Sony To Comb Through PS3 Hacker's Computer

Illustration for article titled Sony To Comb Through PS3 Hackers Computer

Sony can't get the mysterious PS3 hackers names from Google, but it can look through the computer of the known "celebrity" one, George Hotz.

Advertisement

Hotz, who first got national attention when he hacked the iPhone, had to turn over his computer back in late January. His attorney attempted to block Sony from combing through the hard drive — unsuccessfully, that is.

Advertisement

This week, a federal judge ruled that Sony is allowed to examine Hotz's computer hard drive and fish out info "that relates to the hacking of the PlayStation," Wired.com reports.

"It's a problem when more than one thing is kept on the computer," said U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston. "I'll make sure the order is and will be that Sony is only entitled to isolate... the information on the computer that relates to the hacking of the PlayStation."

Last month, Hotz landed in hot water after successfully hacking the PS3 and then posting a how-to on YouTube as well as the code on his website. Sony is taking him to court over the hacking.

Advertisement

The judge order Hotz to work out a time and place in which Hotz could allow Sony to look through his hard drive and was ordered not to delete any jailbreak-related files.

Sony to Inspect PlayStation Hacker's Hard Drive [Wired via GamePolitics via VG247]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

thelaughingmann
TheLaughingMann

The defendant "was ordered not to delete any jailbreak-related files". I don't think it normally matters if Sony had the computer seized. If he still has the computer, what gives Sony the assurance that he isn't going to fuck around with his computer? It's pretty easy for him to swap hard drives from one machine with another (I guarantee he's got more than one computer), reinstall the OS, and leave it as such. He could easily destroy the hard drive that has the incriminating evidence. And what is Sony gonna do? Believe he violated the judge's orders and get arrested? Then what? Do an extensive hard drive check only to find this drive never had said incriminating evidence on it in the first place? All the court would know is that he reinstalled his OS onto his computer. But they can't hide the fact that the hard drive (which they may never know when it went into the computer) doesn't have the information they seek. Because that other hard drive is already destroyed. He was never ordered to retain the original hard drive nor reinstall his machine's OS...

It just astounds me how much technology has come along, but the courts have yet to catch up with it.