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."

31 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Marketing? by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sony makes a, by all reports, terrible movie. Suddenly the hack gives it a tremendous amount of press coverage and controversy. When they finally relent and release it, will the overall ticket sales be up or down?

    Nah, Sony is much too honest and honorable of a company to consider such a thing......

    1. Re:Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Marketing? by TechnoGrl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Also the release of internal emails and salaries .... seriously? How could you possibly believe that Sony would release that themselves?
      Think Better.

      --
      ----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
    3. Re:Marketing? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."
    4. Re: Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      sure, it boasts sales - but having worked for sony pictures, i can tell you, them not releasing the movie sounds more like they are glad not to have to deal with this (allegedly) turd anymore. it saves them millions of marketing costs if they don't.

      i've heard that most sony employees only just now are getting their computer access back - most of them have been working with pen and paper for the last 2 1/2 weeks (except for a rudimentary email program that was shipped to them on new harddrives). so i guess the cost of that alone more than nullifies the profit they could make even off a profitable "interview". and then there's the publicity cost of sony's boss writing racist jokes and bad things about actors. and the loss of some movies getting leaked.

      also, btw. anonymous telling them to fix their shit? as if anybody could 100% secure an enterprise with thousands of employees and dozens of different it-systems. any dedicated hacker could and will be able to hack them.

    5. Re:Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      > Sony makes a, by all reports, terrible movie.

      What? By all reports it is a typical low-brow, stoner and fart jokes seth rogen movie. Nothing enlightening, but funny enough for a matinee or rental, especially if you are going to watch it will baked.

      Seriously, what is it with all the haters going around proclaiming the movie to be universally shitty? Is it some kind of false balance thing going on? Or is it hipsterism?

    6. Re: Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The bulk of executive compensation is typically in stock. And either because the stock vests over time or because they're using a blind trust to get around SEC rules, they're only able to sell a little bit at a time. Because they're constantly granting themselves stock (Carl just dropped a deuce. Good job Carl! Have some RSUs! So, how are negotiations progressing with that blood-sucking labor union?), they always have a ton of unsold, illiquid stock.

      Also, once you get really rich banks will grant you loans against your stock, even unvested stock. If the value plummets you get an unfriendly call from the bank.

      If the stock goes down, the executives' net worth goes down. And, worse, many will have to dip into their own cash reserves. I doubt they'd want to risk their existing wealth on such a hair-brained scheme.

      Now, it might make more sense for somebody outside the company to do this. But then that would require alot of trust in the future of Sony, especially because the scheme requires buying Sony stock when they're in the middle of an unprecedented crisis.

      Please, people. If you're gonna concoct conspiracy theories, at least try a little harder. There are conspiracies all around you. But for some reason the people who like the most to spin conspiracy theories are the ones totally in the dark about reality.

      As always, the truth is stranger (and more maddening and more dangerous) than fiction.

    7. Re: Marketing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Marketing? by DexterIsADog · · Score: 2

      ...At least this way the focus on finding and killing the hackers as gone up.

      This caught my eye. Really? We've decide to kill the hackers? Somehow I don't think the president would sanction killing people who have not physically hurt U.S. citizens as a "proportionate response".

      I was writing that last sentence seriously, but then thought, "hey, this is the president who ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen who just made some YouTube rants - of course he'd consider killing them.

      But actually, no. The president will not order, or sanction, the killing of the douchebags who hacked Sony.

    9. Re: Marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re: Marketing? by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Marketing? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The hackers are now terrorists who have threatened millions of lives in a 9/11 style attack.

      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?

    12. Re:Marketing? by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    13. Re:Marketing? by kamapuaa · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this specific case, BMG was a separate music company that Sony purchased shortly before the scandal. There wasn't a guy working in a Sony office in Japan who approved the rootkit. It happened nine years ago, it didn't actually act as a backdoor to people getting hacked, and I think it's time for Slashdot to get over it.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  2. put up or shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just get on with it already. unless you don't have it.

  3. calling it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:calling it by SternisheFan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could just have easily been an inside job, done with portable drives, backed by any faction. We just do not have enough proof, one way or another, as to who's truly responsible. Nothing worth going to war over.

    2. Re:calling it by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      I see. So you will just assume the opposite when a US government law enforcement agencies makes a statements ... in all cases, without proof. (Because you really think you're going to get definitive proof of every statement they make?) I think you might have "jumped the shark" there. And frankly I find it amusing that you are effectively believing North Korea's denials.

