Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid' 580
rossgneumann writes North Korea may really be behind the Sony hack, but we're still acting like idiots. Peter W. Singer, one of the nations foremost experts on cybersecurity, says Sony's reaction has been abysmal. "Here, we need to distinguish between threat and capability—the ability to steal gossipy emails from a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously. I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this."
Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
Home of the brave.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Interesting)
I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt.
These kind of threats from hackers does indeed sound unbelievable. Hacking a pc and setting up a terrorist strike are quite different skill sets.
Am i the only one wondering if this is just a hoax from Sony/the authorities to make people change their stance on the hacks? In the beginning everybody was like "serves them right". Now everybody is like "Omg, poor Sony, i would watch the movie if i could".
These threats seem like the best thing that could happen to them after the hack. I'm kind of wondering if it isn't a bit too convenient.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about you, but I don't spend much of remaining lifespan even thinking about movies that are being made (or not).
I first heard about this movie (I'm assuming here we're talking about "The Interview", since that's the only movie I've heard about in regard to the Sony hack) in a news article about the hack. And I wondered what the big deal was - it's just a movie....
Re: (Score:2)
Not every day you create a black comedy about killing a world dictator starring Seth Rogen.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Interesting)
They killed North Korea in a previous movie
Team America: World Police
They impaled Kim Jong Il
And revealed it was a cockroach inside his head
And that Kim Jong Il hired the Muslims to do 9/11. And Kim got false info to Hans Blix to lie to UN that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Yet no backlash
This isn't North Korea hacks at all. Arin.net last info was NK has 32 non firewalled IPS in NK.
On torchat, tor hacked forums, its old antisec/remnants of lulsec anons having fun. Some of the same that dropped PlayStation network for almost a month and got everyone's user/pass and name/dox. They left backdoors and such.
Plus one way in was an unlatched older version of sshd. Even a script kiddy can get root on old sshd.
Its trolling. Even encyclopediadramatica article and forums are laughing at anonymous got Sony to stop a movie premiere.
BTW the entire script along with 15 other movies in future were copied and on torrent now. Plus 3 movies and screeners.
They also have the move the interview screener, they are releasing on Christmas.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard it once said to never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Yup, Hegel 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
The dialogue pinning the attack on DPRK serves many purposes, and it's been quite fun to watch this event transform from "Fuck Sony" to our ever present "Oh Noez! A bogey man" dialectic. We already have politicians claiming that the DPRK made an act of war (Newt Gingrich) and according to at least FOX and ABC the US is officially blaming the DPRK for the cyber attack (though neither have specified what agency this is). Even though evidence is weak [wired.com] at best.
Anyone believing the "terrorist" propaganda must somehow also believe that the DPRK has millions of bomb strapping terrorists stationed in the US ready to flock into Star and AMC to bomb people for watching a comedy.
Re: (Score:3)
it's been quite fun to watch this event transform from "Fuck Sony" to our ever present "Oh Noez! A bogey man" dialectic
I haven't moved on from the "Fuck Sony" part yet. Especially after they pulled the movie. The article that the summary links to is the first response to this that actually makes sense. Every other response from every talking head, or politician, or executive, has been completely fucking stupid. There's not really another way to say it. It's just moronic.
Re: (Score:3)
Then Sony should have stood their ground and let those theaters take the heat instead. Other smaller theaters would have probably stepped up and shown it, and the public probably would have responded by going out to see a movie that they wouldn't have otherwise seen just to give a big middle finger to the attackers.
Re: (Score:3)
People viewing the way SONY wanted to neuter DNS and the visibility of awful collusion in the movie industry towards attacking Google and free speech hasn't gone entirely unnoticed. Serves them right is stronger now than it ever would have been.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder too, considering by some accounts it's just a really bad movie (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/opinion/stanley-interview-threats/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 , warning, it's CNN and it's an editorial, take with a shot of tequila and a salt shaker). The only known way of making people see a really bad movie is to have Michael Bay do the special effects, or make some controversy around it. Michael Bay is no doubt working on Transformers N: Plan Gigli from Outer Space
I don't think NK has the capability of making good on telegraphed threats, nor would they like the response.
