pop into your mind. You love them more than anything, so you want them protected. You know, however, that the Nazis will kill the Jews in your home, and may beat the crap out of you for helping them. You consider your options and decide to hide them under the floor boards. Then, you go to the door and let the Nazis in. The soldier in charge looks around, sees no Jews and says, "I know you have Jews here. If you tell me where they are, I'll leave you and your family alone. If you don't tell me, I'll find them anyway, and we'll kill all of you right here, right now."

So, those are your options. Let's examine how we might justify each of these things. First, you should hand the Jews over. Like the soldier said, if you don't, they'll kill you all anyway. You should protect as many people as you can, right? Sure, he could kill you all anyway, but you should just take your chances. Your family is the most important thing in your life. You'll sacrifice anything and anyone to protect them. On the other hand, you should protect the Jews because...well...because they're human beings, not animals. You'll stand up for what's right no matter the cost because that's the kind of person you are.

The decision you'd make in that situation is what determines who you are as a person. Though that's a big decision, there are smaller ones that we meet every day. You've given your own example. How you justify something is what determines who you are. Me? I don't have to justify anything because I know what's right. Does that mean I'll always make the right decision? No. Does that mean I'll never run into a situation where I can't decide what to do? No. But it actually has helped to keep me grounded in a lot of situations where people tried to sway me away from what was right.

snipes1013789d ago

Once again you're speaking in terms of black and white. You are making easy decisions for problems that have obvious solutions. There are much more intricate problems in life than that.

Are you really going to reference a scene from Inglorious Basterds to uphold your argument? Also, that is not a very good one to make because the vast majority of us would not turn that offer down. Ask anyone, very little consideration is needed.

Finally, it would seem to me that acting WITHOUT justification would be more wrong than acting with it. Justification is defined as:
a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends (

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. could have just said "Hey everybody, those white people are hanging us and killing us, but we should actually react peacefully to get what we want." I feel like the vast majority would ask "Why?" Then he provides evidence that justifies the peaceful protest when all of the odds are stacked against them. Any decision you make needs some sort of justification. Just look at the root part of the word: "just" as in "justice" as in: guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness ( That is how I see it.

An example I can also offer up is this that I went over in a Media Ethics class:
A member of the Associated Press was following a squadron of Marines around on duty in Iraq taking a photo diary. During the proceedings, one of the Marines was hit with an RPG and died as a result. The photographer caught an image of the dying marine with a long distance lens and put that picture in a portfolio of others to be published. She showed them to the fallen marine's comrades, seeing how they would react to knowing it would be published. Then, she showed them to his father, who expressed his desire for them not to be published.

What to do? The father of the marine and the secretary of defense told the photographer not to publish them out of respect. However, this war has become a faceless one in a wash of statistics on casualty rates and small news blurbs. While casualties in the thousands may seem small, knowing what one looks like makes that number a whole lot larger. This photo gave face to the engagements happening in the Middle East and the losses we were sustaining and let people know just how real this war is. The photo was published on the grounds that people in the US can see into the war and maybe appreciate the gravity of the situation happening over there. How is that a decision that did not need justification to achieve good?

nveenio3789d ago

Now you're just confusing justification with explanation. But I already talked about that. If you aren't going to turn on your post-5th grade reading skills, then there's not much I can do.

As for your example, it's a good thing that journalist published those photos. Just think what it would be like if he or she hadn't. The war would have never ended, and gas prices wouldn't be $1.29 again. Think of all the lives publishing that photo has saved. Honestly, that decision was a no brain-er.

How can you seriously pose a question like that and then preach to me about "reality"? If a soldier's family doesn't want their child/brother/husband martyred, then why do it? The only thing publishing a photo like that would help is the journalist's career.

If you aren't going to share anything intelligent, then I'm not going to listen. If I wanted to hear a bunch of nonsense about how hypocritical people are, I'd go to church.

snipes1013789d ago

Well, now that the insults started and you've just shown that you don't think outside whatever box you've shut yourself into...I'll let you think what you want.

Just as an endnote, usually, when it comes down to it when you're justifying your actions someone had to ask WHY you did what you did right? So I don't believe in my MLK example I was confusing anything with anything. Goodbye.

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 3789d ago
kparks3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

The guy who wrote this article has no idea how the legal system works LOL. He sounds like a complete moron.. And his points were borderline retarded u cant compare a iphone to a ps3!! bubble to kneon well said

IcarusOne3790d ago

Uh, yes you can compare a PS3 and iPhone, especially in this context. How you guys don't understand this and don't see that a ruling in Sony's favor is a ruling against your best interests as consumers is rather dismaying.

ThanatosDMC3790d ago

^I'd rather have more publishers publishing games than less publishers thanks to hackers. Look at what happened to the PSP. Prime example.

I'm gamer and it's not in my best interest. I hope he gets jailed.

fear883790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

Riiight. Because I needed Geohot to "unlock" my ps3 so I could use what was already available through a linux os. Until he started to circumvent the entire ps3 structure just to "unlock" it to do more things *cough* illegal games *cough*.

I had a freaking multiconsole emulator with dualshock control in the Linux OS and this idiot thinks it needed to be unlocked?

What exactly needed to be unlocked that was not available? I could run a goddamn OS on the thing that allowed me to do whatever I wanted except (gasp) play downloaded PS3 games for nothing on the dollar.

