Slashdot Mirror
Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'
rossgneumann writes North Korea may really be behind the Sony hack, but we're still acting like idiots. Peter W. Singer, one of the nations foremost experts on cybersecurity, says Sony's reaction has been abysmal. "Here, we need to distinguish between threat and capability—the ability to steal gossipy emails from a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously. I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this."
Home of the brave.
Nobody's hacking, noob. You just suck!
Another beyond stupid: news articles referring to Kim Jong-un as a "world leader". It's a crappy little country with 25M people. Who really gives a shit?
What can be explained as a propaganda campaign. Expect this controversial piece of fine art to reach you a way or the other.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
This is a guy who makes a living being a cyber cop for the gov. He needs to come out and say that any 9/11 type cyber attack is also just as ridiculous as this and that his career is a sham.
Yea but... they only have to pull it off at 1 theater.
And it doesn't have to be NK that does it... some crazy nut job could... and Sony would be on the hook for liability.
If Sony were smart (which they definitely are not) they would have leaked the movie as a torrent themselves, blamed North Korea, and then with the Sword of Demaclese now lying squarely at their feet moved on with their lives. They may have pulled the movie from theaters but it could still get released, and until that threats gone NK will continue with the pain.
surely now we should all be afraid enough to allow the MPAA to take control of the internet - only THEY can protect us from TERRORISM, while we're at it lets give the NSA even more access, they can catch the TERRORISTS then they can lock up those filthy movie pirates too....see everyone wins!
I don't think I'd enjoy the gutter humor at all, but frankly just to spite the hackers I'd go see the movie... oh wait we're all cowards now so I can't go see it.
Sony is the same company that threatened to crush our 4th Amendment rights if anyone tried to speak about their email leaks.
To implement an agenda of draconian regulation than use the "Sony Crisis" as an excuse.
When the cattle can't see its latest iteration of Seth Rogen's poor acting, hit them where it hurts, right in the opiate of the masses.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
To hear Sony explain to its shareholders how spending tens of millions of dollars to produce and millions more to promote a movie that they now have no plans to release is a good thing.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
North Korea has nuclear weapons and a million soldier army. They might be hungry but that could drive them over the edge, by now they are more than crazy enough.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
They were forced to. And not by the hackers, by the five largest movie chains pulling out. At that point it was best to not show it at all.
I'm sure Sony will release it on DVD/BluRay/streaming once they get their shit together and beef up their security. Right now though, no, it makes no sense to release the movie to a few small theaters.
Companies are hacked all the time. Like other companies, Sony needs to improve their security. End of story.
I cannot help but wonder if Sony is really just scared of internal documents being leaked. This hype about threats at our nation's movie theaters seems like an excuse, when in reality they really are hoping that incredibly embarrassing or financially damaging information will not be shown to the public if they pull the movie. I heard they wont even release it on DVD or on demand, so why is the hype about threats at movie theaters even being discussed since that really does not make much sense if Sony could just release it on DVD or on demand?
What's this "we" stuff? Anywhoo, a portion of the "normal" population IS easily paralyzed by fear or prone to hysteria. Sometimes both. Another portion of them think they are but find they are able to act when push comes to shove. If it weren't for the big-ass herd, the first group would quickly be eaten by bears. Since they're not, we just have to deal with their hand-wringing. Sony obviously knows this, since they were very supportive and didn't just say "We think you're being a bunch of pussies, so show our damn movie already." Mr. Singer apparently doesn't, since that's pretty much what he said.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
100%
While I have no great love for Sony, this is really a no-win situation. They fail to release the movie, they are giving in. They release the movie and even one person is injured or killed, they will be eaten alive in the media and in lawsuits (and have to live with the guilt...just kidding they have no souls).
There certainly are MPAA missiles pointed at major cinemas, ready to be launched when a theatre room is overrolled by out of control camcording pirates. If North Korea has the launch codes, this could take out major cities.
The only way to end the "better safe than sorry" stupidity that results in all sorts of cowardice and mayhem from cops shooting on the slightest hint of "I was afeered for muh life" to this is to brutally punish that mentality in court in a very public way. Let the Sony shareholders financially rape the executives who reacted hysterically to such a non-threat. Start putting cops in prison for decades or death row left and right the way ordinary people would. Heck, when one someone starts advocating fundamentally subversive to the Bill of Rights legal changes, charge their ass with sedition and lock them up.
