So what if North Korea did it (of course I'm skeptical of this, anyone with a computer can conduct the same activities, with the motivator of trolling the entire world for fun). It's not a big deal, it's not something that requires US presidential intervention. It's not even remotely as big of a deal as the CIA torture report that just came out. The CIA report threatens our legitimacy as a world power. The Sony hack just costs a corporation some money, maybe (free publicity FTW). Big. Deal.
If this is the worst a hacker can do, I'd love to see all future wars replaced with hacking. I'll take that over agent orange and torture any day.
This sad, sick notion that hackers are terrorist enemy #1 and this is the most important thing governments should be working on is, like this movie will probably be, shitty fiction, a self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by Hollywood in movies like War Games that make it look like we're all going to be nuked thousands of times if we don't stop the Hacker menace. Help me change the media's perception of hacking before we start throwing more whistleblowers and e-graffiti artists in prison.
TLDR: Sony got hacked, too bad, learn a lesson and fix your computer security, let's not start WW3 over it shall we?
It is a big deal actually. Sony and these movie theaters taught the world that US businesses are so risk averse that they will give into any threat - credible or not. The crazies will now come out of the woodwork. Not every business will give in, but the volume of threats and the disruption they cause will vastly increase.
A foreign dictator just told the US population that it isn't allowed to see a movie he doesn't like (false flag conspiracy theories aside - sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be). I am not sure how anyone can think this isn't a big deal worthy of presidential intervention.
That's brilliant. (I assume this refers to defacement s/kiddies)
Wars vs more script kiddies and you'd really choose the wars? I'm disgusted.
Leaving an ever accumlating pile of embarassing communications for someone to steal and then extort you for is not a national security weakness.
Add that a narrative around this story is that the hackers "spear phished" an IT admin. This is incredibly difficult to defend against for any organization (seriously -- for all of the browbeating against Sony on here -- it's all so simple -- I would argue that there are zero organizations that would withstand a concerted, targeted attack. Most would fall in a day). Not only did they purportedly co-opt a privileged account, they then sat on it for months.
Over months they could have changed policies, retrieved backups, and on and on.
When blaming Sony, everyone needs to remember that Snowden, a Dell contractor working at the NSA with limited access, took the King's Ransom from what is assumed to be the pinnacle of computer security and awareness.
Hackers to Sony: We'll stand down if you never release the movie.... "Now we want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of, for instance, DVD or piracy. And we want everything related to the movie, including its trailers, as well as its full version down from any website hosting them immediately." [They] warn the studio executives that, "we still have your private and sensitive data" and claims that they will "ensure the security of your data unless you make additional trouble." [2]
Imagine Sony putting it on BitTorrent with a pre-roll asking viewers to donate money to a charity of their choice through a micro-site they setup to track how much has been given. Or something.... This is actually a moment in history where Sony could truly shine.
But back in reality, whatever is in those held-back stolen docs, they probably need time to prepare for the fallout. If they can stall the remaining doc release by stalling the movie release, they can buy themselves some time. In the meantime, the audience for the film is growing daily, but I think will peak and fall if they wait too long.
[1] - http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-president-obama-the-intervi...
[2] - http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-interv...
If they want this movie out, they could make it happen tomorrow.
This is just PR speak. They might cave and release anyway, but Lynton's statement is deliberately weak and duplicitous, once again attempting to deflect all blame from themselves rather than admit to any mistake on their part.
I'm more interested at this point in figuring out what this means for the future. Do we live in a world now where state-actors will target specific companies and basically try to rip them to shreds and extort them? Now I'm supposed to personally defend my company and my network against state-sponsored targeted persistent threats?
It should be possible to lock down individual machines which aren't ever supposed to be networked. That's hard enough. I'm personally of the belief that any networked device is ultimately hack-able up to the physical constraints of the network. It's all about how much it will cost an attacker to gain access, and how much they can steal once they get it.
If governments start routinely sponsoring these attacks, I'm very concerned the cost-levels we impose today are 5 - 6 orders of magnitude too low, and the network bandwidth 5 - 6 orders of magnitude too high, to deter these types of attack.
I'm not blaming Sony for bad security, because as was stated elsewhere, spear-fishing of IT-admins is incredibly hard to protect against. However, depending on how bad the dirt is (and every big corporation probably has a bunch of rather smelly skeletons in the closet), some of that blame may lie with Sony. But if that is so, getting hacked just means they didn't get away with whatever incriminating stuff is in that data.
In reality, they're probably all scared shitless. If all of their employees' personal info has been compromised as reported, I can understand that they'd be worried about the possibility of someone getting hurt. Even a minor, harmless event could lead to bad press. Of course, no one believes that NK actually has the ability to inflict physical harm outside of their own country, but I can understand the Sony executives' hesitance to put that to the test.
