A lot of homes in the US are protected not even by cardboard, but by large glass windows facing the front of the house.

And yet, generally people get in serious trouble if they smash through that glass to access the house, despite it being incredibly easy to accomplish.

True, but a home is not even remotely similar to a bank or Sony in this case. A home is a place where a single person or family is responsible for securing their own stuff. A bank (and sony) is a place where money was paid with the understanding of safekeeping. Not just by one person but by many. Since many people are concentrating stuff worth safekeeping in a single place, it stands to reason that that single place now needs to be as secure as many homes -- the payout is bigger therefore the burglar investment is bigger. A place that doesn't account for this but claims security should be held accountable, as that makes perfect sense.

Further I never claimed that the bank robber shouldn't be held accountable, in fact, if you read closely you see I explicitly claimed the opposite. I only added to it by stating that the bank should also be held accountable for not doing what they said they would (securing stuff without properly analyzing what securing means).

Tangent: it is questionable that a glass window offers less security than a piece of cardboard. At least a glass window, upon breaking, makes quite a bit of noise drawing attention (usually a security asset). The cardboard can be removed in a much quieter fashion. Neither withstands a minimal effort at getting past them. I would say both offer the same level of security.

That was not my logic at all.

Just because Sony should be held to higher standards and just because they should be in trouble maybe for having a security flaw (like they're the only ones? It's just fashionable to hate Sony's divisions), this doesn't discount my very first point that you shouldn't downplay the fact that this person committed a crime. A very real crime that you wouldn't be defending if you liked Sony instead of disliked them.

My problem is we go to hold criminals accountable for real life crimes that you wouldn't want committed against yourself and then you get these online people whining that they are heroes somehow. It's ridiculous.

I never once declared there wasn't a crime. Nor did defend it. I didn't even declare it should be downplayed. I said it should not be overhyped. There is a difference. Please stop putting words in my mouth (erm.. fingers).

You know what I don't want?: to be hacked or robbed. I think it is fine that we hold people accountable for it and punish their actions (provided it is appropriate for the crime).

You know what else I don't want?: I don't want my supposedly secured info made available to the first guy with an sql-injection. I think the asshats who let this hacking-101 trick past should also be accountable and punished.

It's kind of funny: you seem to think that Sony not be the only people with security flaws is somehow mitigating, but if someone said "Recursion isn't the only hacker your know" you would probably jump down their throat. I think that responsibility should go two ways and you are getting all sorts of worked up over it.

That's not an appropriate analogy at all. Sony isn't a bank. The financial stuff is incidental to the actual service they were providing.