AN ATTEMPT by Sony to sue hackers who published details of how to bypass the security features on the PlayStation 3 is an attack on free speech, it has been claimed. Sony claims that the disclosure has caused 鈥渋rreparable injury and damage鈥� to the firm because it allows people to run pirated games on the PS3.
However, Marcia Hofmann, an attorney with the Electronic Freedom Frontier in San Francisco, believes Sony鈥檚 lawsuit has no legal basis. 鈥淭he internet is a place where freedom of speech is protected,鈥� she says, and the code used by computer programmers counts as speech.
鈥淔reedom of speech is protected on the internet, and that includes the code used by programmers鈥�
Advertisement
The PS3 was once considered invulnerable to hacking. But in December at the Chaos Communication Conference in Berlin, Germany, a group of programmers calling themselves fail0verflow revealed they had broken specific lower levels of the PS3鈥檚 encryption system. This allowed them to run their own programs on the console.
Shortly after this, George Hotz, a US-based hacker who gained notoriety in 2007 for unlocking Apple鈥檚 iPhone, built on fail0verflow鈥檚 method to gain complete access to the PS3 by obtaining the master encryption key. Hotz then published the key and released 鈥渏ailbreak鈥� software to allow others to run unauthorised programs and pirated games on their PS3.
For a file to work on a PS3, it needs an authorised digital signature. This is generated by Sony using a pair of keys: one created by the firm, the other encrypted within the console. By discovering the master key, Hotz was able to trick the PS3 into applying Sony signatures to any file, allowing unofficial programs to run on the system.
Both fail0verflow and Hotz say that their only motivation is to run their own 鈥渉omebrew鈥� software and games on the PS3 hardware. 鈥淚 do not support piracy or counterfeiting,鈥� Hotz told 快猫短视频.
But in Sony鈥檚 motion for a temporary restraining order against the hackers to stop their methods being made public the firm claims that publishing the information encourages piracy and violates the PS3鈥檚 user agreement. The decision on whether to grant such an order was delayed last week to allow for further legal wrangling.