If NK is not responsible, it really doesn't matter whether the movie is released. In this scenario, the hackers could easily leak the movie themselves under someone else's guise, providing an excellent excuse to continue their campaign of pure damage toward Sony Pictures. (Assuming they even bother.)
While you wouldn't think so, the North Korean regime does actually have (a few) supporters outside of North Korea. There are always someone who wants to believe that all the bad stuff is invented by regime opponents, regardless which regime you're talking about.
That's somewhat orthogonal to whether or not NK is behind it but the possibility of a nation state being involved must affect their calculations.
If only we had passed SOPA and CISPA, we'd be so much safer right now.
The FBI told Sony they didn't know if the theaters were safe. Seriously, WTF are we paying them for if they can't tell us, with absolute certainty, that our theaters are safe from terrorist attacks on Christmas. That's not very comforting...
So what I'm hearing is, we have no confidence in our national defense, and no ability to prevent, mitigate, or even simply deter these increasingly brutal cyber-attacks... Yeah, actually the last thing I'm worried about right now is CISPA. Like it or not, network defense just became a national security prerogative.
OK, so that's the counter-argument right? So this has been very well played and I don't see how you derail it now.
I think people just want to see the film. I certainly want to see the film. It might have a crappy plot or a second-rate screenplay or subpar acting, but with this sort of publicity none of that matters. Just watching it will be an event, perhaps an even bigger event than watching The Last Temptation of Christ was way-back-when...
Anyway, Sony seems to be in a defiant stance. It doesn't seem like Sony is going to yield; it seems like they are going to just find an alternative distribution path: "No thanks, 2600. We got this. After all, this is the sort of hype that we'd... uhh... kill for.... uh..."
However, I applaud 2600's proposal because it points in the right direction: a calm, nonviolent but assertive refusal to be intimidated, rather than the hysterical paranoia and escalation of threats we are seeing all too much of in recent years.
That brings up a good point. Perhaps Sony should even consider using the controversy in its marketing, then later make claims about how much more successful the film was than projected, thanks to the added publicity (which will almost certainly be true).
Not only would it show defiance, it would underscore the paradoxical effect of trying to stifle free speech in this manner. And, that might provide the biggest disincentive of all for future prevention: demonstration of ineffectivness.
It's unclear why the release was canceled. Maybe Sony wants to just put this whole thing behind them. Maybe they want to curtail any further leaks that they feel may be worse. Perhaps the executives feel that being a victim of a foreign nation absolves them of any culpability and they're playing that card to the greatest extent they can. But I highly doubt they're going to make any about face on a policy issue and are still very much against free speech as far as the internet is concerned. If anything this incident will be used to bolster their arguments and to that end maybe it has worked out better for them than "The Interview" ever could.
Wasn't it last December that NK was sending fax messages to communicate with SK? Now they can download Terabytes from Sony without anyone noticing?
The NK/Interview link came out of nowhere and the group seemed to just go along with it. If this isn't Media Hyping, I don't know what is. Sony hacked for the nth time - barely newsworthy by now. Sony cyberattacked by cyberterrorists and your real-world-kids possibly in very grave danger from a cyberbomb in a theater - NewsGold(tm).
Can everyone stop using the NK link as a fact in this case? Thanks.
PS: In case you missed it, NK denied involvement in this early on. Usually this wouldn't mean much (a state's denials? please) but remember who we're talking about here! When has NK passed up an opportunity to display their superiority?
I mean it's obvious that they don't care about security or that they do care but they value flexibility more, than tight security. Either way I don't understand the nature of the offer, maybe it's pure irony and I missed it.
Seriously though, while the plot of the film is both purile and offensive to the North Korean dictator personally, should NK be behind the attack on Sony (im still not convinced) then it is definitely an ulterly inappropriate response.
Problem is, and this is a genuine question, how should they have responded? Is the western media, specifically the US media going to publish a written complaint from NK? Probably not right. I'm not justifying their response in any way, but would be curious to know if they have any way at all to complain.
I'm playing devil's advocate here before anyone starts assuming I'm some NK sympathiser. I too would like to see the NK people freed from the tyranny and death camps they currently live under the constant threat of.
I imagine that many major US newspapers would love to publish an op-ed by Kim Jong-un. The New York Times, for example, published this op-ed by Vladimir Putin last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau....
Except from the fact that it's a boring script, I don't see nothing wrong with it and I'm pretty sure that you an do a movie like that anytime you'd like in the US. I'm pretty sure the government will not send hackers to attack the studio... For making fun of any figure. In the late night show the host makes fun of virtually everyone and anything. Satire shows pretty much the level of a democracy.
ps. Consider that I'm very critical of the US gov. But it's absolutely nowhere near N. Korea if that was your point.
