Sony asks gamers to sign new terms or face PSN ban

[HossHuge]

I thought I might pass this on to the PS3 brethren local 6258.

"Sony is preparing to ban gamers from the PlayStation Network (PSN) unless they waive the right to collectively sue it over future security breaches. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14948701

 

[n-ster]

That, to me, is just ASKING for another attack :/

 

[newtekie1]

You mean if you don't agree to the terms to use the service you can't use it? What a crazy concept...

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Id try and sue just over that.

 

[HossHuge]

You mean if you don't agree to the terms to use the service you can't use it? What a crazy concept...

And if you do opt-in and then want out you have to send a letter within 30 days to Sony's Los Angeles headquarters in the US.

 

[newtekie1]

And if you do opt-in and then want out you have to send a letter within 30 days to Sony's Los Angeles headquarters in the US.

Yeah, it might be surprising to some that if you agree to a contract and then decide you really didn't, you have to jump through hoops. Not surprising to me though.

 

[Fourstaff]

Someone please sue them over this.

 

[newtekie1]

Someone please sue them over this.

On what grounds? Because they updated the terms of service for a free service they provide and if you don't agree you can't use it? That isn't exactly illegal you know, companies do it all the time.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

But to say "hey agree not to sue us over a security breach because we hold your private information or you cant use our service" is pretty steep.

 

[Fourstaff]

On what grounds? Because they updated the terms of service for a free service they provide and if you don't agree you can't use it? That isn't exactly illegal you know, companies do it all the time.

No its not illegal, and you cannot sue them for this, but on the other hand waiving the rights to a class action lawsuit is a very dicky move. Not everyone have the resources to mount a legal challenge by themselves, and after getting the people to agree to their service, they can afford to be a bit more lax with their security, which is not good. But its their system, and they can do anything they want to their ToS as you pointed out. The other thing I am peeved about is that as a PSN member you would already have bought a few games which you want to enjoy over the PSN, and if you opt out you essentially lose access to some of the features you paid for, more or less forcing (is that the right word?) you to sign it.

 

[newtekie1]

But to say "hey agree not to sue us over a security breach because we hold your private information or you cant use our service" is pretty steep.

No really, it is hidden in most terms of services. And it is just the right to sue collectively, AKA bring up a class action lawsuit, you can still sue them individually.

The other thing I am peeved about is that as a PSN member you would already have bought a few games which you want to enjoy over the PSN, and if you opt out you essentially lose access to some of the features you paid for, more or less forcing (is that the right word?) you to sign it.

Not really, anything you've purchased of PSN is downloaded and installed on your system, and doesn't require PSN to play. There might be some multiplayer loss, but again that is your choice by not opting-in.

And frankly, anyone that would even think about sueing over a security breach is brain dead anyway, IMO. It would be like sueing because a bank go robbed and one of the robbers stole a stack of papers with people's credit card info. Shit happens, that is why you be careful with what infomation you put out there. AFAIK, it wasn't like Sony completely ignored security leaving a big open hole for the hackers to get in, so it would be hard to prove Sony is at fault anyway. But besides that, the fact that Sony offered every customer a year free of identity theft protection is far more of a positive than this minor ToS change is a negative, yet somehow seems to get far less credit...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Anyone else glad they don't have a PlayStation 3 (or any other Sony products for that matter)? I'd have a tough time agreeing to those terms.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Anyone else glad they don't have a PlayStation 3 (or any other Sony products for that matter)? I'd have a tough time agreeing to those terms.

Ill never own a Sony product.

 

[BumbleBee]

 

[Fourstaff]

And frankly, anyone that would even think about sueing over a security breach is brain dead anyway, IMO. ... AFAIK, it wasn't like Sony completely ignored security leaving a big open hole for the hackers to get in, so it would be hard to prove Sony is at fault anyway. But besides that, the fact that Sony offered every customer a year free of identity theft protection is far more of a positive than this minor ToS change is a negative, yet somehow seems to get far less credit...

Well, Sony's defence was quite rudimentary, even your part time trolls in the internet managed get in. If I am stuck in Sony's position I will probably do the same, but its still a very bad move, it essentially means that Sony can afford to relax a bit in terms of guarding personal data, something I don't really fancy. They could have improved their security a bit more, and trust the courts to defend themselves if they got hacked by someone competent using, say, a zero day exploit.

 

[TheMailMan78]

You mean if you don't agree to the terms to use the service you can't use it? What a crazy concept...

Epic common sense is EPIC!

 

[happita]

If you don't opt in this new agreement and there is a new firmware that fixes....I don't know....let's say....the blue ring of death (I know, very original)....then a PSN subscriber won't be able to download the new update to fix whatever the PS3 is having an issue with....? Is that how it's going to be Sony? OK.....I'm GLAD I don't have 1.

 

[ShiBDiB]

This is some news source making a big fuss over nothing... if you dont accept a tos you cant use the product.. the end. Its their product, their rules, deal with it.

 

[Kreij]

I know that a lot of you are young and don't delve into what rights you have in your respective countries, but that can make all the difference if you come up against things like this from Sony.

For instance, there is a MUCH greater chance you will do better in single arbitration than in a class action lawsuit, if you can afford the legal representation. That can be very expensive and not something you want to try to represent yourself from a legal standpoint.

However, here in the US, you have access to small claims court. In most states this is for claims that are under about $1500 (depends on the state and the laws).
If you file a small claim (usually costs less than $100) against Sony saying the loss of your personal data caused some specific damage to you in time and money (let's say $1000), Sony MUST have a legal representative there during the court proceedings or you win by default. You don't need a legal rep, you just have to show up. It would be cost prohibitive for Sony to send legal representation to every small claim against them and will just toss you the $1000 for your trouble.

Just a tip from yer Old Uncle Kreij.

 

[BumbleBee]

I know that a lot of you are young and don't delve into what rights you have in your respective countries, but that can make all the difference if you come up against things like this from Sony.

For instance, there is a MUCH greater chance you will do better in single arbitration than in a class action lawsuit, if you can afford the legal representation. That can be very expensive and not something you want to try to represent yourself from a legal standpoint.

However, here in the US, you have access to small claims court. In most states this is for claims that are under about $1500 (depends on the state and the laws).
If you file a small claim (usually costs less than $100) against Sony saying the loss of your personal data caused some specific damage to you in time and money (let's say $1000), Sony MUST have a legal representative there during the court proceedings or you win by default. You don't need a legal rep, you just have to show up. It would be cost prohibitive for Sony to send legal representation to every small claim against them and will just toss you the $1000 for your trouble.

Just a tip from yer Old Uncle Kreij.

how much does Uncle Kreij charge for retainer.

 

[n-ster]

Yea cuz suing Sony individually is cheap...

I wish this were illegal of them to do. This basically prevents middle class people and below to be able to take action against Sony (worth more than 1500$) unless they borrow money and put their life savings into legal fees. Only the rich can protect themselves, fuck the rest right?

 

[BumbleBee]

maybe we can pay with chicken nuggets.

 

[Phxprovost]

what sony ran out of features to remove from the system so now they are trying to remove options from the consumer as well?

 

[HossHuge]

Just think how many people are going out today to buy a PS3 not knowing this info. Seems to me it should be placed on the box somewhere so you understand what your getting yourself into. Corporations rule the world now not politicians.

 

[Kreij]

Corporations rule the world now not politicians.

Both are in it for themselves and not the people they represent.
That is why it is up to you to know and stand up for the rights afforded to you by the laws of your country, state or local juridictions.

It's not always easy, but it's always worth the time and effort.