People tend to rediscover common sense when the penalty for choosing to not use it is swift and severe.
My guess is they are more afraid of what is in those emails that hasn't been released yet. Especially if it has something the feds might be interested in or might wreck someone's marriage. Losing 20mil on a movie isn't much compared to that, for an exec that makes millions a year.
If Sony really wanted to make a statement they could release it on dvd or free with ads on any of the many streaming services.
If they bow to hacker pressure now, they just painted a larger target on themselves for future hacker groups.
The theaters already said they would not show it. So what is Sony to do? Release it anyway with only showing in obscure theaters and it gets bad box office earnings, or don't release it until next year sometime when everything has blow over and it can get a shot at a normal opening weekend.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
As soon as I heard this story, I realized it's not Sony Pictures giving in to threats to an AMC in Des Moines - It's likely Sony Pictures execs giving in to threats to themselves and their families: "If you release this movie we'll kill your children."
Of course I doubt NK has the reach to pull off those threats, but pretty chilling nonetheless...
It doesn't have to be 18,000 theatres simultaneously. Saying that make it easy to dismiss a potentially valid threat as absurd. It only has to be one or two, or at most a small handful of, theatres, especially in high-profile locations.
Hey you never know if the hackers couldn't mess with the rotation of the movie and give people more slow motion, low voiced, action then ever before. Or have the film stuck and melting.
Maybe this has more to do with the threat of releasing more information "if their demands aren't met" than it does the threat of physical attacks? Maybe there really was some backroom discussion between Sony and the big theater chains to scrap the release because of this?
Or maybe not. It's probably just stupidity.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
This is just an amazing reason to keep offsite and offline backups. Cloud backups and on disk backups are not sufficient to wilful intent to destroy. Its much harder to physically wreck something thats stored in a cave storage system that is 50 miles away.
Just remember to encrypt it.
We are talking a movie that has a lot of hype, but may not last past the first weekend. A lot of people were planning on seeing it, but are people going to make a statement and risk some lone gun nut coming in and killing several people
Is it commercially responsible to pay for the distribution of a film when people may be afraid of the consequences of seeing it? Might it be more commercially responsible to release it when the heat dies down. Are parents going to allow their kids to see this movie know a lone gun nut might kill them?
Again, we really don't know what is going on here. Team America already killed this guy in the movies, and made fun of him in the most racist of ways(I so ronery). But this is just a movie. It's purpose is to generate revenue for sony. It is not an 'film' so it's sole purpose is to generate revenue for Sony. It has some hype, but it also has some risk. Again, not of movie theaters being bombed, but of someone, who does not necessarily have and national backing, coming in with tactical shotguns and 100 round rifles and killing several people. This is not that hard to imagine as it happens with some regularity.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Here's your main reason:
If ONE person is injured/killed within a 10 mile radius of a theater and the person doing the killing proclaims any notion of it being done because of the release of the movie, the relatives of the one shot will sue Sony for millions of dollars due to the release of the film that Sony KNEW could unleash terrorism. Imagine if it happened at 5 locations? What about one nutjob in one theater ala the Batman movie a few years ago? Sony would be put at fault for blatantly disregarding public safety by knowingly releasing a film. It's the same reason newspapers won't print an image of Mohammed or that South Park had to pull an episode that was going to show Mohammed.
Hyper-sensitivity to everything for fear of litigation.
Nothing else would feed the 24 hour news cycle.
While on its face this reaction appears quite stupid, if there were just one physical attack on one theater, the survivors and families of the victims would sue Sony for a lot claiming that they had a credible threat and ignored it.
Mind you, I believe that they are just using this as a propaganda move. Free publicity, and when it does finally get released the attendance will be significantly higher than it otherwise would have been.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Is the nation-state of North Korea capable of setting off a single bomb in a single (basically public) location in the US?
If we knew that 5 theaters were going to be attacked, but didn't know which, does that mean we should go forward with the opening?
While I agree with the concern over bending to threats, I think it's a straw man to claim that the issue is whether 18,000 locations can be attacked and so I think the claim of "incapable" is actually wrong.
I've been saying this from the get-go, Sony should not be coddled like they are the victim. This hack went on for months and probably for years they've been hiring the cheapest sysadmins overseas and buying 'solutions' from companies "well reviewed" in NetworkWorld (or whatever sponsored magazines middle management gets) to implement on their network that in the end didn't do squat.
