Sorta looks like she just survived a crash of some sort.

If they can't "see you" then who cares if they are paying attention to you.

Careful there chief, the laws on what you are (and aren't) required to give out are not nation standards, each locality can have their own rules and there are some with rules that require more than you listed - [secure.wikimedia.org]

That's how I've always eaten mine, people look at me funny because apparently I 'pick it up wrong'. But I generally have the last laugh as my burger actually makes it all the way into my mouth and a third of theirs is on their shirt.

It's been a week, and they plan on it being up within a week of the 26th, which means it is correct to say both.

There's a Lifehacker Article for that!

[pastie.org] fixed. Or just remove the trailing ) that Gawker's URL parser included thinking it was part of the link.

[pastie.org] us what yhalothar meant to post a link to, his closing ) got caught up in the URL parser. It's a text clipping of a conversation on IRC between two PS3 hackers who indicate they've captured the PSN data being sent to Sony. One part of the conversation seems to indicate that the CC info is being sent in…

Yes, two 'groups' committed a crime. The first were the hackers who managed to get the information. The second was Sony for having the system so poorly setup that it could be hacked.

No, it's probably not. Or I'd hope that a Sony isn't as stupid as that. One of the biggest rules in security is you NEVER trust the client. If having a 'hacked' PS3 was all it took for someone to get behind Sony's firewall, then that means that they didn't have ANY security to begin with.

Protip: With the new site often when you post an image, you have to reload the page before YOU can see it. But 90% of the time, it's actually there for the rest of us to see, it's just something screwy with how the page loads for the commenter.

You remember how the intelligence agencies that were pretty much raked over the coals? You remember the Patriot Act taking away their 'sovereignty' and making pretty much everything in the government that has anything to do with security the responsibility of the newly created Department of Homeland Security? Remember…

No, it's not entitlement to expect a company that demands far more personally information than your email address to treat that information responsibly. Regardless of the reason why they 'need' that information. People were pissed off at Gawker for loosing just the email and password. Sony's given out an exponentially…

I know... secrets!.

A Few Good Men - Also source of the headline image.

Seems? Short of rolling out their CEO to engrave it into stone tablets I think they've made it entirely clear that's exactly what they are more interested in.

Only if they designed their security so shittily that someone could have gotten the info in the first place. There is, you know, a good reason why you keep things like demographic info cordoned off onto a network that isn't internet accessible.