The film studio quite deliberately decided not to make a film about assassinating Vladamir Butin, or Angela Derkel.
I also find such a plot puerile. That was my point. Also read my original last sentence.
If they want to stop as many people from seeing the film as possible, then they should have done nothing. If they wanted to send a message that NK has the technical abilities to fuck up American (/Western) businesses, then they did the 'right' thing. If they wanted to score a less aggressive propaganda win, then they probably should have incorporated it into their next round of talks or something.
I'm playing devil's advocate above, the last sentence was fairly clear about that, just in case you missed it.
Scene. Oval Office. Red telephone rings. Ring ring...
Obama: Hey David, what's up dude?
Cameron: um, you know, this new film about me being blown
up in my Prime Ministerial helicopter by some of your
special agents, because I'm an evil dictator?
Obama: Oh, yes. Funny. Got a sneak preview of that. They
got you and your Eton homies down bro
Cameron: hmm, yes. You know, could you ask them to stop
it? You know, or I'll let the GCHQ boys loose on the old
reservation if you know what I mean...
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they are such a perfect scapegoat, and more importantly, that is why I find it so suspicious.
N.B. If it isn't obvious, my 'script' above is offensive. Whether or not I like or support David Cameron policies is irrelevant, but he's still my Prime Minister and he's a real person with a wife and child. Similarly Barack Obama is not some gangbanger, he's a smart man with noble beliefs (albeit a button that got pushed to make him flip flop on the NSA but who wouldn't), but still both British people and American people might find that script offensive. And just to be absolutely crystal clear, David Cameron having GCHQ hack a US film studio is of course an incredibly imbalanced response.
Saving people who want to see a movie $10 is the best gift to humanity you can think of? (jk) It would definitely send a message but considering the loses they've already made from this + the hack they need to exploit the situation and make as much money as possible.
"if you want to put it online, you can put it on our website full of anti-governmental rants"
Ummm... All right. If Sony wants to put it online, they will find other ways.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-re...
1) Sony gets hacked. A big hack, but just a hack.
2) Sony pulls a movie because it offends a nasty dictator identified by name.
Why are these connected? It's not as if they learned about the movie from the hack? I've seen the ad for that movie a few times, and I'm pretty sure that the spymasters in North Korea can watch the same Seinfeld reruns that I do.
Why is the ridiculousness over Sony pulling the picture (PR stunt or not) at all related to the hack?
Sony got hacked, the hackers said if you halt release of the film we'll stop releasing your private data.
The release was cancelled, the hackers stop releasing private data.
It doesn't take a data scientist to put those two together.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/sony-north-korea-the-i...
Sony left the decision up to the theater chains, and those chains were reported to back away from the movie because of the legal liability if there were a terrorist incident.
There is a fairly well defined limit to free speech, e.g. yelling "fire!" in a theater. Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory.
But as far as Obama's quip against Sony goes... I was really surprised to read that. I think it's tone-deaf for Obama to call out Sony. First of all, it was the theaters not Sony who refused to show it. Second of all, it was the FBI who told the theaters they couldn't guarantee they weren't going to get hit by terrorists on Christmas. What?!
Yes, the capitulation is absolutely shocking and terrible. That's what Obama should be saying. But victim blaming? It's like blaming the kidnapping victim for doing what they're told so they don't get hurt. Sony still has a gun to their head, they are still being actively extorted!
Edit: @icebraining set me straight.
No, no it's not. It's an insensitive, assholish and petty action, but it does not constitute an incitation to immediate violation of the law, including but not exclusively because it was announced beforehand.
I hope not. Making capitulation to a threat, implied or explicit would be the exact opposite of freedom of speech. You would not be able to speak out against... anything.
Which is a completely legal thing to do, provided there is actually a fire.
no it does not...almost everyone in the world understand that under certain conditions, torture to get potentially life-saving information is just the way of things.
let me put it this way...if your immediate family was going to be blown up in two hours, wouldn't you say go ahead and torture that guy who you KNOW has information on how to diffuse the bomb?
Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/no...
Then how do you explain this case in Germany where simply threatening torture resulted in the perpetrator divulging the location of his victim: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa...
it is absolutely morally wrong, but it certainly can be effective and has been used throughout history. usually, things that don't work don't last anywhere near that long.
there are all sorts of reasons to oppose it, which of course I do, but saying it cannot be effective just isn't one of them.
Dozens of others were held for no reason at all, later released as having been found innocent.
If the US did torture someone in a scenario where the public was in imminent danger they would likely be exonerated in (at least) the court of public opinion. That's not what happened here, though.