I am wondering too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt. These kind of threats from hackers does indeed sound unbelievable. Hacking a pc and setting up a terrorist strike are quite different skill sets. Am i the only one wondering if this is just a hoax from Sony/the authorities to make people change their stance on the hacks? In the beginning everybody was like "serves them right". Now everybody is like "Omg, poor Sony, i would watch the movie if i could".
These threats seem like the best thing that could happen to them after the hack. I'm kind of wondering if it isn't a bit too convenient.
I'm thinking they made a financial calculation. If the value of the materials which the hackers have, but have not yet released, exceeds the expected revenue of the movie, then it makes sense to trash the movie and just move on. I can easily imagine that such materials (especially if they implicate Sony in illegal or questionable activities) having a value of millions of dollars to be kept secret.
Plus, the Korea situation isn't that funny. The bottom line is that families were split apart and have rema
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Interesting)
Either that or the hackers have far more damaging data on Sony exec's. Evidence that could land them in jail perhaps?
Personally I vote for it being a PR ploy by Sony to bolster ticket sales of what was otherwise sure to be a box-office flop
Re: (Score:3)
I just have to wonder if it's not just a PR stunt.
I think it's much more likely that Sony is trying to shift media attention away from all of the information that was leaked, and onto the story of the threats and the movie. Pulling the movie all of a sudden makes the threats seem much more credible, and now that's what the media is talking about. The real story here is all of the data that was stolen from Sony, like the story about them wanting to go after DNS to take down piracy websites. The movie isn't the story, but that's where the narrative is bei
Re: (Score:3)
Since when has Sony cared about bad reviews? Even disappointed moviegoers are putting money in Sony's pockets.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't do that, you pick the useful idiots, provoke them a bit and then treat them as dangerous.And even if they are dangerous who are they gonna go after? Hackers have all the info on sony execs, but who really owns it? Who really dictate its policies? PHBs make insane amount of money not because they are worth them, they do because they follow the rules of the system.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Seth Rogen got 8 million up front and James Franco got 6, so those two aren't hurting. Although it's possible they were promised percentage of the box office take ("points") in addition to that, which obviously will not materialize now.
How do I know this? It was mentioned in the hacked Sony emails and mentioned on CNN =P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to Mod up, I am going to expound. The fact that we do not hold the people actually doing harm responsible, but rather go for anyone tangentially related but has deep pockets, in a get rich quick scheme using the legal system as a tool, is what is causing this kind of reaction. The threat of a lawsuit is greater than the threat from actual crime.
And to be honest, the US reaction has been pitiful. Why we put up with NK at all at this point is simply a matter of lack of leadership. However, as l
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
And the minor issue that doing anything practical puts at risk the life of every single citizen living in Seoul, population 10 million. Never mind the geopolitical risk of any conflict sucking in China, which would be a bit of a nuisance.
Re: (Score:3)
How the hell does Muti-terabytes of data leave your network, without even a HINT of it. I'm sure that whatever cost savings they were going for when IT budgets came out was well worth it. I hope Sony gets it pants sued off (see first paragraph) by the likes of all the actors, crews and other employees.
What a cluster fuck.
I don't know their system and I'm only an amateur at network programming but if they do a lot of data transfers what makes you think they will notice terabytes of data copied when they are probably usually seeing petabytes moving around? The whole point of networks is easy transfer of data, effective security makes it harder for legitimate users to use the network and results in a lot of complaints to IT. I work with a government contractor and I'm pretty sure I could bypass most of their security with a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
last I checked Sony was a Japanese multinational conglomerate, what country are you thinking about?
Re: (Score:3)
And that contradicts anything I said, how? A US corporation, Sony Pictures, is still subject to US laws and courts. It being the subsidiary of an international company doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:3)
Home of the brave.
