In your own post you listed a half dozen mistakes the IT organization made. I don't know how Sony's hack was done. But..
a) Is there any reason attachments shouldn't be sandboxed? b) Is there any reason that executables should ever pass through? c) Is there any reason that end users should be able to run an arbitrary executable? If PDFs are going to execute from email why not have that environment sandboxed? d) Is there any reason servers should be compromised just because clients are? e) Is there any reason they aren't running internal security on their network?
I doubt that Sony is under any obligation to have security that a nation state can't breach. For example may need to preserve depositors against 2 guys with handguns but not against an army.
Yeah I looked it up. Worst (or best case) regarding range of the Taepodong-2 does get you to ICBM territory. So very borderline. OK so they might have some terrible ICBMs I see your point.
When Iran and Lybia were both state sponsors of terrorism against the US, what did we do?
Well in the case of Iran we funded a major war against them that killed hundreds of thousands. We've harmed them diplomatically and hemmed them in. We've also backed other enemies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As for Libya we hit them with sanctions weakened their influence and then just recently helped flip the government.
How about Saudi Arabia's support of Al Quieda?
Saudi Arabia's government doesn't support Al Qaeda. Their population does. And our response is to help keep the Saudi government in power.
How about Pakistan's ongoing support of the Taliban?
Well Pakistan's government is split. Mainly we back the anti Taliban factions. We also have conducted frequently drone strikes on their soil.
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
Of course I'd prefer they not die in the first place. But the real question is do I want my kid living in constant fear of unlikely but possible threats or do I want her to enjoy a full rich life even if it involves some risk. And as a country I think her capacity to live a full rich life is gone if we allow others to control our internal culture.
I don't know why the Japanese are so blase about North Korea. I don't know why the South Koreans are. But I do know I don't want the USA to be if they are going to start that nonsense here.
Take the Korean war. If the South had indicated they wanted to join with the North the USA would have had a tough time stopping them. If the North had indicated they wanted to join with the South the Soviets would have had a hard time stopping them.
The rest of your post is basically saying that given the options the Koreans choose to evolve as two separate peoples with differing values and government philosophies. Sure. But that's not the west directly doing it, it is the west creating the conditions under which it could happen. The Koreans are the ones doing it.
the fight ensured that it was a far bigger, nastier, and longer war than it would have been otherwise
I don't know about longer. There are plenty of ethnic conflicts that have gone on for centuries in countries. I'd argue the bigger, nastier probably means shorter.
If either of the superpowers had stayed out of it, one or the other side would have won the war reasonably quickly.
I'm assuming if both superpowers had stayed out of it. Otherwise you are just talking about the conquest of at least a large chunk of Korea. If both stayed out of it, I'm not sure it would be over quickly. It might very well be that they couldn't unify. I suspect the South wins without interference at this point since the economy is so much larger.
Its also important to keep in mind that outsiders of all types have been fiddling around in Korea since the 1600s- first the Chinese, then an incident with the American-owned ship "General Sherman", then the Japanese, then the USSR and USA
That's the case with every country. All countries get fiddled with. Powerful countries spend a tremendous amount of their time managing the weaker ones. Weak ones tend to be proxy for a strong one. Middle power get stuck in the middle quite often between various powerful ones. That's not unique to Korea. I'm sure France would have liked to have not lost to Prussia then had a 1/3rd of their young men wiped out a generation and a half later by Germany and then be conquered in the next generation and then having their economy reorder for the next 2 in line with German priorities.
Given that history, it shouldn't be surprising that they turned inward and cut ties with the West and South Korea, which is strongly aligned with the USA.
They've done more than turn inward. They've been provoking the USA, South Korea and Japan for 60 years. If they wanted a quiet life of seclusion there wouldn't be nearly this much stress.
Well I voted for Obama not McCain in 2008 as did millions of other Americans. He played it cool and McCain freaked out. So score one against heads cut off. And arguably his victory in the primary was another vote against a hysteric.
Actually our government isn't panicking on this one. The media, the theater chains and Sony are the ones panicking.
I agree. This suit is bizarre. Feel free to educate me if I'm underestimating how bizarre. But my understanding of the claim was that Apple used monopoly DRM to raise the price of iPods and that was the restraint of trade act.