      As to that "WMD bullshit fiasco" .... (assuming you're talking about Iraq instead of Libya that surrendered its WMDs, or Syria which (supposedly) surrendered its WMDs) ..... can I ask a few clarifying questions?

      Did Iraq invade Kuwait and Iran?
      Did Iraq attack Saudi Arabia and Israel?
      Did Iraq use WMDs against Iran?
      Did Iraq threatened to use WMDs against Israel and other countries?
      Did Iraq use WMDs to kill large numbers of Kurds?
      Is Iraq filled with hundreds of mass graves due to Saddams mass murder?
      After the 2003 invasion were illegal long range missiles found in Iraq?
      After the 2003 invasion were illegal empty chemical warheads for long range missiles found?
      Was Iraq supporting terrorism, such as the Abu Nidal organization, and Palestinian suicide bombers, and many others?
      Was Iraq engaged in massive corruption in the Oil for Food program, bribing officials around the world while it diverted money to weapons and building palaces for Saddam?
      Was Iraq shooting at Coalition aircraft on a more or less daily basis? (An act of war.)
      Were live chemical and biological weapons found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion?
      Did Saddam have the Iraqi government act as if it still had hidden chemical weapons to fool Iran since it thought the Western powers wouldn't do anything?

      The answer to all of those is "Yes." There were something like 20 causes of action against Iraq, and only 1 of them wasn't found to be true. The only reason it wasn't was because after having fooled UN inspectors for years the Iraqi government secretly dumped its supply of VX nerve gas somewhere in the desert but didn't claim credit for it and still had the government continue to act as if it still had chemical weapons but was hiding them.

      Does that help? Or do you still not really understand what was going on?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:calling it by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Well then, until you take a plane to South Korea, examine the situation yourself (how will you convince the banks to let you look?), and spend probably a couple of years developing the expertise on how the North Koreans operate to say one way or another you don't have much useful to say on the matter I would guess. Can we rely upon your silence until you have that expertise and direct access to evidence?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. Re:anon by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Anonymous" is a floating designation, not the same people all the time - so it's hard to define them.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  5. Re:and under the law any uploading the torrent fel by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's that? Sharing copyrighted movies (released or otherwise) is against the law?

    Thank you, Joe_Dragon. We had absolutely no idea.
    We'd better contact these Anonymous guys and let them know, right? I'm sure they would change their mind if they were made aware if this information.
    Thank you for linking us to that new information from that forum post from 2003.

  6. press coverage aweful by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:press coverage aweful by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Or people may actually enjoy watching stupid humor. God forbid a movie like Pineapple Express makes $100m at the boxoffice and comes in at number 2 behind The Dark Night.

      Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong about it.

  7. Re:Proving Again that Dictators Lack a Sense of Hu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only thing worse and with less sense of humor than the CIA is ... 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.

    Don't fall victim to the false narrative of NK being run by nutjobs. No one runs a country, especially not for 50+ years without being extremely shrewed and cunning. They clearly don't give a fuck about regular citizens, but they sure know how to play other countries given the tiny amount of real power they have. Don't let them play you too.

    I've been idling watching the DPRK's actions over the last 15 years, and this article is the first one about the Sony hack that matches up with what all the serious scholars have been saying about the DPRK for decades.

    Here's the real reason North Korea hacked Sony. It has nothing to do with The Interview.

  8. Re:Marketing?... NOT! by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.
  9. Re:Proving Again that Dictators Lack a Sense of Hu by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    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

    Hey, nobody's perfect.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:I was wondering by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2
    I thought that Sony paid Anonymous to do it... That way they get back at North Korea, but have plausable deniability....

    I mean, if North Korea can get into Sony's network, why can't Anonymous?

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  11. Re:News Flash : All Corporate IT security is a jok by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Sony's Already Announced Release by CaTfiSh · · Score: 2
    ...through their Crackle online streaming service.

    http://nypost.com/2014/12/21/s...

  13. It's the battle of three armies . . . by mmell · · Score: 2
    1) The Koreans - the only ones explicitly in an army,

    2) Sony - no uniforms, but that much money, media control and political connectivity packs one helluva wallop, and

    3) Anonymous - (self-declared) internet "freedom fighters".

    Here's to hoping the US government does what's best instead of what it does best.