Judge Lets Sony Access GeoHot's PayPal Account 288
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from TechDirt that says "Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero has awarded Sony a subpoena that grants the company access to the PayPal account of PlayStation 3 jailbreaker George Hotz, also known as GeoHot, for the last two years. Emil: Spero ruled that the Japanese console maker may acquire 'documents sufficient to identify the source of funds in California that went into any PayPal account associated with geohot@gmail.com for the period of January 1, 2009, to February 1, 2011.'"
Simply Put (Score:2, Insightful)
You're kidding me!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I donated to this guy to help support his legal fund.
What the FUCK is the judge doing on this case? Seriously, this is becoming a complete and utter clusterfuck.
I am a cynical fuck and I'm still surprised, this is just utterly incredible. Geohot has no fucking chance in this, with the way this is being handled.
Utterly ridiculous, his privacy is just being completely ignored.
Sony is not a neutral party to this case (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony is not a neutral party to this case. As they are not cops. They have direct involvement into this case. With this a due process is being bypassed and that is illegal in the U.S court system.
This decision by the judge should be sued or somehow protested by GeoHots lawyers.
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. Their PR is bad enough as it is, and it's pretty clear that judges are getting exasperated with the trend of corporations suing thousands of individuals at once for eleven billion dollars and a lifetime prison sentence.
Their move is an obvious effort to get people to stop donating. The only sensible response from people is to donate more, to show them that it won't work and to make sure the number of people on the list is too large to arrest all of them without resulting in public outrage and that greatest of legal offenses, pissing off the judge.
This has to stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't you noticed that for transnational corporations, "bad PR" is the new black? They just don't care how bad their PR is, because they're going to get your money one way or the other.
That's the beauty of being a transnational corporation. You can get your hands in so many pies that there's no way not to be their customer. Whether you play a PS3 or watch a movie or listen to the radio or tv or have a company that uses heavy equipment. Government contracts, supplier contracts, intellectual property. Even if you think you're boycotting Sony, you're giving Sony money somewhere, somehow. And even if you manage to be so well-informed, so well-organized that you've managed to live your life without buying anything that's made by Sony or one of their "strategic partners", there's all the patents and copyrights that they can use to sue the companies that you do buy stuff from, so your money goes to them that way.
This is where "free markets" break down. Once a corporation has reached a certain point, there is no marketplace any more. How you gonna "boycott" Haliburton, when just by driving a car you're putting money in Haliburton's pocket. Just by heating your house.
The whole world is a company store now, and we all owe our souls.
To paraphrase a Buddhist proverb, If you meet John Galt walking on the road, kill him.
Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also been involved in negative word-of-mouth advertising for Sony. Pass the word.
*sigh* This BS never ends.
I can assure you that you will have NO effect on Sony, and even less on the personal fortunes of those who make these decisions untl
1) You zero out all your personal debts
2) Remove all your money from the bank. As long as it remains there, Sony gets a piece of it. And to be sure, they probably own a piece of your debt also
This is the only way you can effect their entire portfolio. It applies to everybody in the system..
This is nuts. First article screams, boycott! boycott!.. The next article says, "You gotta see Avatar in 3D.. It's sooo cool."
That's a legal conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
But first, they have to decide if California is the right place to decide that. Unfortunately, it looks like Illston and Spero are in Sony's pocket on that one.
Re:Simply Put (Score:4, Insightful)
you forgot the part where it also becomes unreasonably costly for the defendant. that's to Sony's benefit, as it increases likelihood of a settlement.
Re:This has to stop (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny to me. In the 1950's we feared the "commies" and their lack of respect for property and ownership rights, but in the end it's the capitalists who are actually managing to strip those rights bit by bit (for everyone but themselves, that is).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)