Wikileaks Publishes Hacked Sony Emails, Documents 143
itwbennett writes Wikileaks has published a searchable database of thousands of emails and documents from Sony Pictures Entertainment that were leaked in late 2014 after the studio was attacked by hackers. Some of the 173,132 emails and 30,287 documents contain highly personal information about Sony employees including home addresses, personal phone numbers and social security numbers, a fact which is likely to raise new concerns about the use of stolen information online.
WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:3, Insightful)
They may have a "lofty ideal," but they ruin innocent bystanders lives.
Re:WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He was always there... waiting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not data leaked with the purpose of exposing a wrong.
This is no better than posting nude selfies ripped from celebrities' phones.
Re:WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:5, Informative)
WTF are you talking about?
Inside Sony's Mysterious 'Red Pockets': Hackers Blow Open China Bribery Probe [forbes.com]
Sony Probed India Business for Corruption, E-Mails Show [bloomberg.com]
There are more cases, even including bribery of US politicians, but I couldn't find a link in 5 seconds so I leave that to the people interested to find.
There is plenty of stuff in the leaked data that Sony doesn't want to get spread because it shows that they are engaging in criminal activity on a global level.
The "It's only personal data, think about the children!" nonsense is a lame attempt at covering up their wrongdoings and make people not look to closely into the leaked e-mails.
Re:WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:5, Interesting)
The "It's only personal data, think about the children!" nonsense is a lame attempt at covering up their wrongdoings and make people not look to closely into the leaked e-mails.
And that's why journalists practice editing and redaction!! So you don't harm the janitor who is trying to feed his family because of the conniving actions of the CEO. And that's the difference between Assange and responsible (or even HUMANE) journalism.
The publicly useless, personal data and the revealing revelations of business dealings are two separate things. They should be managed as such.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Doxxing employees who just happen to be trying to make ends meet are not going to help anyone's cause. It just makes Wikileaks look more like a rogue site. Piss off the powers that be enough, and Wikileaks will suffer the same fate as the Silk Road.
Yes, dumping socials of schmucks online will give Wikileaks their 15 minutes, which is a short term gain... but people have long memories, and the fact that they hurt a lot of average Joes who have little to do with Sony is going to hurt their cause in the long
Re: (Score:1)
Totally agree. It's just mindless and lazy arrogance to do something this incredibly irresponsible.
Re:WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:5, Informative)
First of all this is an edited version. The OMG PERSONLYA INFORMATIN! is Sonys claim to try to prevent the incriminating stuff from spreading. If you actually look at what Wikileaks provide you see that they have provided way more than Sony wants them to but way less than Sony claims they do.
The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
It is still better than the information provided by Sony since it is done by a third party. It is not as good as raw data.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
Editing wouldn't hurt credibility if they had a specific policy for redacting unrelated private addresses. Even without redactions how do you know they haven't removed entire documents? How do you know they didn't modify them from the original source? They likely publish everything because it reduces their burden and risk. They probably don't have the resources to sift through the materials, and they don't want to have to store the unredacted originals because they would now be a target for those who want m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct but off topic. Assange is not involved in this in any way.
And as bad as he is, he does not even approach the kind of evil Sony stands for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Could someone explain to me that it's a bad thing that Sony was investigating subcontractors and a foreign subsidiary for signs of corruption? Not being forced to, not being charged with it, but on their own? Isn't this what we want companies to do when they find evidence that there may be illegal or immoral activity among some of their employees? Or is this some sort of horrible shocking news that a company with 140,000 employees just within the main unit itself might have to police itself?
And let's not pretend that we're idiots here and that this sort of stuff makes up even the tinest fraction of a fraction of a percent of the leaked, non-redacted material full of personal information about regular employees doing nothing wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
And let's not pretend that we're idiots here...
Some of us aren't pretending.
Re: WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:1)
And with this raw data, journalists can do that.
So can DoJ and other prosecutors.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks performs an important public service ... and does it badly.
The U.S. Constitution recognizes that it is necessary to violate privacy to expose wrong-doing, but places limits on the government's authority to do so "unreasonably", because the very act of doing so can be harmful to those who are not guilty. We shouldn't applaud when a private entity violates others' privacy even more irresponsibly than the government.
Re: (Score:2)
The first step was pulling my head out of my ass. Let me know when you've finished that, and I'll walk you through the rest.
Re:WikiLeaks are fuckers (Score:4)
Wikileaks didn't publish the information, they are just archiving it. It's out there already, redacting it would have done nothing because anyone who cares can just grab the whole archive off any number of torrent sites or Usenet.
