***PSN & SOE Compromised - Problems with Welcome Back? Help & FAQ - Post #1***

[Clipper]

Jesus wept, MCV sounds like a right rag

Data Protection rules in this country are actually pretty well legislated and pretty tight. Hence when a company has serious breach it is investigated and culprits are fined. Yes there were hackers but Sony should have been more careful. I dont see a problem with fining them, I am glad there is some penalty for being incompetent.

Note that there isnt much chance of same happening in US as their data protection laws are fairly laid back compared to ours.

[Ferine]

I'd say they paid the fine in consumer confidence, publisher relationships, lost revenue and the cost of overhauling security. Not to say the ICO's claim is unjust, it just comes across as a bit of a cash grab given how long it's been since the event and all that's happened since.

[Cthulhu Steev]

I'd say they paid the fine in consumer confidence, publisher relationships, lost revenue and the cost of overhauling security. Not to say the ICO's claim is unjust, it just comes across as a bit of a cash grab given how long it's been since the event and all that's happened since.

That's why the fine was adjusted to a lesser one, even though it's rather large in ICO terms they said Sony had 'suffered enough' because it has no games of loss consumer confidence, cost of repairing their reputation etc/

[Ferine]

Ah, that makes sense then. I hadn't read all the details.

[Cthulhu Steev]

Ah, that makes sense then. I hadn't read all the details.

I paraphrased slightly, but it isn't the biggest penalty they could have awarded (I thought it was, but it seems £500, 000 is in cases like this) and I interpreted it from the 'mitigating circumstances' (on page 7 of the ICO document) it's a pretty interesting read. They also said there were no known complaints or criminal use of the data that may, or may not have been stolen. Anyway, the hack turned out to be a good thing because Sony, and everybody else who had been slack, have apparently got their acts together.

[Superunknown]

The fact that there were technical faults that allowed the hack to occur will be the reason for the fine. Clearly Sony were not taking all necessary precautions to prevent loss of personal data by running ancient versions of Apache with known vulnerabilities. The idea that because the incident was the result of criminal activity, rather than Ken Kutaragi leaving his laptop on a park bench somehow meaning that the fine is 'unfair' is laughable.

[Cthulhu Steev]

The fact that there were technical faults that allowed the hack to occur will be the reason for the fine. Clearly Sony were not taking all necessary precautions to prevent loss of personal data by running ancient versions of Apache with known vulnerabilities. The idea that because the incident was the result of criminal activity, rather than Ken Kutaragi leaving his laptop on a park bench somehow meaning that the fine is 'unfair' is laughable.

You don't need to guess what the reasoning was for the fine, you can read the ICO document. I don't think the fine is unfair.

[MansizeRooster]

I think £250,000 would be regarded as peanuts for Sony. It's more of a slap on the wrist for them. I have no doubt in my mind that the cost of re-building their network security from scratch in the space of a fortnight cost them far, far more than that fine did.

[Harsin]

The fact that there were technical faults that allowed the hack to occur will be the reason for the fine. Clearly Sony were not taking all necessary precautions to prevent loss of personal data by running ancient versions of Apache with known vulnerabilities. The idea that because the incident was the result of criminal activity, rather than Ken Kutaragi leaving his laptop on a park bench somehow meaning that the fine is 'unfair' is laughable.

It's interesting looking at the reactions on NeoGAF to this. They seem to have a very different attitude to data protection than we do. Mind you I find that a lot of Americans seem to have a mindset of 'Won't somebody think of the muli-billion corporations'much of the time anyway.

[Padlocked]

It's interesting looking at the reactions on NeoGAF to this. They seem to have a very different attitude to data protection than we do. Mind you I find that a lot of Americans seem to have a mindset of 'Won't somebody think of the muli-billion corporations'much of the time anyway.

Well, yeah. There's a reason why decent EU companies really shouldn't be hosting personal data on US based servers or services if they want to comply with EU data protection laws, and it's neatly summarised by the US Patriot Act.

[JohnC]

I don't really think the cost of securing the network should be taken into account. That's something which should have been done anyway, if they were doing their job properly.

[Superunknown]

You don't need to guess what the reasoning was for the fine, you can read the ICO document. I don't think the fine is unfair.

I didn't think you did I was commenting on the MCV response.