bit-tech.net

Gareth Halfacree · 24th Jan 2013, 09:50

April 2011 data loss preventable, says ICO.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...o-fines-sony/1

greigaitken · 24th Jan 2013, 09:59

"£250,000 fine - the highest fine permissible under the legislation used."
I spy some legislation that needs an update

Griffter · 24th Jan 2013, 10:17

i guess PS CEO will have to pay it himself with the money he earned from one days work. oh what a shame, hope he can get through the month now.

Corky42 · 24th Jan 2013, 10:38

Only going on this http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume...ce_120110.ashx
The maximum fine is £500k, Also interesting to read its like a parking fine in that it gets reduced if payed early

Gareth Halfacree · 24th Jan 2013, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corky42

Only going on this http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume...ce_120110.ashx
The maximum fine is £500k, Also interesting to read its like a parking fine in that it gets reduced if payed early

My bad: I was thinking of the old fine guidelines, which topped out at £250,000. I say "old" - the new ones came into force in 2009, so you'd think I'd have got used to them by now...

I've updated the piece - ta!

Mankz · 24th Jan 2013, 11:42

Appealing against £250,000?

Surely it will cost them more in legal fees and bad PR if they dont just pay up.

Gareth Halfacree · 24th Jan 2013, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mankz

Appealing against £250,000? Surely it will cost them more in legal fees and bad PR if they dont just pay up.

But the ruling potentially opens Sony up to civil claims from victims. I mean, you could bring a suit against Sony regardless of the ruling, but "and ICO said it was their fault" is a convincing argument to bring to a judge...

Necrow · 24th Jan 2013, 15:17

£250K - That's nothing for Sony, a minute or so of global trading. What they should do in these cases is put a ban on them exporting good for 1 to 2 weeks. That would be a much bigger fine and would have a better effect.

Eggy · 24th Jan 2013, 15:27

Can't count the number of services that got hacked and might have lost customer data. It has not even been proven that credit card data was stolen so you will have a hard time proving you need to be compensated.

Corky42 · 24th Jan 2013, 15:27

The damage to there reputation probably cost them more, and yes i know there is no way to measure such a thing.

fdbh96 · 24th Jan 2013, 15:47

Just a question, where does the money go from stuff like this?

Surely it would be better off improving security at Sony, than taking it away from them.

Corky42 · 24th Jan 2013, 17:37

AFAIK it goes to the consolidated fund which is the governments general bank account.

Ream · 24th Jan 2013, 22:00

Pointless fine, waste of time and money even processing this throught the courts, unless fines are going to be massive 10mill+ then most companys wont care.

Metaporic · 24th Jan 2013, 23:55

Its not the fine that matters its the symbolism. Sure if we are talking a fine of several million then it matters, but the fact is anything short of the hundreds of millions can probably be shrugged of by a big (if struggling) company like Sony.

What counts is that the company has been shown up as wrong and left red-faced. It also as mentioned opens the door to a whole bunch of consumer lawsuits as well as setting further precedent for related cases for the company.

While its not as effective as a massive fine it has clearly still had some form of impact on Sony if they are planning to appeal for an amount that is unlikely to even register on their radar. Tbh being found guilty seriously undermines consumer trust in Sony with important account information, most of all credit card information that is important to services such as PSN (For both parties). Its just another blow for what was already a PR disaster. There is no longer anyway for the company to state innocence or that it was wholly the shear determination and skill of the hackers.

Corky42 · 25th Jan 2013, 02:12

It must really suck for them as i think they fessed up to the ICO in the first place with what happened.
Makes me wonder if they had not informed the ICO would they eventually have been investigated anyway?

24th Jan 2013, 09:50	#1
Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! bit-tech Staff Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Bradford, UK Posts: 1,840	ICO slaps Sony with £250,000 fine over PSN breach April 2011 data loss preventable, says ICO. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/...o-fines-sony/1 __________________ Co-author, Raspberry Pi User Guide, Meet the Raspberry Pi \| gareth.halfacree.co.uk \| twitter bit-tech news correspondent, Custom PC columnist I'm a filthy freelancer! Hire me!

bit-tech.net

Site Links

Our Other Sites

24th Jan 2013, 09:59	#2
greigaitken Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 233	"£250,000 fine - the highest fine permissible under the legislation used." I spy some legislation that needs an update

24th Jan 2013, 10:17	#3
Griffter Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 308	i guess PS CEO will have to pay it himself with the money he earned from one days work. oh what a shame, hope he can get through the month now.

24th Jan 2013, 10:38	#4
Corky42 Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 257	Only going on this http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume...ce_120110.ashx The maximum fine is £500k, Also interesting to read its like a parking fine in that it gets reduced if payed early

24th Jan 2013, 11:42	#6
Mankz dat steak Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: SW1H Posts: 13,519	Appealing against £250,000? Surely it will cost them more in legal fees and bad PR if they dont just pay up.

24th Jan 2013, 15:17	#8
Necrow Multimodder Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 128	£250K - That's nothing for Sony, a minute or so of global trading. What they should do in these cases is put a ban on them exporting good for 1 to 2 weeks. That would be a much bigger fine and would have a better effect.

24th Jan 2013, 15:27	#9
Eggy Multimodder Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 164	Can't count the number of services that got hacked and might have lost customer data. It has not even been proven that credit card data was stolen so you will have a hard time proving you need to be compensated.

24th Jan 2013, 15:47	#11
fdbh96 I am a Dremel Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,701	Just a question, where does the money go from stuff like this? Surely it would be better off improving security at Sony, than taking it away from them.

24th Jan 2013, 17:37	#12
Corky42 Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 257	AFAIK it goes to the consolidated fund which is the governments general bank account.

24th Jan 2013, 22:00	#13
Ream Multimodder Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Tyne & Wear Posts: 83	Pointless fine, waste of time and money even processing this throught the courts, unless fines are going to be massive 10mill+ then most companys wont care.

24th Jan 2013, 23:55	#14
Metaporic Supermodder Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 266	Its not the fine that matters its the symbolism. Sure if we are talking a fine of several million then it matters, but the fact is anything short of the hundreds of millions can probably be shrugged of by a big (if struggling) company like Sony. What counts is that the company has been shown up as wrong and left red-faced. It also as mentioned opens the door to a whole bunch of consumer lawsuits as well as setting further precedent for related cases for the company. While its not as effective as a massive fine it has clearly still had some form of impact on Sony if they are planning to appeal for an amount that is unlikely to even register on their radar. Tbh being found guilty seriously undermines consumer trust in Sony with important account information, most of all credit card information that is important to services such as PSN (For both parties). Its just another blow for what was already a PR disaster. There is no longer anyway for the company to state innocence or that it was wholly the shear determination and skill of the hackers.

25th Jan 2013, 02:12	#15
Corky42 Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 257	It must really suck for them as i think they fessed up to the ICO in the first place with what happened. Makes me wonder if they had not informed the ICO would they eventually have been investigated anyway?