Instead of being coddled, they should be fined for aiding and abetting and breaking privacy laws.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The distributors for most of the major theatres had already elected not to show the movie; Sony saying they won't be releasing it is, strictly speaking, just a formality at this point.
I have posted that yesterday : the feedback I read from people having watched the film in preview told that it was horribly bad. Now they have made sure that for the next days or maybe even week they made the film "unforgettable". Maybe I am paranoid but I would bet that it is a PR coup on Sony side.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Really? They don't have to do 18,000 simultaneous attacks. One or two would suffice to put a crippling chill on ticket sales for the rest of the season.
First, Sony's hand was essentially forced to pull the movie. With the major theaters refusing to show the movie, it wasn't financially sound to release it to small independent theaters.
Second, I doubt that the theater chains believe that North Korea would pull off such a crime, but that doesn't stop the odd crazy American nut job from using this as an excuse to fulfill their deranged fantasies. Not only do dead movie goers stop contributing to your bottom line, the survivor's lawyers would have a field day in court with all the "You were warned!" lawsuits.
If North Korea got this information and threatened to reveal it, that would definitely explain why Sony caved quicker than the Iraqian army when first attacked by Isis.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"Here, we need to distinguish between threat and capability—the ability to steal gossipy emails from a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously. I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this."
If you're struggling to understand why you have to dispel fear-mongering at this level, perhaps I should remind you of the trillions invested by our own Government to justify the please-remove-your-shoes-before-boarding-the-aircraft department.
Seems our own Government has NO qualms whatsoever about overreacting, so stop wondering where the paranoia comes from already.
cops: show force used was more than necessary to protect life: all protection as an officer for using force is removed, and person must face same level of punishment as an ordinary citizen, up to and including the death penalty (as long as we have that penalty for ordinary mortals).
It's not a concern about maniacs hitting 18,000 theaters simultaneously, its about hitting one. Even if a single theater is attacked by one moron doing a copy cat attack, the people injured could sue the living bejesus out of Sony, and an the PR spin would be even worse than it is now. Personally, I think it should be leaked to the internet, so about a billion people can see what only a few million would have seen otherwise, and then release and uncut directors version on DVD 6 months from now after all this insanity has died down.
Regal Cinema et al. are not really worried about terror strikes. Muslim terrorists have made threats against various movies for decades and it hasn't stopped anything from being shown, and this is from groups that have proven experience blowing things up.
What these companies are in fact scared shitless is the kind of cyberattack that Sony suffered. As bad as Sony security might have been, I guarantee it was heads and shoulders above what any of these theater chains have in place. Sony was able to shrug off millions in damages, but for AMC it could be lights out. At the very least it would beat out the profits of showing a mediocre comedy. This is why they're scared to show the interview - concerns about "terror attacks" are a smokescreen.
To be fair, they wouldn't have to attack 18,000 theaters to achieve the desired effect. One or two would be quite sufficient. I still don't think the release of the movie should be stopped, of course. At the very least, have it up on Netflix and Amazon Prime asap. Or even better, put it up as a DRM-free download straight from Sony. That may be the best PR move Sony could make at this point.
I mean seriously, was anyone actually going to watch this other than Seth Rogen's mom?
It is good to see that everyone believes that the Homeland Security Office is on top of, and can protect us from any and all threats. I'm so glad that my tax dollars haven't been wasted on their ever growing big brother reach around.
I tend not to trust the US government at all, but in this case it seems extremely likely that North Korea is in fact behind this as they say. If that's the case, then we are probably seeing a re-orientation of the US government towards a different enemy. Taking tension out of the relations with Cuba, reassessing the torture stupidity and being more proactive about closing Guantanamo have all been long overdue because all these insanities happen only for reasons of interior policy and hurt the US extremely in terms of international diplomacy.
It would make sense for this event to be connected to the recent confrontation with Russia (who might have provided misleading intelligence to North Korea suggesting the US would not react to such retaliation against Sony for embarrassing North Korea's leader), but in any case the realisation they are en route to two extremely costly wars (with no oil to win) -- both of them close to or in China's sphere of interest -- could have prompted some emergency measures by the US government to try and restore international good will.
If I have analysed the situation correctly, we are just seeing the usual manipulations of international public opinion that are a necessary preparation for war in a (pro-forma or real) democracy. For a war against North Korea, not Russia. To this end, the threat must be exaggerated and connected to an American trauma, rather than treated proportionally.
