All true, but I'm not complaining about the database setups, or the PlayStation 3 as a platform (I'm actually jockeying to see the Uncharted 3 presentation at E3). This is about Sony's response, and as the newly-minted #2 guy for their game division (he's supposedly going to succeed Stringer in a few years), Hirai was almost certainly at the center of those decisions.

It's actually fairly common for high-level executives to resign in Japan after scandals like this...that none have offered to speaks to how much Sony's downplaying its seriousness. Honestly, I don't need Hirai's head on a metaphoric spike, but some sackcloth and ashes wouldn't come amiss.

You're right...I don't have proof that my information came out of Sony's database. But I do know that my wallet was not lost or stolen, there's only a small number of places that have both my credit card AND my home address, and only one has recently announced a security breach. Yes, that's circumstancial...but it does narrow the list down considerably. Almost to one, actually.

How do I know the thieves got both my card and my address? Well, the genius who used my card sent a care package to a buddy of his in prison using a website that specifically caters this service, and they sent the invoice to my house. And it's got his name on it. Yeah, there's a reason the jails are overcrowded.

And to you last point...I'm not worried about my credit rating, frankly. My credit union was on this very quickly. I really don't blame Sony for getting hacked. Sure, their security could've been better, but so could everybody's. The breach absolutely was not their fault. Their response to the breach, however, was.

Anybody catch Stringer's testy denouncement today? Hm....

I hope you don't mean I have a pathological hatred of Sony...seriously, if they'd stop giving me so much materal, I'd stop picking on them.

And as for Anonymous, screw them.

Nope. Of all the criticisms I've read of Sony, yours was the most nuanced (even if I disagree on a few points). I'm just generalizing based on all the feedback I've gotten from friends and critics. Most fall under the "gimmie-gimmie" crowd, pirate much of their content anyway (employing a never-ending list of justifications), and won't be satisfied till Sony goes bankrupt. That's what I mean by "pathological hatred."

I'd be surprised if there isn't some spillover to Xbox Live, but EDGE's article (which they admit is far from scientific) suggests that Sony's lost business headed in Microsoft's direction. Either way, whatcha want to bet MS immediately ordered a thorough security review?

I thought the blackmail thing was debunked? Or maybe the debunking was debunked? I lost track.

Oh, it was? I wasn't keeping track. I have no doubt that Microsoft ordered an immediate security check. After all, with Sony down, the power of Internet gaming was pretty much in their hands. Sort of like that Nintendo motto, except that Nintendo has no Internet power.

Bah, I went on too many tangents. Anyhow, I'm glad that the blackmail rumor was debunked. That rumor sounded very fishy in the first place.

I think that's pretty much correct...if that was unclear, I'll claim it was due to space on an already-lengthy article. The Plus tryout and the free games on offer are completely seperate, and don't follow the same rules.

Sometimes there are also PS+ games which Sony lets you keep forever, but more often than not they're tied to the subscription.

You're right, your analogy isn't quite right. Try this one;

Your bank, which isn't FDIC insured, is robbed and all your money stolen. But the bank doesn't actually tell you this...maybe they're worried about losing customers (re. investors). But in any case, you go about your life, writing checks for groceries, rent, maybe you're trying to buy a new car or a house, maybe you're just paying bills, unaware that your money isn't there to cover those payments.

Sony is that bank. If you want to talk irresponsiblity, take a closer look at them.

And y'know, we all talk about credit card theft because that's the big, sexy, easy-to-understand aspect of this whole thing. Certainly, that's a serious issue, but there's also the far stickier issue of identity theft to consider...we likely won't know how far and how deep that will go for a few years.

Steven, you might dig this story: http://bitmob.com/articles/criminals-derserve-the-blame-in-the-psn-debacle.

I see your point, but I don't think that's actually Rus's point. But he explains it better in the reply below.

That analogy's not quite right either Rus. Sony is not a bank. Sony is not a financial institution. Even if you just have a few hundred dollars in your bank account it's likely that your bank is reinvesting that money, putting it to use making them MORE money. They are then more culpable for what happens to your funds. They have access to them at all times. Sony does not. Sony wasn't playing with your money and then hoping no one withdrew everything at once. They just stored your information.

The PSN is a free and optional service for most of the 77 million users (or whatever the number is). Some of us pay for Playstation Plus, but most accounts are probably still free. That means that Sony has no more access to our credit card information or our funds than, say, Amazon.com (who has also been hacked plenty of times with far less venom).

On the other hand, a place like PayPal has access to credit cards, bank accounts etc, and there are false charges made there all the time (I had a phantom six dollar charge just a few weeks ago). They actually ARE a financial institution with access to real funds. They still have little enough security that false charges happen daily. PayPal is still a respected and widely used means of funding on the internet. They have hiccups constantly though they are built to BE a financial institution that's secure.

Sony is a game company and thus they aren't likely to be quite as prepared for financial attacks as a bank should be. For that matter, they ARE insured (at least at the personal level). You see, if they WERE a bank, they would be a bank offering identity theft protection (which will amend those costs) and reimbursement. Despite the fact that they weren't the criminals here they are STILL trying to repair the rift and take care of their customers--making all 77 Million free accounts suddenly a financial drain all in the hopes that they can repair damage that was done, not by them, but by an outsider.

As a final thought (since we can agree by now that the Sony is a bank analogy is pretty far off): One of the big complaints has been that they knew accounts might have been compromised for too long before they addressed the issue. I'm willing to go along with that--but I suspect that there are dozens to hundreds of minor hacking attempts and successes every day. Some of them probably more successful than others. I wonder if every company reported every hacking attempt if we'd be hearing that our information is potentially compromised ten times a day by every institution we've ever shopped with on the internet.

I don't KNOW if that's the case, but to think that Sony didn't report the damage the minute they confirmed it seems counter to the way they've handled everything since. Do we know for sure that Amazon or PayPal (etc) is reporting every single potential breech? Or do they only wait to report the big ones when they're confirmed? Are we holding Sony to a higher standard because, well, they also took away our online gaming for a few weeks?

Well, it's sort of a different analogy. I mean, I hope no one gets the perception that a hacking problem causes an ecological disaster, killing many of the fish off the gulf coast. However, I think he's trying to say that the PR response to the credit card theft is similar to BP's PR response to causing a big oil disaster.

The type of disaster is a much different, but the response was just as premature. It made Sony look like a very unreliable company, in the same way that it made BP look horrible.

It's a very different analogy, which is why I think it's in poor taste. I don't think anyone would get the perception that hacking causes an ecological disaster either. Instead, it's likening a hacking problem to an ecological disaster.