There was NO ticking time bomb. And even if there was, torture STILL would not work, for all the same reasons, and it would just waste precious time.
You've just demonstrated that you're not thinking rationally, and that you're just reacting to and parroting emotional pro-torture propaganda.
That doesn't win your argument, it just shows what kind of a person you truly are: a war crime apologist, who panders to people's worst fears and emotions, to support ineffective torture, as a means to your actual ends: revenge.
The intelligence that you get from someone being tortured is worthless - people say whatever you want to hear in oder to make the torture stop.
There is never a situation where there's some ticking bomb.
Finally, torture is prohibited under a wide number of international treaties. Even the US uses phrases like "Enhanced Interogation Techniques" because they accept that torture is wrong.
Somebody torturing a man that has his family held hostage is entirely different than state sponsored torture. I think that should be obvious.
People understand the fact that on the battlefield, sometimes torture happens, even when it shouldn't. When a soldier tortures somebody they just captured to keep their fellow soldiers alive, we don't agree with it, but there's a different mentality surrounding it. When the government TELLS that soldier to torture somebody, then it's a different matter entirely. This same idea is at work with your example above.
See... bullshit hypotheticals can prove the opposite point too.
I kid, but this hack was pretty damn deep.
Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other, then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expression rather than brazenly going ahead ignoring sensitivities of others.
If the story line as I understand from mass media is, assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and if North Korea protested it, then Sony should have understand and accommodated the sensitivities of North Korea and stopped making this movie. It is not censorship as President Obama noted.
People on HN voiced concern on NSA surveillance ...etc, since many felt privacy/anonymity is violated...etc. Just like you have sensitivities, North Korea too has sensitivities and it is natural to expect, others to understand them. Whether it is, dictatorship or democracy and their relative merits/demerits is different point of discussion.
I am neither supporting hacker's attack on Sony nor North Korea but Sony in first place, should have considered the sensitivities of other cultures, even if they are alien to your culture and act accordingly, given the story line.
Arts should further enable the stability or peace on earth and you may not achieve peace by hurting sentiments of others.
The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not exist in free democracies. Everything should be open for debate, discussion, parody, etc..
Not producing a movie because someone might feel insulted by it and then throw a temper tantrum is censorship by proxy in its purest form. The tyranny of sensibilities may be justified by humanitarian arguments (i.e.: "peace on Earth" !) but it is, more often than not, a disguise totalitarian doctrines take to silence opponents.
The fact that this attack allegedly comes from the last Stalinian regime - the worst dictatorship still in existence - certainly points to a totalitarian motive.
Genuine question: Why is that?
This also really has nothing to do with a silly little movie called "The Interview". The movie is a footnote in a brutal attack on Sony which left their entire network destroyed, their PCs wiped, their entire data set stolen and published, their employees and partners and customers terribly exposed, and all this used to extort them...
As for peaceful co-existence and all that, such a thing can only be possible not by retaliating when we are offended, but by understanding we have a right to be offended, and a right to express our outrage peacefully and constructively.
Edit: Imagine a world where Kim Jong-un posts a video statement on kim.nk decrying the movie and asking for support in a world wide boycott. This is how mature adults respond to such a situation. Oh wait, I almost forgot, he's a brutal dictator bent on world destruction. Seriously, your comment blows my mind.
>>> As for peaceful co-existence and all that, such a thing can only be possible not by retaliating when we are offended, but by understanding we have a right to be offended, and a right to express our outrage peacefully and constructively.
I would like to see examples of this approach getting succeeded between different countries with different scales/opinions on justice,fairness. Whatever may be the reasons/circumstances, West did not pursued this approach after 9/11. I live in India which pursued peaceful/constructive approach after 26/11 but literally no change has occurred. So this looks proper approach in theory but not practical.
Interestingly enough, The Interview never actually hurt the feelings of the North Korean people. In order to do that, they'd have to learn about it first. And there's nothing less likely to find its way into a closed society than a comedy about the assassination of that society's leader. But that's largely irrelevant: we don't live in a society that enforces "respect" at the expense of individual liberties.
There's a significant difference between being able to respectfully engage cultural differences and blindly accepting the abuses and atrocities. Particularly when we're talking about the sort of practices that make North Korea, well, North Korea (which have nothing to do with a Korean culture that dates back centuries and everything to do with one family's mad desire for absolute power).
Apparently, that movie was ok, so why shouldn't this have been?
There is always people whose sensitivity gets hurt by movies and books, but this should not automatically lead to stopping publishing.
>>> There is always people whose sensitivity gets hurt by movies and books, but this should not automatically lead to stopping publishing.
There are "defamation laws" in many countries. Many people/companies use them if they feel offended/hurt, even if they are not noble. This incident may be the same for NK.