Slashdot Mirror
Hackers' Shutdown of 'The Interview' Confirms Coding Is a Superpower
theodp writes: The idea of programming as a superpower was touched upon by CS teacher Alfred Thompson back in 2010, but it became a rallying call of sorts for the Hour of Code after Dropbox CEO Drew Houston described coding as "the closest thing we have to a superpower" in a Code.org video that went viral. And if the kids who learned to code with the President last week were dubious about the power of coding, this week's decision by Sony to scrap the release of the satirical film The Interview after a massive hack attack should put aside any doubts, especially after new revelations that Sony had reached out to the White House for help and screened the film for administration officials back in June. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that the Obama Administration is viewing the Sony attack as a "serious national security matter" and is considering a range of possible options as a response, which could turn things into a contest of U.S. Superpower vs. Coding Superpower. In case it wasn't mentioned last week, remember to always use your coding superpower for good, kids!
"Coding" had nothing to do with theaters dropping the movie. What made them drop the movie was a terrorist threat that spoked a bunch of bean counters.
Exactly. Sony was going to press forward with the release regardless of the intrusion. What shutdown the movie was the pastebin threat that caused a bunch of theater chains to shit themselves.
What the fuck does emailing a vague and rambling threat of violence have to do with coding and superpowers?
It was threats of violence that canceled the movie. Saying coding had anything to do with it is like saying you should be able to patent something that people have been doing for ages, because your implementation is 'on the internet'.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Telling people to use coding for "good" is a very subjective matter. Exposing corruption is a "good" thing, and when law enforcement and Government agencies ignore corruption or become complicit in the corruption, dumping this information to the public is one of few viable options.
Reading the summary (nope, I refused to follow these links) indicates that "good" from their perspective is maintaining the status quo and allowing the corruption to continue unchecked.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No one was going to blow up any theater. Stop being a fucking sissy.
Up until 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack was by an American, Timothy McVeigh. There are too many nutters out there who think their personal grievances justify killing "faceless people" to "make a statement".
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I am not saying I have an answer for that.
This is not a First Amendment question because in this case a corporation that regards themselves in the business of entertaining people has decided that they don't want to risk releasing this movie right now. Yes, they are caving to a threat, but the movie is their property under Copyright to do what they choose, and they choose to not show the movie as of now. They could have just shown the movie, shown the movie but put metal detectors and guards up around the theatres, or maybe even demanded protection from the threat by the government.
There is a broader embrace of free expression in our society going beyond the First Amendment, and caving against the threat undermines free expression. But there is no law against giving in to blackmail -- there are only laws against taking justice into your own hands in acting against a blackmailer. We only wish, sometimes, that the Westboro Church, the book-burning Florida cleric, and the Egyptian movie-making dude would give in, and this wishing out loud by Administration officials gets pushback regarding First Amendment concerns, but there would be no wrong if those people had caved in light of the threats facing their free expression.
So (if presumably it was North Korea) threatened violence within our borders, they haven't violated any law because they are not under US law. On the other hand, such a threat could be construed as an act of war, submitting to such a threat diminishes our honor to the extent that free expression is one of our cherished values, and nations have gone to war over questions of honor -- many times. In other words, to cave humiliates us as a nation in our own eyes, which by definition, is a matter of honor.
Do we want to fight back for our national honor? Does honor, or the principles of honor in this dispute with North Korea rise to the level of risking lives in a war? I am not saying there is a simple answer, but when people say that going to war over "honor" is competely stupid, this example should come to mind. That North Korea effectively has veto power over what is shown for movies in US theatres is a question of honor (we will attack you if you show this movie) -- no one has died (yet), but do we want to live this way? But on the other hand, is a dumb Seth Rogen pic a cause worth dying for?
Just because some vague articles and politicos point the finger at North Korea doesn't mean that it's true. I'm not making any assertions about the truth at this point, but we should be careful before jumping to (potentially violent) conclusions based on hearsay.
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/e...
"But in their initial public statement, whoever hacked Sony made no mention of North Korea or the film. And in an email sent to Sony by the hackers, found in documents they leaked, there is also no mention of North Korea or the film. The email was sent to Sony executives on Nov. 21, a few days before the hack went public. Addressed to Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, Chairwoman Amy Pascal and other executives, it appears to be an attempt at extortion, not an expression of political outrage or a threat of war."
Evolution: love it or leave it