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."

14 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 Racemaniac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Land of the free by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I heard it once said to never let a serious crisis go to waste.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Land of the free by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This story made the front page news of every media outlet including Slashdot. You can't buy that kind of publicity. When the movie is re-released in a few weeks time it will be everyone's patriotic duty to show the North Koreans we are not afraid and go see the movie.

      Either that or the hackers have far more damaging data on Sony exec's. Evidence that could land them in jail perhaps?

      Personally I vote for it being a PR ploy by Sony to bolster ticket sales of what was otherwise sure to be a box-office flop

    6. Re:Land of the free by jandersen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think, if you actually read what the GP wrote, you'll see that he is expressing the same opinion. But let me tell you about how it is in my home country, Denmark:

      - Nobody carries fire arms, except some criminals. In fact, most police officers aren't armed either.
      - Gun shots are being fired so rarely that it makes the headlines when it happens. I don't actually recall last time that happened.
      - School massacres? What is that?

      In fact, one can argue that since nobody carries firearms, even the criminals don't feel they have to; they are not likely to be shot when they are 'at work'. You know, it isn't because Danes are particularly good-natured, or because we are a homogenous society; it's just that no firearms means less risk of gun related violence. It may be that you prefer to pay the price for everybody having high-powered guns, but if you argue that it somehow makes your country safer, you'll just end up looking silly. Again, you may prefer looking silly to the truth, but hey, that's your call.

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

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

      A situation you would remedy by obtaining a gun and learning how to use it. Being shot by the homeowner is the single biggest fear among would-be intruders, ranking higher than being caught by police. And since we are talking about intruders we are talking about your own property, definitely not the subject of conceal carry laws.

      Hopefully you have more sense than to think an armed intruder willing to break into your home and shoot you is going to care about any laws against carrying a concealed weapon. Laws like that are followed by ... the .. law-abiding! Which is why the whole conceal carry movement is about empowering the people who are not criminals. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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. 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.

  3. The US = Land of the Lawyers by hipsterdufus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. The Batman, Theater Attack Comparison by eepok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.