Um...Sony is headquartered in Japan. And there's no way that a decision with this level of financial impact was made without permission from management back hom.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm totally gonna shoot that pipe bomb, and show it who's boss!
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe [washingtontimes.com] not. [humanevents.com]
The myth of gun battles in the street due to citizens legally carrying weapons is a product of ignorant, agenda pushing, wussies.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, though antagonizing your opponents like that probably isn't going to help the cause.
The truth is that pretty much everyone inclined to running gun battles probably already has guns that they carry concealed - law be damned. Or signed up for a shiny blue shield that provides near-immunity from the law. Laws against concealed carry serve primarily to make sure that honest citizens make easy victims.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I'm a wussie for not wanting to face an armed intruder bare handed.
A situation you would remedy by obtaining a gun and learning how to use it. Being shot by the homeowner is the single biggest fear among would-be intruders, ranking higher than being caught by police. And since we are talking about intruders we are talking about your own property, definitely not the subject of conceal carry laws.
Hopefully you have more sense than to think an armed intruder willing to break into your home and shoot you is going to care about any laws against carrying a concealed weapon. Laws like that are followed by ... the .. law-abiding! Which is why the whole conceal carry movement is about empowering the people who are not criminals. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Depend where you live...
http://www.wxyz.com/news/detro... [wxyz.com]
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Interesting)
Being shot by the homeowner is the single biggest fear among would-be intruders, ranking higher than being caught by police.
Unless, of course, you're drunk, forgot your keys and try to break into your own house. A guy who broke into the wrong house that he thought was his own by smashing the patio door got shot once [sfgate.com] after being repeatedly warned by the homeowner to leave. Nothing worse than waking up in the drunk tank with a bullet wound in the chest.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing worse than waking up in the drunk tank with a bullet wound in the chest.
I think being dead would qualify as "worse".
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm from Holland. It's pretty easy to obtain a gun if you really want to. But law-abiding citizens typically don't do this, because ... it's the law (duh).
By not having an arms-race, I'm not afraid being shot at by a burglar, because also they don't typically carry a gun.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a wuss for not wanting to be shot by people who think I'm an armed intruder.
Have you seen people drive? Road rage? Now think many of these same people with guns. If you think them having guns will make them more polite, and magically less likely to shoot you and others when they "lose it", you're over optimistic.
Not everyone will be that disciplined mentally stable person who keeps his guns locked up safely, never points his guns at stuff he doesn't want destroyed, is likely to actually hit his targets if he shoots, instead of bystanders, etc.
Gun practice teaches calm - biofeedback style. (Score:3)
Have you seen people drive? Road rage? Now think many of these same people with guns.
Target range practice is a very powerful biofeedback mechanism for teaching the suppression of the production of adrenaline and of all symptoms of excitement. Aligning gun sights - a pair of visual targets separated by about the length of the gun barrel (inches, a foot, or several feet), aligning them with a target (at tens of feet), and holding the alignment, gives visibility to even microscopic tremors and movement. Get
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, you're arguing against a straw man.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
I invite you to come on down! To beautiful Gary, Indiana, my home town. I invite you to take an evening stroll down the street in the middle of a hot summer night. It's not so much a matter of having to have a gun to feel safe because I'm a "wussy", it's because I'd be at a statistical disadvantage should I not be carrying a firearm. If I see someone drawing their gun or firing in my general direction, I suppose I should just dial 9-1-1 and wait an hour or two for someone to show up to defend me. Right?
Or when I pull up in my driveway and see that someone is already inside my home or garage, I should just let them finish stealing whatever they'd like and file a report. That's what insurance is for, right? Just let the thieves, crooks, and dopeheads have free reign because people like you want to call me a "wussy". Got news for ya, boss. Real life exists outside of your gated community and sleepy suburban burgs. Lots of us live in the real world, and real shit happens all day, every day.