The dialogue pinning the attack on DPRK serves many purposes, and it's been quite fun to watch this event transform from "Fuck Sony" to our ever present "Oh Noez! A bogey man" dialectic. We already have politicians claiming that the DPRK made an act of war (Newt Gingrich) and according to at least FOX and ABC the US is officially blaming the DPRK for the cyber attack (though neither have specified what agency this is). Even though evidence is weak at best.
Anyone believing the "terrorist" propaganda must somehow also believe that the DPRK has millions of bomb strapping terrorists stationed in the US ready to flock into Star and AMC to bomb people for watching a comedy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
...on the other hand, if they're actually threatening the lives of specific people that are related to the hack...it has to be treated seriously. As to retracting the movie, I have my own opinions on it, but really; at this point enough damage has been done to Sony's reputation, do they really want to risk even more of it by potentially creating an international incident? An incident as a result of a film that didn't sound like it was going to be worth watching in the first place?
Sony has plenty of egg on their faces now and it's their own fault, but realistically (again I have my own opinions), going ahead and releasing the film at this point would be putting their own employees at even -further- risk from potential nutters who've downloaded the torrent. Whether it's right to retract the film as a result of threats like this is another issue altogether, if Sony wants to be viewed as any kind of responsible at this point, they have to start with being responsible to the affected employees.
After that I would HOPE they'd extend some of that to their customers, but hey, if they're not willing to extend a hand, I'm willing to return my PS4. Your choice, Sony? If you do happen to be reading (ha!), please hire somebody to do an internal review of your INCREDIBLY poor security. You're literally putting people's lives at risk at this point.
I can't wait to see how Sony and the MPAA somehow spin this whole mess into how movie piracy is somehow secretly funding North Korea, Terrorists, and all of 'Merica's enemies...
For the record, Sony Pictures did not cancel the release in response to the hacker threats. The five theater chains cancelled showings in response to those threats. Sony Pictures then indefinitely postponed the "release date". The article and most of the comments here are misstating what happened. The Theaters may or may not be "idiotic" but after the lawsuits from the Colorado Batman Joker killers its not quite "idiotic" to demonstrate due diligence to the threat.
Gently reply
Sony wins big by announcing they are going to damn the terrorists and release the movie anyway. They cash in on the enormous amount of free publicity and now every American wants to see it to snub the terrorists. They just need to convince the public there isn't a credible threat to movie theaters getting blown up.
is for sony to host a free screening of this movie next saturday.
we can't cancel the release, full stop, or the terrorists win.
we can't all go pay to see this shitsloppic, or the sony marketing team wins.
we can't all cry foul, demand that they show the movie, and then not go see it, because then canada wins.
no - sony must stand up to the terrorists, show the movie for free on one day (or even just one single time, but in all theaters at once) and then drop the mic.
Not so much, if you are a corporation. The terrorists win. Not a shot fired. Behavior is changed, events are cancelled, angst pervades. Not with a gun or a bomb, but with a torrent this battle was won. Who'd a thunk? Outlook spools as shock and awe. OTH, maybe this better? No actual physical harm ITRW. Still for those corporate execs, light, heat and fallout and the same instinct to duck under their desk. If you can disrupt the infotainment ecosphere, can you cause wide spread mayhem in the real world? Perhaps understandable for MegaPlex execs after Colorado. But for Sony, hard to be sympathetic to serial incompetence. Whatever David Bois is charging them, it isn't enough.
I was just getting ready to go see " THE INTERVIEW".
SONY lost an American free market opportunity.
That's just silly to act like someone would need to attack 18,000 theatres simultaneously for it to be bad. ONE pipe bomb in ONE theater would be a problem. The capability to do so? I made pyrotechnic devices in 6th grade. I knew, in 6th grade, that if I used a metal pipe as the casing instead of a cardboard tube I'd have a bomb. This guy is pretending bad guys don't or can't do what many of us could do in elementary school.
If I see this guy at a cybersecurity conference I may have to call him out on his BS.
I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this.
This has been my life for the past couple decades. I am often the "voice of reason", and I don't have the heart to tell folks "No, I'm the voice of common sense", although I suspect they wouldn't get it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think this video sums it up pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
In the article, the Peter Singer states, "Someone killed 12 people and shot another 70 people at the opening night of Batman: The Dark Knight [Rises]. They kept that movie in the theaters. You issue an anonymous cyber threat that you do not have the capability to carry out? We pulled a movie from 18,000 theaters."
