We are not talking about Windows.

A company is not required to provide technical support to a competitor.

Why should they? Are the obligated to provide support to their competitors? Are they obligated to provided support of one of their products on a different OS at all?

More about Jeff Sterling here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

That China attacks this and that all the time is a known fact. The "attack map" connects nothing to Sony.

Yes, "SONY BAD" but yet there is zero evidence that Sony has anything to do with this.

Could be that they do, but nothing but Sony haters pontification on foundations of nothing at the moment...

I have no love for Sony, other than my 70's vintage 4 track reel-to-reel. But this kind of story is really no story at all.

Corporate sponsored hacking is frowned upon. Prove me wrong.

There is no real evidence of this, just a bunch of speculation and innuendo from the Torrent fans.

Could Sony do this? Of course. But there would certainly be corporate liability involved.

So would they? Probably not.

Sony knows these movies will make it to the illegal market sooner or later, so why would they open themselves to this kind of liability? They would not.

Internal emails are probably more of a concern, but anything that could be relieased would already be the subject of internal roumors amoung those concerned.

This story is probably wishful thinking and a crock.

That's good enough for the Patent Office...

What does the professor's "on-line harassment" have to do with the quality and / or value of his lectures?

Most commercial flights already do this with Cat 3 ILS.

Porn filters... Really? Well, what do you expect from a country that has CCTV on every corner in every town, and an internal security apparatus that shames the NSA? We're not talking about Russia here...

You know, read the papers and listen to the news and maybe ahe a fucking clue?

FOIA only applies to the Federal government, not local and state government.

I'm sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The request was made by a private citizen that after the fact gave a number of interviews that indecated he was against the cams as a private citizen.

Where are your references that support your bullshit?

Unfortunately, there are good reasons for wanting police interaction with the public to be recorded - Rampant police misconduct, and I'm not talking about Furgeson.

Here is Seattle, our police department is under supervision by the D.O.J. mandated by the Federal Courts after numerous verified "use of force" issues.

When there is not video, who do you think juries and courts believe?

Up here in Washington State, several police agencies have embraced the idea of Body Cams. And while there has been no philosophical push-back about public access to Body Cam footage by the coppers, a recent Public Records Request illustrates a more fiscal problem...

A public records request was made for all Body Cam footage for the last year from several local departments that have been experimenting with the technology. Why should this be a probem, after all, just burn it all to a CD and send it to the guy?

The are three issues: Privacy - not every interaction a police officer has is in a public place or does not contain things than fall under privacy rules.

Second is commercial use - You know those Mug Shot Extortion sites? The ones that publish mug shots but for a small fee of several hundred dollars will take yours down? Same thing.

Third is the fiscal issue - The time to parse through a requst for "all your files for the year" for privacy issues and other things that simply should not end up on a commercial "shock" site or YouTube, this will cost a butt-load.

So it's become an issue. Here is a Seattle Times article on the subject: http://seattletimes.com/html/l...