And it doesn't just have to be in the high-crime inner city. Would you like to be working alone at a rural gas station at 2:00 AM on a dark stretch of highway a dozen miles from the nearest town? It's OK that the only Sheriff's deputy on duty is 25 miles across the county, he'll be there to protect you when a meth addict comes in high as a kite not even knowing where he is to rob and possibly kill you. More likely he'll be there to call the coroner and medics to clean you up off the floor. Those of us who value our survival and property and also aren't "fortunate" enough to live in a walled prison community will continue to carry a weapon to defend ourselves whether it's legal or not. Because I can fucking guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that the thieves, crooks, and dopeheads will not be turning them all in any time soon.
If you enjoy being a victim, and it helps you to sleep better at night thinking that someone who carries a firearm is a "wussy", go right on ahead believing that. But it's a childish and dependent mentality to always assume someone else will be there to ensure your safety.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Interesting)
I think, if you actually read what the GP wrote, you'll see that he is expressing the same opinion. But let me tell you about how it is in my home country, Denmark:
- Nobody carries fire arms, except some criminals. In fact, most police officers aren't armed either.
- Gun shots are being fired so rarely that it makes the headlines when it happens. I don't actually recall last time that happened.
- School massacres? What is that?
In fact, one can argue that since nobody carries firearms, even the criminals don't feel they have to; they are not likely to be shot when they are 'at work'. You know, it isn't because Danes are particularly good-natured, or because we are a homogenous society; it's just that no firearms means less risk of gun related violence. It may be that you prefer to pay the price for everybody having high-powered guns, but if you argue that it somehow makes your country safer, you'll just end up looking silly. Again, you may prefer looking silly to the truth, but hey, that's your call.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
it's just that no firearms means less risk of gun related violence.
That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
My biggest gripe with gun law conversations in the US is that the discussion never can have a middle ground. Gun law advocates never admit to the 2nd amendment while gun rights advocates never admit to sane policy. So, when there is a technology that may make guns safer or better, it gets muddied by talking point vomit.
The NRA gets upset over a "smart" gun because "hurr you have to wear a bracelet to use it". While anti-gun folks were mad because "hurr it's a gun therefore EVIL! In really, it was a interesting idea that has some issues that could be better with time and better tech.
Re: (Score:3)
That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
You can't walk with a gun into any business that has a sign saying that firearms are not allowed, even if you have a concealed carry permit. Convenience stores post those signs, if a bank (or any other business) wants to make it illegal to walk in there with a gun then all they need to do is put a sign up. A business without a sign can still ask you to remove your gun provided that they have a secure place for you to store it while you're there. There are other places where you're not allowed to carry a
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true but a key difference in the US is that gun rights are codified into law and in the culture. What is the "Wild West" without guns? In Arizona, to this day, you can walk into a bank with a gun with no problems.
Since you're comparing USA and Denmark (or UK, which is quite the same), it should be obvious that there are two stable states: One, where everyone has guns, so criminals need to have guns to avoid being shot during a crime, and upright citizens need to have guns to avoid beig shot during a crime, too. Two, where nobody has guns, and criminals know that carrying a gun during a crime means that the whole police force will do anything possible to catch them, and they will go to jail for a long time. And upright citizens know that killing an unarmed criminal say during a burglary will get them into legal trouble.
Two stable states. Both stable states are hard to leave. I prefer the stable state with no (few) guns and very few people shot.
Re: (Score:3)
My biggest gripe with gun law conversations in the US is that the discussion never can have a middle ground. Gun law advocates never admit to the 2nd amendment while gun rights advocates never admit to sane policy. So, when there is a technology that may make guns safer or better, it gets muddied by talking point vomit.
There is no middle ground because the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty damn clear. Any middle ground between anti-gun laws is an infringment, plain and simple.
Not to mention that it is this "middle ground" you speak of that has gotten us where we are today...