In some ways, the comparison between the response to this current threat against movie theaters and the rampage that happened 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado is appropriate. Both target movie theaters and the people in them. But that's where it ends.
The Aurora shooting has gone down in history as an unforeseeable tragedy the fault of which lay entirely with the shooter. Everyone said, "This was very sad," and no one's expecting any victims' civil suits to win anything.
In fairly extreme contrast, ***IF*** Sony were to allow the movie to be shown in theaters and ***IF*** someone attacked a movie theater for any reason relating to the showing of the movie, then Sony would be very publicly acknowledged as having fault in the harm done to theater-goers and would be sued out of existence.
Everything in this decision has to do with LIABILITY. Even if the probability is extremely low, the potential liability is astronomical. It doesn't make financial sense for Sony to allow the movie to be shown.
Aside: Notice who the puppets and the puppet-masters are here. Those making the threats hold the strings, but they're not playing Sony. They're playing the American public. They know that the American public are so unhappy with their opportunities to be super-rich that they see legal liability as one of their few chances to get MILLIONS! As such, the nation is extremely risk-averse thus thoroughly negating out espoused resolve to not be susceptible to terroristic threats.
To be cliche, the enemy is us.
So they jump into their bunkers when an empty non-viable threat is made. But constantly leave their virtual gates wide open to legitimate ongoing REAL threats.
Sorry, but since I am not a thug, I'm ok with the cops shooting first and asking questions later. I'm also ok with the fact that mistakes will be made.
Seriously, no one would have pulled ANYTHING from the theaters if this were the last Hobbit movie . . . so, context people. Twenty years ago (maybe less), you couldn't name a foreign dictator in a movie like this for fear of legal issues.
They want to scare Sony? Sue them for defamation :P
is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously.
Who said anything about them having to hit 18,000 locations simultaneously. That isn't how terrorism works. The 911 guys did not have have to hit thousands of targets, they only tried for three, managed only two (counting the WTC complex as a single target) and look at all the trouble they caused!
A coordinated attack on only a handful of movie theaters the same night would be plenty to cause an economically significant portion of this countries population spend the holiday Christmas - New Years stretch cowering in their homes rather than going out and spending money. It would almost certainly lead to all kinds of wild ill considered national security response.
Hell look at the Batman Shooting a few years ago. It takes one suicide attacker to "hit" a theater with essentially no real resources. A few thousand in counterfeit notes (which DPRK has produced in the past) would allow would be assailants to put together the arsenal they need. Its perfectly plausible even DPRK could get three or four people into this country with limited fake credentials and no access to anything privileged enough to do even a basic background check.
I am not saying "OMG we all going to die here" but you can't completely dismiss the threat either here. Having hit Sony they have already demonstrated some capability.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
That Sony Picture Entertainment — like most of Hollywood — are Illiberal-dominated is well-known.
That their systems were so easily and so thoroughly penetrated hints, that the company is mismanaged.
The revealed conversations confirm it. The particular item — which dwells on NYT's Maureen Down (herself an Illiberal icon) as willing to abolish fundamental journalist principles "for the Greater Good" — cites the following conversation-snippet:
After Obama was elected, when dissent stopped being patriotic, and the only possible reason underlying any sort of disapproval of government was racism, the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate, or are deliberately ruining their speech — perhaps, to better commiserate with the downtrodden. Fortunately, the "on" slowly disappeared and my question went away...
Ms. Pascal's repeated use of "your" instead of "you're" — even after being gently corrected by her wordsmith correspondent — makes me wonder again. Her use of ALL CAPS identifies her as a moron rather firmly in my book — any sort of stupid Sony does, while she remains at the helm, will not surprise me one bit.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Release the movie on youtube and every corner of the internet for FREE.
Absolutely! Nothing could be more in keeping with the Bill of Rights than having widespread systematic imprisonment for expressing views you disagree with.
So compromising a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same as compromising a not-so-great protected computer network?
Table-ized A.I.
No one ever said that they could co-ordinate 18'000 attacks simultaneously. No one's worried about that.
What we are worried about is that they'll try, miss, and hit 100 random non-targets instead.
