Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Posted by timothy on from the pretty-jaw-dropping dept.

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."

29 of 580 comments (clear)

  1. Land of the free by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Home of the brave.

    1. Re:Land of the free by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe not.

      The myth of gun battles in the street due to citizens legally carrying weapons is a product of ignorant, agenda pushing, wussies.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you point to *any* place in the US where "running gun battles in the streets" are even *remotely* common?

      Didn't think so.

    3. Re:Land of the free by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, though antagonizing your opponents like that probably isn't going to help the cause.

      The truth is that pretty much everyone inclined to running gun battles probably already has guns that they carry concealed - law be damned. Or signed up for a shiny blue shield that provides near-immunity from the law. Laws against concealed carry serve primarily to make sure that honest citizens make easy victims.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Land of the free by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm a wussie for not wanting to face an armed intruder bare handed.

    5. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I invite you to come on down! To beautiful Gary, Indiana, my home town. I invite you to take an evening stroll down the street in the middle of a hot summer night. It's not so much a matter of having to have a gun to feel safe because I'm a "wussy", it's because I'd be at a statistical disadvantage should I not be carrying a firearm. If I see someone drawing their gun or firing in my general direction, I suppose I should just dial 9-1-1 and wait an hour or two for someone to show up to defend me. Right?

      Or when I pull up in my driveway and see that someone is already inside my home or garage, I should just let them finish stealing whatever they'd like and file a report. That's what insurance is for, right? Just let the thieves, crooks, and dopeheads have free reign because people like you want to call me a "wussy". Got news for ya, boss. Real life exists outside of your gated community and sleepy suburban burgs. Lots of us live in the real world, and real shit happens all day, every day.

      And it doesn't just have to be in the high-crime inner city. Would you like to be working alone at a rural gas station at 2:00 AM on a dark stretch of highway a dozen miles from the nearest town? It's OK that the only Sheriff's deputy on duty is 25 miles across the county, he'll be there to protect you when a meth addict comes in high as a kite not even knowing where he is to rob and possibly kill you. More likely he'll be there to call the coroner and medics to clean you up off the floor. Those of us who value our survival and property and also aren't "fortunate" enough to live in a walled prison community will continue to carry a weapon to defend ourselves whether it's legal or not. Because I can fucking guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that the thieves, crooks, and dopeheads will not be turning them all in any time soon.

      If you enjoy being a victim, and it helps you to sleep better at night thinking that someone who carries a firearm is a "wussy", go right on ahead believing that. But it's a childish and dependent mentality to always assume someone else will be there to ensure your safety.

    6. Re:Land of the free by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not going to Mod up, I am going to expound. The fact that we do not hold the people actually doing harm responsible, but rather go for anyone tangentially related but has deep pockets, in a get rich quick scheme using the legal system as a tool, is what is causing this kind of reaction. The threat of a lawsuit is greater than the threat from actual crime.

      And to be honest, the US reaction has been pitiful. Why we put up with NK at all at this point is simply a matter of lack of leadership. However, as long as NK is a pawn of China and acts as their puppet, we cannot do anything to them. Make no mistake, this is China, not NK. But we are too chickenshit, and perhaps more importantly in debt to China, that both NK and China will get away with this shit.

      And while I'm tossing blame, Sony itself is to blame for its crappy Security. How the hell does Muti-terabytes of data leave your network, without even a HINT of it. I'm sure that whatever cost savings they were going for when IT budgets came out was well worth it. I hope Sony gets it pants sued off (see first paragraph) by the likes of all the actors, crews and other employees.

      What a cluster fuck.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just makes you wonder how other countries with strict gun laws function? Even more curios when those "non-gun" countries have both crime rates and incarceration rates.

      I mean you have outlined how owning a gun isnt a "want" but a need. Who knows, perhaps a meteor falls from space and you are able to shoot it since you are armed.

      "But it's a childish and dependent mentality to always assume someone else will be there to ensure your safety."

      Ever wonder how many times a "gun owner" was put at a greater risk then a non-gun owner?
      How about you list some examples of when having a gun "saved the day" instead of turning out to be another tragedy?

      Not a "theoretical" one, an actual concrete example.

    8. Re:Land of the free by dj245 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt. These kind of threats from hackers does indeed sound unbelievable. Hacking a pc and setting up a terrorist strike are quite different skill sets. Am i the only one wondering if this is just a hoax from Sony/the authorities to make people change their stance on the hacks? In the beginning everybody was like "serves them right". Now everybody is like "Omg, poor Sony, i would watch the movie if i could".