Wikileaks redacts when it is the only source of a leak. When the leaked information is available elsewhere unredacted it merely keeps and archive copy to make sure it stays online.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be such a neigh-sayer!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's highly unlikely there is any bystander left. It's simply naive to believe that someone is not secretly hashing out all the posted data -- be reminded that it was already on P2P when Wikileaks pick it up -- for example various governments, or their agencies, or even competitors of Sony. The journalists were probably the slowest since they probably do not have the sophisticated tools the other players can use, while the journalists are really the only link between interesting information and interesting
They're FUCKING GREAT! (Score:1)
Have you read the emails?
1. The US government consults with Sony and other studios on pro-US propaganda.
2. Crazy pro-Israel nuts try to rope stars into their pro-Israel propaganda, when they don't agree he abuses them verbally.
3. Most of the execs are whiny bored ass-shats who should be thrown out on the streets to earn a real living.
That was just 10 minutes of searches. Number 1. in particular has me wondering if the US government actual compensates (i.e. pays money) to studios to promote propaganda agenda
Re: (Score:2)
What companies would you say innocent people can work at?
Re: (Score:1)
Any company not engaged in international bribery and accounting fraud on a massive scale, which most companies don't do.
And nothing of value was... gained? (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than some titillating gossip that was hashed out 3-4 months ago already, this seems less than newsworthy.
Re:And nothing of value was... gained? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's bullshit news. It only glorifies shame and schadenfreude.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The leaks prove the whole "North Korea" thing was bullshit.
It was all made up. North Korea never threatened Sony. The President was dragged out and an international incident started, and it was all because of a fake Popehat twitter account [newsweek.com] and Sony spinning the opportunity like a neutron star.
But it's all gossip yeah, lol. Assange is such a loser too. And a rapist. He's totally not likable and Wikileaks is a joke guys. Pshhaww! . Line B is the answer btw [explorable.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The President was dragged out and an international incident started...a fake Popehat twitter account
Twitter, Youtube, etc. Our president seems to take a lot of face value on these services (The Benghazi incident comes to mind.)
Re: And nothing of value was... gained? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you give him affirmative consent first.
Private details about employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing like proving your critics right while also accomplishing a lot of nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If they cared about that they'd find a better BDFL than Assange. Love him or hate him, he seems to be adept at making himself the story, which is the last thing you want if you're an organization like Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Private details about employees (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like anyone else with Wikileaks (which today amounts to only a handful of people) has any ability to change the head. As Assange put it, "I am the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, p**s off." There were lots of people that tried to get him to step down in late 2010. They are all no longer with Wikileaks, either by choice or by being explicitly kicked out.
Wikileaks could have been something great, long lasting, a major global value to society. In its early days it really looked like it was heading in that direction. Sadly ego can ruin any project. When you feel the need to start blackmailing Amnesty International for nearly a million dollars by threatening to not redact the names of their sources if they don't pay up, you've lost the moral high ground.
Re: (Score:1)
I would also lament the what could have been part of Wikileaks, though I don't understand why it still can't be? What stops the people who were sidelined by Assange from simply "forking" the project and launching their own endeavor?
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't everybody just go back to using Cryptome?
Cryptome == Wikileaks - (self promoting aspi douche)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget rapist too, or so he's been accused.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a fantastic diagnosis, doctor - I'm sure you didn't leap to any conclusions there at all.
Have you considered watching what Assange does, and listening to what he says? Coming to any OTHER conclusion would be the fantastic leap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Note Sony's added weasel word "belongs".
They don't actually dispute that it *is* in the public domain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
yeah - when they blow the door open on "big" govt and expose secrets kept from the people - we love them. When they expose the little guy - we don't like them.
Just because you come across stolen information doesn't mean you necessary can nor should share it with the world.
Does this email dump expose "Sony" or just prove what we already know - that we can all be dinks at times. News or Gossip?
Re: (Score:1)
Yep.
It is one thing to expose government lies, and something completely different when you expose ordinary peoples private information.
Hard to say you are concerned about government prying into your personal life when you violate the personal privacy of others.
At this point, Mr. Assange should man up and be open himself.
Re: (Score:1)
"Just because you come across stolen information doesn't mean you necessary can nor should share it with the world."
You act like they stumbled across a briefcase and decided to photocopy its contents and drop copies off at every street corner. The archive has been widely distributed across the internet already, what harm is there in them binding it and putting a copy of it in their library? This to me stinks of some of that garbage the US military tries to pull after each and every leak, punishing personn
Re: (Score:2)
Sony is the "little guy"? Compared to the US government maybe... but they are a pretty huge and pretty unethical corporation.
I actually agree, though, that there's little to be gained by posting this. Sony's general douchebaggery may be fairly noxious. But it's nowhere in the same league as the destructive malfeasance of outfits like Halliburton, Exxon, Blackwater, and the like... to say nothing of the actions of various governments. If the leaked documents concerned their something more vicious like th
Re: (Score:1)
By little guy - I meant the actual employees. Not big-guy Sony Entertainment.
