Do we actually know that they [b]stored[/b] unencrypted information, or only that attackers were able to extract it in some way?

Except for passwords, customer information [b]must[/b] be at least temporarily in a decrypted form to be used. That means that there exists a way to decrypt it. So if that were compromised, you could get decrypted data even though the [b]storage[/b] was encrypted.

Not saying the storage was encrypted, just pointing out that the extraction of unencrypted data doesn't prove that it was stored unencrypted.

I am not interested in doing business with a company sufficiently clueless about the Internet that they would ever have supported that bill.

If they are that unclear on what the Internet is or why it matters, they can go be clueless without me.

I think we've reached the point where it's time to remember that the purpose of copyright is not to ensure absolute and perfect control, it's to give good enough control that people can figure out a way to make money doing creative work. You know what? People are making money doing creative work. We're done. The "problem" of piracy isn't a problem, any more than the expiration of copyright was a problem.

This is why I use software to generate and store passwords. It's a risk, but it's a smaller risk than I would be taking otherwise.

And... TOR's a great game, doubtless, but are you seriously telling us you think EA is going to be more secure?

Could you point to an example, anywhere of the world, of a "robust and secure" customer information database such that no breach is possible?

Seems to me that if such a thing were possible, surely we'd have heard of it by now.

Disclaimer: I'm a pretty big RIFT fan. (I post there as the_real_seebs.)

Database compromises happen, and Trion's a newish company that has a lot of customers, and is thus a very good target.

This is the second security problem Trion has ever had, and the only one that made it possible to leak any personal information. (The first was an authentication hole that let you log in to game servers on arbitrary accounts without name or password -- but did not disclose the account name to you.) In each case, they reacted quickly, they announced it, they sent email to people to make sure people who don't watch the site found out, they disclosed what information was compromised, they took steps to correct it...

Now, I know comparing someone favorably to Sony is damning with faint praise, but compare this with Sony's handling of their systems leaking complete credit card numbers and unencrypted passwords.

IMHO, Trion's doing it right. Yeah, it'd be awesome if nothing ever got compromised. But anyone who has the ability to run active services which can be accessed at all, and which cannot be compromised, has clearly made enough money to be able to buy the company and fix it. :)

I've been running OS X Server for a couple of years now. Got a Mini, put Server on it, and the time it's saved me compared to doing my own admin on more conventional systems has totally been worth it. I like it.

A friend of mine used to be pretty open about her online identity... until she got a box of sex toys mailed to her with no return address.

The arguments for lack-of-privacy are fundamentally inconsistent. We are told that people "behave better" when there is a risk of consequences, but also that there are no harmful consequences. These cannot both be true. While most people don't need privacy most of the time, you rarely know in advance that you will later turn out to have needed privacy.

People tend to make arguments like "well, don't do anything you'd be ashamed of", but this only works if you have a guarantee that the rest of the people in the world are all basically sane. They're not. Furthermore, lots of people don't get a choice; you don't get to say "hmm, lots of people object to transgendered people, guess I won't be one."

At least a few, and you would not enjoy hanging out with them. :)

I don't know. I have a coworker who likes comic books, and I may have others. Also, we have an entire IRC channel for people who like computer games, though only a few people are usually active in it. :)

Human nature is not necessarily universal among humans. In particular, some autism spectrum people seem to have a much lower tendency, if any, to judge people either initially or at all. I honestly can't tell you whether I judge people. People who know me inform me that I don't, but since I can't comprehend the descriptions people give of what "judging people" is, I really don't know. It seems to be some kind of... uhm. Thing. Where people stop reacting to an actual stimulus and instead to a pattern of stimuli they think is likely. That, uhm. That seems dumb.

But I know people do this sometimes, so I go out of my way in some cases to carefully present things that tend to trigger it. (e.g., I carefully refer to "my spouse" and avoid using gendered pronouns for that most excellent person, because this tends to drive away a class of people I don't enjoy interacting with.)