On a very different side of things, Sony's doing the right thing. As an entertainment company, indeed as any consumer/commercial company, Sony should not be creating a war -- rightfully or not. If it gets to that level, as it just did, Sony ought to back off and your government ought to step in to do something -- I know exactly what my country would do: publicly apologize for the insulting movie, as a sign of respect, and move on.
But your country doesn't like $50 solutions. Your country has always preferred $50 billion dollar solutions. So your president will likely escalate matters with a display of power. And if things do escalate, as we all know that they have in the past, you'll lose a few thousand soldiers' lives, instead of a few thousand movie-goers' lives -- as though that's somehow better, or any different at all.
Of course I'm all for freedom of expression. Of course I'm against slander too. And maybe, just maybe, it's a bad idea to insult an enemy while he's holding a few nuclear guns. Just maybe.
But hey, your country fought for its independence, with a lot of lives lost. Mine waited 100 years, and then asked politely.
When dealing with a criminally-insane opponent, their threat of 'bombing' movie theaters may be empty & unsubstantiated, but considering that this very threat **was made via Sony corporate network computer screens**, then that means the opponent still has access to Sony's network, and frankly the threat could mean *anything*... more data wiping/sabotage, or something else. Why take the risk over a shitty, low-budget comedy?
Plus, any nutcase with a gun off his meds could shoot up a theater, Aurora'CO-style, and Sony would get sued. So, yeah. If I were Sony I would do the same thing, pissant naysayers be damned.
In other, I'm surprised that the CIO and/or Senior IT Admin staff hasn't been sacked yet.
Peter W. Singer is an idiot.
Sony and hackers all over the world have been at odds with each other for at least a decade. Sony installed a root kit with software they distributed; they also maliciously went after a 19 year old that hacked his playstation, utilizing the features that Sony had advertised. Anonymous and other groups have previously attacked Sony, and it has gone back and forth for years.
This attack was just another volly, nothing more. It was not done by North Korea, and the hackers may have left a poorly worded note, but I have no doubt it was taken way out of context.
North Korea had nothing to gain by this, and everything to lose. Just like Syria had nothing to gain and everything to lose by using chemical weapons; they didin't do that either.
I guess it is a totally duff movie and Sony was worried about having a box office flop on top of the computer hack to add insult to injury, so they shit canned the movie.
But the most likely outcome of John Q Programmer playing out his 'Home Alone with a Gun' scenario is accidentally killing another family member that returns home unexpectedly.
This will be down-rated into oblivion by thin-skinned, heavily-armed nerds defending their Dirty Harry / Rambo RPG fantasies.
Want to actually murder someone and get away with it? If you're a White American male, become a cop and kill as many minorities as you wish, with the only 'punishment' being a paid vacation during the whitewash 'investigation'.
What a country.
It looks like the Norks done the world a favour and save everybody from a crappy movie.
It's not fear of an actual attack. It's fear of the economic consequences (public fear) of showing The Interview in a multi-screen theater where other also profitable shows are showing, thus reducing profits for the duration of the run.
My biggest fear in all of this is that Sony will still end up making bank on it. Ever since their rootkit fiasco (and especially their response to being ordered to undo the rootkit), I've been disinclined to give them money for anything if I can help it. After reading up on their support of the MAFIAA assclownery, I *really* don't want to see them out of the red. It's bad enough that they bought Columbia pictures and MGM and are strangling the life out of them, but they also have to attack the internet as a whole and degrade consumer rights? Fuck them with a rototiller.
As far as NK goes, we should just ignore them and go about our business as usual. Their hacking over this isn't going to hurt anyone except Sony.
The theater chains know exactly what they are doing.
This fear, though completely unwarranted, will keep people out of theaters. The chains don't want people out of theaters. So they will axe this bad movie in order to ensure that stupid threats won't scare their customers away.
That is *all* this is.
And yet the last temptation of christ never had that problem despite reams of threat, and at least ONE REAL theater being burned down with molotov cocktail.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I don't think the issue is that they are worried about North Korea attacking. What they are worried about is the lone wolf who still lives in their parents basement who wants to become famous and make a name for themselves.
So if they are not going to release it to theaters I expect to see it on the shelves on Blue Ray and DVD before The New Year
Bully: "I've gathered up a bunch of people and we're all gonna make fun of you. And we're gonna get your friends to laugh at you and turn against you too."
Victim: "Why? I'm not bothering you at all."