Sony Pictures for whatever reason is being considered American and not Japanese. The place this attack took place is the USA. Protecting the territory of the USA from attack from foreign powers is the number 1 job of the USA government. Since the USA is a democracy that means it is my government's job.
I think Fred Phelps is a jerk (worse than Sony). But if he were still alive he's an American. One a foreign power attacks an American it really doesn't matter too much whether he is a jerk or not.
If North Korea is ready to start conducting physical bombings on USA soil then the proper response is a declaration of war. At the very least counter attacks well beyond what they did. We cannot cave into these sorts of threats. We haven't in the past and North Korea threatens us pretty much daily.
And they would lose badly, being found liable. Once a foreign power is involved normal liability doesn't apply. The law isn't crazy. People die in wars. It is not in the interests of our government to encourage people to cooperate with foreign attackers. That's why you didn't see all sorts of lawsuits regarding minor stuff that happened during 9/11.
There were probably meetings. What Sony can do is publicly tell the theater groups to go even a hint of spine, hold a press conference announcing a huge Christmas release and tell the fearless leader to bring it. That's what they can do.
Heck, when one someone starts advocating fundamentally subversive to the Bill of Rights legal changes, charge their ass with sedition and lock them up.
Absolutely! Nothing could be more in keeping with the Bill of Rights than having widespread systematic imprisonment for expressing views you disagree with.
Agree with what you wrote in spirit. Just a minor correction. While they have long range missiles (terrible quality BTW) they don't actually have an ICBM.
The bottom line is that families were split apart and have remained apart for 60 years directly because of squabbling between the US and the former Soviet Union.
Directly because? Certainly the USA and the Soviet Union encouraged the hostility but the Korean people aren't robots. The reason North and South Korea are apart and have such lousy relations is because of Koreans. Non Europeans are also responsible for their actions.
Sony are sometimes jerks regarding stuff like DRM. They don't starve millions of their own people to death. I'm not unclear about which side I'm on in this one.
Sony is a big corporation. They do about $200m in revenue per day. The idea that some tin pot dictator can import his censorship into the United States is unthinkable.
The head of the Port Authority was not fired for 9/11, no one is going to want to fire the head of Sony pictures for this.
I can't do much about this and neither can you. But if you would to be a little bit constructive I started a petition: https://www.change.org/p/regal...
I went to events where there were terrorist threats. New Years 2000 being a great example. No you don't live in fear and no you don't let them create hysteria.
Slashdot Mirror
In your own post you listed a half dozen mistakes the IT organization made. I don't know how Sony's hack was done. But..
a) Is there any reason attachments shouldn't be sandboxed?
b) Is there any reason that executables should ever pass through?
c) Is there any reason that end users should be able to run an arbitrary executable? If PDFs are going to execute from email why not have that environment sandboxed?
d) Is there any reason servers should be compromised just because clients are?
e) Is there any reason they aren't running internal security on their network?
etc...
That sounds like they did a dreadful job.
North Korea attacked. This was state sponsored. That's the difference between the people who die every month in car crashes and 9/11.
I doubt that Sony is under any obligation to have security that a nation state can't breach. For example may need to preserve depositors against 2 guys with handguns but not against an army.
Yeah I looked it up. Worst (or best case) regarding range of the Taepodong-2 does get you to ICBM territory. So very borderline. OK so they might have some terrible ICBMs I see your point.
Well in the case of Iran we funded a major war against them that killed hundreds of thousands. We've harmed them diplomatically and hemmed them in. We've also backed other enemies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As for Libya we hit them with sanctions weakened their influence and then just recently helped flip the government.
Saudi Arabia's government doesn't support Al Qaeda. Their population does. And our response is to help keep the Saudi government in power.
Well Pakistan's government is split. Mainly we back the anti Taliban factions. We also have conducted frequently drone strikes on their soil.
Of course I'd prefer they not die in the first place. But the real question is do I want my kid living in constant fear of unlikely but possible threats or do I want her to enjoy a full rich life even if it involves some risk. And as a country I think her capacity to live a full rich life is gone if we allow others to control our internal culture.
I don't know why the Japanese are so blase about North Korea. I don't know why the South Koreans are. But I do know I don't want the USA to be if they are going to start that nonsense here.
Take the Korean war. If the South had indicated they wanted to join with the North the USA would have had a tough time stopping them. If the North had indicated they wanted to join with the South the Soviets would have had a hard time stopping them.