Living in California, I can't get a CCW in my county even though I have a squeeky clean record, the reason is because it's treated as a privelige rather than a right, and the Sheriff does not issue in most of the counties in my surroundi
Re: (Score:3)
So, the NJ State Senate Majority Leader admits that New Jersey's law, which would make smart guns mandatory within three years of the first commercially-available smart gun being sold anywhere in the United States, can be reversed... if only the NRA will agree to stop obstructing the sale of smart guns within the United States, which they do specifically because of the New Jersey law?
I don't see the problem. The NRA is obstructing a law that goes against their stated interests, and New Jersey is promising
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Informative)
Norway hasn't had any school shootings that I know of, except one where a girl got shot in the arse with an airsoft gun about 20 years ago.
If you mean the UtÃya massacre, that wasn't a school shooting, but a right wing nutter first bombing a government building and then impersonating a policeman and shooting indiscriminately at a political youth camp.
Citizens being allowed to carry guns would have stopped neither.
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
If you enjoy being a victim, and it helps you to sleep better at night thinking that someone who carries a firearm is a "wussy"
I've never understood this mentality but I'm thinking people with this mentality are so brainwashed into believing guns are inherently evil that they actually confuse law abiding gun owners with gun toting criminals who are cowards that use their weapons to assert power and instill fear.
For anyone who isn't a criminal carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility and the consequences of having to use it are monumental both legally and dealing with the fact that you killed someone (not all people who get shot die but usually they do), in fact it can be a huge risk to even carry it legally because of all these weird Gun-Free Zone laws (my state in particular being terrible).
Lets put lawful carry in another light; a mother has to walk to and from work every night in a dark city full of meth heads and rapists that will do anything to get their next fix and she has had a couple close calls so she applies for a conceal carry permit and now she carries a Smith & Wesson .38 Special. Is that mother now automatically a coward because she has a equalizing means of self defense now, or would it be preferable for her to not be a "coward" right in the morgue and her kids in the foster care system?
Or what about the woman that receives death threats from her former boyfriend? Is she a coward for wanting to defend herself against someone much bigger and stronger than her?
Legal concealed carriers are not cowards, and open carriers (where legal) are probably even less so.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think of guns as inherently evil, but they are inherently dangerous. I don't have a problem with lawful gun owners who take proper precautions with their firearms. I have a big problem with the people who think that their gun is a cool toy to play with or teach their kids that it's fun to wave a gun around. I'm not willing to say that a majority of gun owners are like this, but there's a vocal group like this and these people scare me (and should scare responsible gun owners as well). People sho
Re: (Score:3)
Yep pretty much. Just because someone is robbing you doesn't mean there is a need to kill them.
Correct, but you can go in and confront them, because you don't want them taking your stuff. They are invading your property. Have you ever experienced a break-in where people that you don't know are going through all of your stuff deciding what they want to take? It's a pretty vulnerable feeling, you feel violated after that. Why let someone do that to you? Why roll over just because they decide to break a window and come in your house? Why not stand up to them and tell them that they aren't going to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Primarily because this "coward way out" leads to large numbers of people being unafraid to commit crimes. Would you also refuse to intervene in a rape if you saw it about to happen or in progress? I mean, the cops will catch the rapist eventually. How about a homicide, if you see a few kids stomping a homeless Tuba player to death, are you going to just walk on by? You pay taxes for this kind of thing don't you? The homeless guy can be replaced, your life and limb less so. The cops will catch the murd
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, cause everyone wants to live in a tolerant society with good standards of health-care / community spirit / sanity.
Oh wait...
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you point to *any* place in the US where "running gun battles in the streets" are even *remotely* common?
Didn't think so.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
"The old West,"
Yeah, I'm sure it was exactly as dimestore novels and later hollywood portrayed it...
"schools & movie theaters"
A handful of incedents in a 300+ million population spread over several years hardly makes an event common.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but it's common. Way more common than it should be. There's a news story about someone in the US going crazy and killing a handful of people with guns just almost every week now. Certainly at least every month. One of these happened very near a place that I frequented (same strip mall) just a few years ago, around the time that I frequented it.