      These threats seem like the best thing that could happen to them after the hack. I'm kind of wondering if it isn't a bit too convenient.

      I'm thinking they made a financial calculation. If the value of the materials which the hackers have, but have not yet released, exceeds the expected revenue of the movie, then it makes sense to trash the movie and just move on. I can easily imagine that such materials (especially if they implicate Sony in illegal or questionable activities) having a value of millions of dollars to be kept secret.

      Plus, the Korea situation isn't that funny. The bottom line is that families were split apart and have remained apart for 60 years directly because of squabbling between the US and the former Soviet Union. That's not a joke, its just sad.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    9. Re:Land of the free by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The old West,"
      Yeah, I'm sure it was exactly as dimestore novels and later hollywood portrayed it...

      "schools & movie theaters"
      A handful of incedents in a 300+ million population spread over several years hardly makes an event common.

    10. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be way more sympathetic if the likes of you just admitted that you really fucking like guns. All the hand-waving bullshit 'reasons' for carrying them are much less persuasive to me than "I want to".

    11. Re:Land of the free by easyTree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, cause everyone wants to live in a tolerant society with good standards of health-care / community spirit / sanity.

      Oh wait...

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    12. Re:Land of the free by u38cg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why we put up with NK at all at this point is simply a matter of lack of leadership.

      And the minor issue that doing anything practical puts at risk the life of every single citizen living in Seoul, population 10 million. Never mind the geopolitical risk of any conflict sucking in China, which would be a bit of a nuisance.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    13. Re:Land of the free by ProzacPatient · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you enjoy being a victim, and it helps you to sleep better at night thinking that someone who carries a firearm is a "wussy"

      I've never understood this mentality but I'm thinking people with this mentality are so brainwashed into believing guns are inherently evil that they actually confuse law abiding gun owners with gun toting criminals who are cowards that use their weapons to assert power and instill fear.

      For anyone who isn't a criminal carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility and the consequences of having to use it are monumental both legally and dealing with the fact that you killed someone (not all people who get shot die but usually they do), in fact it can be a huge risk to even carry it legally because of all these weird Gun-Free Zone laws (my state in particular being terrible).

      Lets put lawful carry in another light; a mother has to walk to and from work every night in a dark city full of meth heads and rapists that will do anything to get their next fix and she has had a couple close calls so she applies for a conceal carry permit and now she carries a Smith & Wesson .38 Special. Is that mother now automatically a coward because she has a equalizing means of self defense now, or would it be preferable for her to not be a "coward" right in the morgue and her kids in the foster care system?

      Or what about the woman that receives death threats from her former boyfriend? Is she a coward for wanting to defend herself against someone much bigger and stronger than her?

      Legal concealed carriers are not cowards, and open carriers (where legal) are probably even less so.

    14. Re:Land of the free by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's just that no firearms means less risk of gun related violence.

      That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.

      My biggest gripe with gun law conversations in the US is that the discussion never can have a middle ground. Gun law advocates never admit to the 2nd amendment while gun rights advocates never admit to sane policy. So, when there is a technology that may make guns safer or better, it gets muddied by talking point vomit.

      The NRA gets upset over a "smart" gun because "hurr you have to wear a bracelet to use it". While anti-gun folks were mad because "hurr it's a gun therefore EVIL! In really, it was a interesting idea that has some issues that could be better with time and better tech.

    15. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a wuss for not wanting to be shot by people who think I'm an armed intruder.

      Have you seen people drive? Road rage? Now think many of these same people with guns. If you think them having guns will make them more polite, and magically less likely to shoot you and others when they "lose it", you're over optimistic.

      Not everyone will be that disciplined mentally stable person who keeps his guns locked up safely, never points his guns at stuff he doesn't want destroyed, is likely to actually hit his targets if he shoots, instead of bystanders, etc.

    16. Re:Land of the free by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

      Depend where you live...
      http://www.wxyz.com/news/detro...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    17. Re: Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a no middle ground because of the NRA. It's a trade organization that never wants restrictions on their products. So any time a reasonable gun law comes up they go all out with sky is falling crap. They like ort that way.

      The NSA is just as guilty of ignoring the 2nd amendment, let me quote from the beginning "A well regulated militia...". Somehow they don't want any regulations, and having to serve for something they can leave it out.

      People can and will have reasonable discussions, but if it's a public discussion the NRA goes all out to even prevent the discussion from happening.