He did it because he was irresponsible in the actual application of his own PS3 (to play pirated games) and I ended up paying for it with a very cool feature.

I should hold this guy accountable with a class action for damaging my system and others.

Who's with me?

yewles13790d ago

Best comment on this thread.

princejb1343790d ago

thats great geohot kinda lost that battle, but if they really only removed his equipment
whats stopping him from buying new ones and hacking again

Kushan3790d ago

I'm going to bite the bullet and get a billion zillion disagrees here but what the hell:

1) What "Law" is Geohot Breaking? As the article points out, this exact same thing has been done on the iphone and found to be legal.

2) Geohot specifically did NOT give out information that could directly lead to piracy. He could have given out keys that would allow the decryption and encryption of retail PS3 games, but he refused (and these keys still haven't been released). Other "hackers" are the reason piracy was enabled, by patching (and distributing) modified PS3OS releases. Geohot didn't even do this, he released a patcher that enabled the installation of homebrew and only homebrew (no pirate games run on Geohot's modified firmware).

3) No copyright code was ever released by Geohot or failoverfl0w. All of the tools and utilities are their own code, not Sony's. There is no copyright infringement here, aside from perhaps the keys themselves.

4) The key's copyright is debatable. This exact same thing happened years ago with the AACS key incident and guess what - the key is still all over the internet, it's even on wikipedia which has strict copyright-infringement policies:

I could go on, but the point remains - this whole lawsuit is entirely frivolous. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with what Geohot has done, for whatever reasons you have - the Law has not been broken. As much as you want it to have been, it hasn't. And this is coming from someone who really doesn't like Geohot (I think he's an egotistical pratt).
If you disagree with me, by all means click that button, but go ahead and post some evidence to the contrary.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3789d ago
SnakeMustDie3790d ago

Where is Phoenix Wright when you need him?

UP3790d ago

Here you go. I even went above and beyond to fit this article.

SnakeMustDie3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

Nice +bubs.

On topic: I'm already getting sick of this hack articles.

Godmars2903790d ago

Considering he didn't do anything to help Nintendo when the DS and Wii were being pirated...

TronEOL3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

Kind of silly that he compared a cell phone that's first function is for calling people, and a console where it's first function is to play games.

So someone cracking an iPhone isn't as bad because they make their money on the phone and the service. Whereas Sony make it's money from the PS3's software, which Geo made it possible to get these things for free. Even though Sony NEEDS this to make money.

You don't buy a PS3 to make calls, and you don't buy an iPhone to play games. Stupid comparison, and I'm glad GeoHotz got in trouble. When you are trying to sabotage a console, ruining it for not only the gamers, but the developers too, you deserve jail time.

Oh, and as for the OtherOS feature. It was a bone Sony threw to us if we wanted to use it. Hackers abused it, it's now gone. And OtherOS DOES NOT make the PS3 what it is. The video games being played on the console is what makes the PS3 what it is.

Blaine3790d ago

Seriously this "other OS" argument is pathetic. No one cared about it before it was taken away, now it's just being used as a token issue because it's all they have against Sony.

Ravage273790d ago

it is a convenient excuse after all

kaveti66163790d ago

Who are you to decide why a person would get a PS3?

AssassinHD3790d ago

He is probably someone with common sense. It is not a difficult concept. The PC is a cheaper and more open solution for Linux users. It is the path of least resistance. Just about everything in nature follows the path of least resistance, so it stands to reason that anyone who is really interested in Linux puts it on a PC.

ShinFuYux3790d ago

I whole heartily agree with you.

insomnium23790d ago

God damn that's a great and truthfull comment. Kaveti just shut up. If you can't understand this kind of levelheaded and sound reasoning you are a troll.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3790d ago
Xfanboy3790d ago

I guess we need more nerd judges.

ForROME3790d ago

Hire the kid, let hackers fight hackers, its the only way to wage a war the right way

SnakeMustDie3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

Like I stated in previous articles, hiring GeoHot will only encourage hackers to hack devices that aren't supposed to be hacked because they will think that it might get them a job from a big corporation like Sony.

Sony is suing GeoHot to make an example out of the hackers.

kaveti66163790d ago

That's a good thing. Talented people should be allowed to show off their skills to companies. Some people can't afford college tuition. The way the system has been set up, people often don't get looked at twice unless they have a degree.

Some of these hackers are more talented than most of the people on this site who are CS majors.

ForROME3790d ago

It wont work, there is no, Example happening - they are on the offensive companies are always on the defensive its a wait and see game - they create it then wait, its like thinking you can beat an army who is constantly attacking you unless you destroy the entire army or get some of them with you etc.

Biggest3790d ago

"Talented people should be allowed to show off their skills to companies."

It's called a resume and interview.

MRMagoo1233790d ago

kaveti is trolling guys just stop reading his junk and put on ignore like Biggest has said if there doing it to be noticed to get a job they can do it more effectively and legally by getting themselves an interview and making a resume, ppl should stop trying to downplay what this retard geohot has done and dont even try to justify it because its not going to work you just sound desperate.

AssassinHD3790d ago

Correction: Talented, trustworthy people should be allowed to show off their skills to companies. If he had compromised the key and informed Sony of it he would have a case for employment. He didn't do that though. He distributed the key across the internet.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3790d ago
jeeves863790d ago

Would you really hire someone who so blatantly goes against your requests? In the working world we call those people 'fired.'