The rest of your post is basically saying that given the options the Koreans choose to evolve as two separate peoples with differing values and government philosophies. Sure. But that's not the west directly doing it, it is the west creating the conditions under which it could happen. The Koreans are the ones doing it.
I don't know about longer. There are plenty of ethnic conflicts that have gone on for centuries in countries. I'd argue the bigger, nastier probably means shorter.
I'm assuming if both superpowers had stayed out of it. Otherwise you are just talking about the conquest of at least a large chunk of Korea. If both stayed out of it, I'm not sure it would be over quickly. It might very well be that they couldn't unify. I suspect the South wins without interference at this point since the economy is so much larger.
That's the case with every country. All countries get fiddled with. Powerful countries spend a tremendous amount of their time managing the weaker ones. Weak ones tend to be proxy for a strong one. Middle power get stuck in the middle quite often between various powerful ones. That's not unique to Korea. I'm sure France would have liked to have not lost to Prussia then had a 1/3rd of their young men wiped out a generation and a half later by Germany and then be conquered in the next generation and then having their economy reorder for the next 2 in line with German priorities.
They've done more than turn inward. They've been provoking the USA, South Korea and Japan for 60 years. If they wanted a quiet life of seclusion there wouldn't be nearly this much stress.
Well I voted for Obama not McCain in 2008 as did millions of other Americans. He played it cool and McCain freaked out. So score one against heads cut off. And arguably his victory in the primary was another vote against a hysteric.
Actually our government isn't panicking on this one. The media, the theater chains and Sony are the ones panicking.
I agree. This suit is bizarre. Feel free to educate me if I'm underestimating how bizarre. But my understanding of the claim was that Apple used monopoly DRM to raise the price of iPods and that was the restraint of trade act.
Sony Pictures for whatever reason is being considered American and not Japanese. The place this attack took place is the USA. Protecting the territory of the USA from attack from foreign powers is the number 1 job of the USA government. Since the USA is a democracy that means it is my government's job.
I think Fred Phelps is a jerk (worse than Sony). But if he were still alive he's an American. One a foreign power attacks an American it really doesn't matter too much whether he is a jerk or not.
We don't fine mugging victims for not knowing karate. Sony had bad security, Sony is learning that. The issue is North Korea not Sony.
If North Korea is ready to start conducting physical bombings on USA soil then the proper response is a declaration of war. At the very least counter attacks well beyond what they did. We cannot cave into these sorts of threats. We haven't in the past and North Korea threatens us pretty much daily.
And they would lose badly, being found liable. Once a foreign power is involved normal liability doesn't apply. The law isn't crazy. People die in wars. It is not in the interests of our government to encourage people to cooperate with foreign attackers. That's why you didn't see all sorts of lawsuits regarding minor stuff that happened during 9/11.
There were probably meetings. What Sony can do is publicly tell the theater groups to go even a hint of spine, hold a press conference announcing a huge Christmas release and tell the fearless leader to bring it. That's what they can do.
Absolutely! Nothing could be more in keeping with the Bill of Rights than having widespread systematic imprisonment for expressing views you disagree with.
I agree. Our government's response in letting the theaters do this bad. We just made a problem much worse.
This is an attack by a foreign power. Laws regarding war apply.
Agree with what you wrote in spirit. Just a minor correction. While they have long range missiles (terrible quality BTW) they don't actually have an ICBM.
Directly because? Certainly the USA and the Soviet Union encouraged the hostility but the Korean people aren't robots. The reason North and South Korea are apart and have such lousy relations is because of Koreans. Non Europeans are also responsible for their actions.
Sony are sometimes jerks regarding stuff like DRM. They don't starve millions of their own people to death. I'm not unclear about which side I'm on in this one.
We've lost it. It is pathetic. Agree completely. Even if this was a credible threat we shouldn't cave.
Sony is a big corporation. They do about $200m in revenue per day. The idea that some tin pot dictator can import his censorship into the United States is unthinkable.
The head of the Port Authority was not fired for 9/11, no one is going to want to fire the head of Sony pictures for this.
First off Sony has already lost millions from the hacking. How would a bombing have cost millions to Sony?
I can't do much about this and neither can you. But if you would to be a little bit constructive I started a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/regal...
I went to events where there were terrorist threats. New Years 2000 being a great example. No you don't live in fear and no you don't let them create hysteria.