Bully: "Because you're not like us."
Victim: "Well I like my friends. If you don't stop, then I'm gonna smack you."
Bully: "Oh! Oh... well, I don't wanna be smacked. Never mind."
Bully's supporters: "Hey hey hey, he's not the boss of you! Come on! We'll laugh at him with you! He won't hit you, he's bluffing!"
First off, the board of directors for Sony should take full blame for the whole situation. Why oh why would a for profit company think that producing a film lampooning a living dictator whose best weapons are computerized was a good idea anyway? This is a 'bet the profits for the year' sort of stupid notion that should have been shot down fast. There are LOTS of historic incidents where the USA or its allies DID assassinate foreign leaders - a horribly unlawful act. Where exactly is the funny in "murder by state actors" again? More, the antions Japan and North Korea have enough bad blood between them, how was this helping anything? In my minds eye, I see that scene where they talk about the cia wanting the protagonists to do a certain thing and in the theater of my mind the lines are slightly changed to read "The CIA wants you to piss-off this foreign dictator, we think he will act badly enough that it will take the eyes of the world of us for acting even more atrociously."
Stupid. Pointless. Like Hollywood cannot come up with original funny scripts? OK, well maybe not in the last couple decades, but they CAN, really they can. Better than this crap.
Here's your main reason:
If ONE person is injured/killed within a 10 mile radius of a theater and the person doing the killing proclaims any notion of it being done because of the release of the movie, the relatives of the one shot will sue Sony and lose
Fixed that for ya'
Sony is exercising protected free speech by releasing a movie.
The attacker in question is committing a range of crimes including assault and or murder.
Sony didn't tell people to go on a killing spree so they have no liability in this matter.
Looks like a media storm to increase sales for what looks to be a crappy movie.
The threat communicated did not arise from trilby-flinging basement dwellers hiding behind Guy Fawkes masks. The threat was issued by the information warfare arm of the North Korean Army. The Norks have a number of sleepers around the US and they are feared by the residents of the ethnic Korean neighborhoods and recognized as a threat the .gov. These guys are the real deal. Singer's dismissal of the issue is glib.
Indeed, though antagonizing your opponents like that probably isn't going to help the cause.
There is no long a point in trying not antagonizing them. Pretty much anyone who is still actively lobbying against private ownership of guns is either ignoring the evidence, incapable of uncerstandng it, or has a hidden agenda (such as creating victim-rich zones for govenment or criminal activity).
These people are not going to be converted. Things are far enough long that we no longer need them as straw men to raise the bogus argumets to be knocked down with logic. (Those who can be convinced with logic are now mostly either convinced or subject to information shortage). But they remain useful as targets of ridicule, so those who are more interested in being with the in crowd than making smart decisions can be converted.
For those still uncertain on the issue: Do you want to reduce murder, rape, assault, robery, criminal victimization, and institutional suppression of minority groups? Or do you want to want to reduce gun possession? There is no longer any question: More guns mean less of all those things.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The only way to end the "better safe than sorry" stupidity that results in all sorts of cowardice and mayhem from cops shooting on the slightest hint of "I was afeered for muh life" to this is to brutally punish that mentality in court in a very public way
If someone does attack a police officer, like that moron Michael Brown did, then deadly force is an acceptable outcome. Given the evidence, the grand jury in Fergusson made the right decision. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with the police force. That doesn't mean the "blue wall of silence" shouldn't be smashed with a sledgehammer. That doesn't mean that racial profiling doesn't occur, or that sentencing in our justice system isn't ridiculous. But a movement pushing for reform couldn't have picked a worse, worse poster child. What a shame. The tinder pile had built up so high that just the tiniest, insignificant spark was enough to set it ablaze.
Heck, when one someone starts advocating fundamentally subversive to the Bill of Rights legal changes, charge their ass with sedition and lock them up
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of you for making such a statement. Why, some of them believed in entirely scrapping the Constitution every once in awhile and starting fresh, so the laws could reflect the needs and will of the people. Those laws are not set in stone. They are very hard to change for a reason, but sedition + jail time for advocating changes to the Constitution is nonsense.
People tend to rediscover common sense when the penalty for choosing to not use it is swift and severe.
As I seem to recall, that prohibition against excessive punishment comes from the inviolable Bill of Rights as well.
Sorry, but since I am not a thug, I'm ok with the cops shooting first and asking questions later. I'm also ok with the fact that mistakes will be made.
