Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Claims They Will Release "The Interview" Themselves
An anonymous reader writes In a series of tweets the hacker collective Anonymous says they will release "The Interview" to the masses if Sony won't. A few of the tweets read: "Seriously @Sony we warned you. We infiltrated your systems long before North Korea. We thought you'd take it as a warning and fix your s@#t." and "We're not with either side, we just want to watch the movie too and soon you too will be joining us. Sorry, @SonyPictures."
just get on with it already. unless you don't have it.
Morally speaking, of course Sony would do something underhanded in order to boost sales.
But this specific tactic doesn't make sense. Too much incriminating evidence about Sony's own underhanded practices has been released by the hackers. Too many of Sony's own people have been put at risk because of this. Sony might be evil, and they might be stupid, but they are not this spiteful.
There are only tenuous links to North Korea. (A hotel network in Thailand and a language localization, both of which could have easily been done by anybody). The "North Korea" ultimatum, which was also anonymous, was only made AFTER the media had speculated about it.
North Korea claimed that they weren't responsible, and more notably they didn't publicly post any long-winded justifications as to why the hack was a good thing (besides the omnipresent "evil west" speal) or leverage the data for their own gain. (Instead, a lot of data was released to simply embarrass Sony).
Until it's proven otherwise, I'm going to assume that these guys are the same ones that did the hack and that the North Korea link is bullshit.
Spoilers: In the end of the movie Kim Jung-un turns out to be a pretty fun guy (aside from the debauchery and keeping the population in slavery and all) and the would - be assassins don't do the dirty deed because of it. In other words the movie actually put's down America's CIA killing machine and puts Kim Jung in a far better light than he deserves.
... the Korean dictatorship. Had they not wigged out over a freaking B-list movie than their Supreme A-Hole would have garnered some degree of sympathy form the American public but instead they decided to shoot themselves in their foot once again.
.... Sony vs. N. Korea??? .... I'm finding it pretty hard to really root for any of those schmucks here)
The only thing worse and with less sense of humor than the CIA is
(also
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
Considering that the obvious consequence of doing such a thing (and what actually happened) is a detailed review of the hack by our various national security agencies, and considering that the obvious result of such a review would be finding out that Sony itself was responsible - only the most ill-informed, tin foil wearing conspiracy nut would believe that a huge corporation would expose themselves to such a risk.
.... seriously? How could you possibly believe that Sony would release that themselves?
Also the release of internal emails and salaries
Think Better.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
We're talking about the company that put a rootkit on its music CDs.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Some of the news reports over this are just awful. Here in Australia the nightly news talked about how Sony had delayed releasing their "blockbuster". Either they have redefined the meaning of the word to "pile of shit barely B rated movie" or the press is getting even worse.
"Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?" she wrote
I can't quite see why this is being made out to be such a scandal. So she asked a colleague if a black guy might be interested in films starring black characters. Okay, it's a bit naive, but scandalous? Really?
It's not like she said anything insensitive to Obama; she merely asked a colleague for advice about how to act appropriately. I'd think that recognizing your ignorance in advance and correcting it would be preferable to ignoring it and then blurting out something stupid/embarrassing to the POTUS.
I'm probably missing some critical detail, but to me it seems like the only thing she's guilty of is not having enough experience interacting with black people in a social context. That's a weakness, to be sure, but if it's a sin then it's a sin that a lot of other people are also guilty of. I think this is a pretty good example of why people are so reluctant to enter any discussion about race -- anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
North Korea didn't do it. The only people who have "proof" haven't released the proof, just summaries, and already were documented as hating the accused before the act. The only one who benefited from the threats over showing the movie is Sony. I think Sony made the threats to vilify the hackers and write-off the movie and maybe claim an insurance policy against it, since it's a flop anyway.
Learn to love Alaska
The problem isn't just stupid C*Os, though they certainly exist. The problem is also our inability to communicate properly with them. Me personally, guilty as charged, btw. -- it took me many, many years to understand how the C-level thinks and how to talk to them to get what you want. And even then you often don't because of some under-the-radar corporate politics that's going on right then.
No, this hack will in no way change anything. None of the previous public hacks did.
One of the main problems is that C*Os are right that a lot of security money is totally wasted on bullshit, like security awareness trainings for an audience that doesn't give a fuck, shouldn't have to give a fuck, and will forget everything they accidentally heard over their playing Farmville or bullshit bingo while you were talking in front, wasting their precious office time. Or on technically cute systems that are as fascinating as they are useless. Or on trying to convince a C*O that he needs military-grade security without explaining him why he should consider himself a military man.
For about 10 years now the security industry has - at the speed of a turtle - realized that it doesn't take human factors into consideration nearly enough. We've all thrown the mantra of the stupid user around as if it would explain anything, and explained our consistent failure to complete our mission by pointing fingers at others, just like you do above.
Guess what? Everyone in a company has too few resources, executives meddling in their things and idiot managers fucking things up, but the others still manage to largely accomplish their goals.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Hard perimeter? Please. It's a question of when, not if, those get breached.
Defense in depth -- including detection, response and remediation -- is the only way to play.
This. Perimeter defenses are necessary, of course, but they don't do a damn thing when some exec gets his machine owned by clicking that spear phishing link. So you'd better have something that alerts you when that happens.
The president will not order, or sanction, the killing of the douchebags who hacked Sony.
When Sony hires some Pinkerton Men to take care of it quickly and quietly in Thailand, if the Thai authorities don't push the issue, would the US sanction Sony in any way? Would it matter whether the hackers were found in the US and took a trip to Thailand? Would it matter if the trip was in a trunk in the hold of a private plane?
Learn to love Alaska
We're talking about the company that put a rootkit on its music CDs.
I can't believe I'm defending these guys, but...
The rootkit fiasco was Sony BMG Entertainment, not Sony Pictures. Yes, they are both parts of Sony corporation but they are separate business units with separate reporting structures inside a megagiant international conglomerate. Blaming SPE for Sony BMG actions is like blaming the Department of Agriculture for the NSA's warrantless wiretapping because they are both part of the US government.
"95% of all Slashdot
"Yes, they are both parts of Sony corporation"
I have heard your argument about other companies -- specifically AT&T. I had AT&T for my cell phone and they did nothing but make me angry. The service was mediocre, not terrible, but their handling of contracts and service were downright offensive. When I had a chance, I dropped them in favor of prepaid.
Later a man came knocking at my door selling AT&T branded internet(+phone+whatever else). I told him no, shove it, get off my lawn, I will never be an AT&T customer. He said "It's actually a completely different company, we just share the AT&T name." Here's my answer:
Someone got paid a lot of money to decide that co-branding "different" businesses all under the AT&T nameplate would be good for business. If they think they can reap positive benefits from such an association, then they sure as shit can reap the negative consequences, and me hating AT&T is one such.
Sony BMG, Sony Pictures, Sony Music, Sony Whatthefuck -- I don't care. If Sony Pictures doesn't want to be associated with Sony BMG then they should be completely disconnected and use a different name. That is their fault, not mine. As long as they are all called "Sony", they are all the same to me, and they all deserve to die a quick painful death. The rookit fiasco was EXACTLY an extinction-level corporate boondoggle. Sony should cease to exist completely for such a criminal mistake. Their current woes are music to my ears and I hope they suffer all the way to bankruptcy court.
Zero sympathy. They are currently getting less than they deserve.