    18. Re:Land of the free by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Primarily because this "coward way out" leads to large numbers of people being unafraid to commit crimes. Would you also refuse to intervene in a rape if you saw it about to happen or in progress? I mean, the cops will catch the rapist eventually. How about a homicide, if you see a few kids stomping a homeless Tuba player to death, are you going to just walk on by? You pay taxes for this kind of thing don't you? The homeless guy can be replaced, your life and limb less so. The cops will catch the murdering youths eventually (RIP Ed, Seattle remembers you fondly).

      Maybe you'd also sit placidly on a plane that was being taken over by a few guys with box cutters. I mean, the coward way out is more often than not the smart one, right? Let them have the plane, the airline has insurance and can buy a new one anytime.

      Your victim mentality is not helpful to you, or society. You want crime to skyrocket? Play the victim, you seem to have the mindset down. You want crime rates to decrease? Refuse to be a victim. If I go down, I go down fighting. If I see someone being beaten, abused, robbed, raped, I will not stand idly by or walk on past, I will intervene on their behalf. I will not be a victim, and I will not stand idly by out of selfishness while others are victimized.

    19. Re:Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I don't think of guns as inherently evil, but they are inherently dangerous.

      Liar on both counts

      I don't have a problem with lawful gun owners who take proper precautions with their firearms.

      Liar again. Your statements below speak otherwise.

      I have a big problem with the people who think that their gun is a cool toy to play with or teach their kids that it's fun to wave a gun around.

      Me too, those are the criminals I bought and carry guns to protect myself from. Those din-du-nuffins in the ghetto are the ones that wave guns around, their chilluns and crotch-droppings / welfare check enhancers are taught to be criminals at home, while cuz Trayvon waves around the .25 he stole.

      I'm not willing to say that a majority of gun owners are like this, but there's a vocal group like this and these people scare me (and should scare responsible gun owners as well).

      I am,and hang out with, gun advocates. I am a life member of the NRA. I have never seen anyone violate the rules of gun safety like you describe. Not a range, not in class, not at a store, not hunting, not on the back fourty-five hundred shooting at cans. Where are these people of which you speak? I think you don't know any that do that stuff, and just made it up. (i.e. liar.)

      People should treat guns with respect and always assume 1) that they are loaded (even if you JUST took all of the bullets out) and 2) that the gun is about to fire at whatever it is pointed at.

      You are missing a few rules there, Friendo. Also, your #2 is a lot like a pile of real #2. Guns don't just go off on their own. You are completely, and utterly ignorant of how they work AND the safety rules surrounding them. How the fuck would you even know a rule is being broken? You don't even KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

    20. Re:Land of the free by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.

      Since you're comparing USA and Denmark (or UK, which is quite the same), it should be obvious that there are two stable states: One, where everyone has guns, so criminals need to have guns to avoid being shot during a crime, and upright citizens need to have guns to avoid beig shot during a crime, too. Two, where nobody has guns, and criminals know that carrying a gun during a crime means that the whole police force will do anything possible to catch them, and they will go to jail for a long time. And upright citizens know that killing an unarmed criminal say during a burglary will get them into legal trouble.

      Two stable states. Both stable states are hard to leave. I prefer the stable state with no (few) guns and very few people shot.

  2. What better way by koan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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."
  3. Sony didn't pull the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:yea but by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    How?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  5. I am wondering too by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  6. I absoluetly bet it is Sex Blackmail! by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I work in IT. I can practically guarantee you that multiple high level employees of Sony have put evidence in their emails of major sexual peccadilloes. Not to mention discussion of people trying to cover up similar (and worse) crimes committed by Sony stars. It would not surprise me if evidence of affairs, homosexuality, child pornography, rape, and even covering up deaths (accidental or otherwise) was on their servers.

    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
  7. Yup, Hegel 101 by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. yeah. 18,000? One pipe bomb is enough by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:yea but by crunchygranola · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The theaters are contractually obligated to play the movie. Sony can claim publicly that they don't have to play the movie, but those legally binding contracts are still in place, and remember, the theaters still want to play the movie. That's cash in their pockets and the threats are likely fake. So they show the movie anyways, and if a real attack happens, the first thing they are going to do is point at that contract and say Sony forced them to show the movie, they had no choice. Viola, Sony is now liable.

    First up. Sony voluntarily suspended enforcement of the contract clause. The theaters would have real difficulty arguing in the court that "Sony forced them to show the movie" when Sony publicly declared they did not.

    Second. Are you trained in contract law? I would be quite surprised to learn that if both parties in a normal two-party contract agree to temporarily suspend enforcement of one clause in a contract they are "breaking the law" in some way. What would be the aggrieved party that would bring suit? Who would have standing? Or are you saying this a criminal act? Cite a statute please?

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age