Careful, someone will accuse you of racism. Apparently "thug" means "20 or 30-something black male" now, not "young man with a gangster/crime-oriented mentality and poor upbringing."
We could start with not calling this a hack. It was espionage and theft, aided by humans on the inside as evidenced by the specific target vectors inside sloppy code.
Calling this a hack gives it credence it shouldn't have AND lets Sony off the hook somewhat. It's MUCH better, apparently, to say "we wuz hack-ed!" instead of the more truthful "we are cheap and stupid folks with some of the worst IT policies on Earth!"
I am my own gestalt.
From TFA:
The government should help defend this company and prevent hacks, but in terms of exacting punishment on North Korea, what's it going to do?
I agreed with most of Peter's statements in TFA, but this? WTF?
It is not the government's responsibility to help defend mom-and-pop companies against network intrusions and other so-called "cyber threats" so why should a billion-dollar multi-national get different treatment? So what if NK was behind the theft (I don't think it was, btw), it's Sony's responsibility to protect its own networks, staff, customers and IP. Haven't they learned anything from years of SOE network intrustions and exfiltrations?
There is nothing safer then being "made helpless by law".
...
Oh yeah
CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL. Because condensation because of low pressure vortices is much less believable then a secret program to spend money to spray chemicals that have never been detected and have never been reported by low paid airport ramp workers!
While we are talking to idiots... What other swamp land can I sell?
There's your problem - you were trying to convince people with logic. That almost never works, even among intelligent, educated people. Do a little research on how to actually have a chance to change people's minds - there's even a few good TED talks on the subject, though I can't recall any details at the moment.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Have you seen people drive? Road rage? Now think many of these same people with guns.
Target range practice is a very powerful biofeedback mechanism for teaching the suppression of the production of adrenaline and of all symptoms of excitement. Aligning gun sights - a pair of visual targets separated by about the length of the gun barrel (inches, a foot, or several feet), aligning them with a target (at tens of feet), and holding the alignment, gives visibility to even microscopic tremors and movement. Getting the image right and stable means drastically suppressing this movement. Over a number of range sessions, this leads to learning how to be icy calm, as a reflex, in the midst of a very stressful environment (full of intermittent explosions, bright lights, acrid smells, and odd-temperature winds).
(The effect is extreme. It was discovered that good target shooters, thinking they were just controlling their breath, had actually learned to "stop their heartbeat" - compressing the time between the pairs of beats before and after firing a shot and doubling the time between beats during the trigger pull.)
The result is that, after just a few good sessions, this becomes imprinted. Even in a rage, putting your hand on a gun drops you into that icy calm state.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Where's that famous Jefferson quote about trading liberty for security and deserving neither of either when you need it?
A real country would have fired off a nuke by now.
and all the police state shit was supposed to 'keep us safe'...
guess not...
Realizing that these people are like those suffering from Stockholm Syndrome--after all when Kim Jong il died, people were being arrested because they were not showing remorse if they were vocally carrying on for the demise of their leader, I'm sure that for those who are under the new Kim Jong Un regime the people must also act accordingly. So this is a perfectly normal reaction that I would expect. Think about it!
Then there is a simpler answer. They didn't do this because of the threat, but for other reasons which involve yet unreleased data from the hack, that could be potentially more damaging to the Sony heads than pulling the movie would be.
I saw the trailer, not sure if this is a big loss to the free world.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
North Korea farts and these guys wet themselves.
Maybe next time they'll be smart enough to encrypt their data...but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Take away americans ability to fight with guns or lawyers and your left with a bunch of scared pussies.
One guy gets shot in one theater, in a matter totally unrelated to the North Korean connection, and there would be a lawsuit that would swallow the entire projected profits of the movie. "To be clear, you had prior warning that attacks would ensue and you went ahead anyway?!!??" "Yes, but" "Witness will restrict himself to answering the question directly!!"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Neah, the slang "hate on" (according to your own link) still has the same meaning: "To ridicule, insult, or act hatefully [emphasis mine] toward," — as the regular "hate". That otherwise well-written and spoken people would denigrate their speech to slang is just what I was referring to. I'm glad, it passed...
Well, here the word "hit" has a completely different and unrelated meaning. A "hit" of something (like cocaine) is yet another unrelated meaning. That's not like "hate (on)" at all...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.