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."

Comments

Land of the free

[Pope Hagbard]

Home of the brave.

Re:Land of the free

[sycodon]

Maybe not.

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

Re:Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Didn't think so.

Re:Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Land of the free

[morgauxo]

"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.

Re:Land of the free

[easyTree]

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

Oh wait...

Re:Land of the free

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Land of the free

[dcw3]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

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

Re:Land of the free

[gnasher719]

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.

Sony didn't pull the movie

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I absoluetly bet it is Sex Blackmail!

[gurps_npc]

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.

Yup, Hegel 101

[s.petry]

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.