The emails of the employees doesn't sound like they were related to the policies of Sony Entertainment. While I haven't had [interest/time] to read the emails - none of the news articles I've read suggest anything interesting exists in this pile.
TMZ might be interested in a few of the emails.
Re: (Score:3)
Preach it, brother. Looking at ScentCone's posting history, I can see that his posts are cunningly crafted to look like an average Slashdot poster, thus proving his true identity as a CIA/Halliburton/Illuminati/Bilderburger/Opus Dei/Sleestak agent.
Look out for the black helicopters. They come for you as we speak. I will soon communicate with you further through the resistance carrier pigeon network.
Re:The Psy-Ops Shilling Is Real. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually have you found any private details in the publicized materials or are you just theorizing?
Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And this achieves what, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Call it what it is, Stolen (Score:2, Interesting)
Link (Score:4, Informative)
Here:
https://wikileaks.org/sony/press/
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I always through that WL was about meaningful leaks for journalism/public good not just anything private that randomly gets leaked.
Ha ha. I'd give you a mod up funny, if I had any.
This is wrong. (Score:1)
Wikileaks like to market this as shining light on the truth but in reality they are just revictimizing a company that was the victim of hacking and theft.
I see this as no different than someone wiretapping publishing a family's private conversations. Its not right. And I for one would like to see Wikileaks face some kind of consequence for their actions.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikileaks like to market this as shining light on the truth but in reality they are just revictimizing a company that was the victim of hacking and theft.
Karma is a bitch on wheels, ain't she?
I see this as no different than someone wiretapping publishing a family's private conversations.
Yeah, the Gambino family.
Interesting to see what happens... (Score:1)
MJ would be proud. Not that i'm a fan per se, but he did go public and warn the world about Sony [youtube.com] before his death.
Spin doctors (Score:5, Interesting)
What surprises me is the similarity between both introductions not the completely different conclusion between both summaries. It is almost like there was an attempt to control the discussion of these leaks in the context of personal privacy (and of course it is an important part) but also burying the content of the leak itself and its political, social and economical implications.
Re: Spin doctors (Score:2, Informative)
Possibly because the social and political implications are overblown and the documents themselves aren't very probative on this point.
China and the U.S. film industry are deep in each other's pockets. China and the U.S. government, specifically the military, exert enormous influence over entertainment content when they are portrayed. Movies are rewritten to exclude Chinese villains or references to the Chinese political system; China is happy to lock out an entire studio's product for one anti-Chinese film
A plot to ruin Wikileaks? (Score:1)
Remember when wikileaks where all about exposing corruption within government, military, dangerous religious money cults? This whole thing smells like a setup to me.
Any second now.. (Score:2)
I'm clueless (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't lump Snowden in with those other fuckers (Assange and WikiLeaks are the same, but you could add Ms. Manning to the list). Snowden deliberately went the route of engaging *professional, prudent journalists* to avoid the type of mass, public harm done by WikiLeaks types. Greenwald & Co haven't done a flawless job of protecting the public interest, but they've done way better than an Assange style job would have.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Whos a good dog? Whos a good dog? You aren't, no you aren't!
Good dogs have IQ's high enough to not piss on the carpet.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch 'The Aristocrats' for more information about Saget's dog.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say, I have to agree with you. There's still some missing pieces of the Snowden picture and contradictions that need to be resolved to really understand all of his actions and motivations, but overall I think of all of the major leak issues that came up, he handled his the most responsibly.
Still would have rather he avoided Greenwald, who's always been a sensationalist self-aggrandizer, but at least he made sure there'd be some sort of filter to at least try to protect the innocent (I think the fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There's a reason for professional journalism (Score:3)
Just speaking as someone who's PI is in the Sony dump, I have not yet been killed.
However, I'll be under fraud alert for the next three years, Nigerian princes call my cell about twice a day, and someone has already tried, and fortunately failed, to open a student loan in my name. (No, I don't get it either.)
I mean it's not awful, it's not like I slept with a video game reviewer or anything. But it's been a huge hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does serve a purpose. By choosing to release all info and never redacting then at some level they shield themselves from claims of bribery or bias. What happens if Sony and WB both have information leaks, WB makes a 10M donation to Wikileaks to redact info and Sony doesn't.
I'm not arguing they should or shouldn't redact but strict rules of always releasing all information they receive does serve a purpose.
Lastly nobody forces anybody to read any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Social security numbers shouldn't exist. Too much power rests in them. Social security is an oxymoron. Don't shoot the messenger. The root of the problem lies in this system.
It's true... the system needs a rethink, and it will only get worse until it's changed. Those 9 *immutable* digits are way too powerful once they inevitably reach the hands of bad actors.
I wonder what percentage of Americans' SS#'s are in the "public domain" of criminals' databases at this point?