In the wise words of Internet gamers... (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody's hacking, noob. You just suck!
Never attribute to stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
What can be explained as a propaganda campaign. Expect this controversial piece of fine art to reach you a way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
You called?
https://oldpiratebay.org/torrent/11911439/The-Interview-2014-DVDRip-x264 [oldpiratebay.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You know, we could regard this as the act of war it is.
FTFA:
We didn't go to war with North Korea when they murdered American soldiers in the 1970s with axes. We didn't go to war with North Korea when they fired missiles over our allies. We didn't go to war with North Korea when one of their ships torpedoed an alliance partner and killed some of their sailors. You're going to tell me we're now going to go to war because a Sony exec described Angelina Jolie as a diva? It's not happening.
The proper response to this will be left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:3)
yea but (Score:2)
Yea but... they only have to pull it off at 1 theater.
And it doesn't have to be NK that does it... some crazy nut job could... and Sony would be on the hook for liability.
If Sony were smart (which they definitely are not) they would have leaked the movie as a torrent themselves, blamed North Korea, and then with the Sword of Demaclese now lying squarely at their feet moved on with their lives. They may have pulled the movie from theaters but it could still get released, and until that threats gone NK will c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it doesn't have to be NK that does it... some crazy nut job could... and Sony would be on the hook for liability.
How?
Re:yea but (Score:5, Informative)
The OP has it wrong. The theaters would be liable.
Remember the shooting that occurred at a screening of Batman: the Dark Knight? Well, some families of victims are suing the theater and the case is still ongoing [deadline.com]. Because there's a chance that the theater may be found liable of not having "enough security" for a random shooting, and because it can be argued that the theaters in this case were "warned ahead of time of a potential attack," they could potentially be found liable should anything happen.
Keep in mind that Sony is only pulling the release after the five largest theater chains refused to show it. And the reason they refused to show it is because they could potentially be liable should anything happen anywhere in any of their theaters. Given the poor reviews the movie is getting [rottentomatoes.com] they presumably decided that it just wasn't worth any risk as they're probably not going to make much anything off showing it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that Sony is only pulling the release after the five largest theater chains refused to show it. And the reason they refused to show it is because they could potentially be liable should anything happen anywhere in any of their theaters. Given the poor reviews the movie is getting [rottentomatoes.com] they presumably decided that it just wasn't worth any risk as they're probably not going to make much anything off showing it anyway.
I propose a much simpler reason aside from potential liability that they are pulling it. Looking strictly at the bottom-line (and setting aside the idea that Sony might actually have a corporate conscience, somewhere..). The rule-of-thumb is that the opening weekend box office numbers are the best indicator of which movies are hot and which are stinkers. Ticket sales usually taper off week by week, and never surpass the numbers at the opening. If a movie has a weak opening weekend, everyone assumes that
Re:yea but (Score:4, Insightful)
The theaters are contractually obligated to play the movie. Sony can claim publicly that they don't have to play the movie, but those legally binding contracts are still in place, and remember, the theaters still want to play the movie. That's cash in their pockets and the threats are likely fake. So they show the movie anyways, and if a real attack happens, the first thing they are going to do is point at that contract and say Sony forced them to show the movie, they had no choice. Viola, Sony is now liable.
First up. Sony voluntarily suspended enforcement of the contract clause. The theaters would have real difficulty arguing in the court that "Sony forced them to show the movie" when Sony publicly declared they did not.
Second. Are you trained in contract law? I would be quite surprised to learn that if both parties in a normal two-party contract agree to temporarily suspend enforcement of one clause in a contract they are "breaking the law" in some way. What would be the aggrieved party that would bring suit? Who would have standing? Or are you saying this a criminal act? Cite a statute please?
Re: (Score:3)
There's no way Sony would be liable for an act of war or terrorist attack due to their decision to air a movie. We can't even hold them responsible for the financial loss and emotional damages that most of their movies already cause, and that is absolutely through their own negligence!
Re:yea but (Score:4, Interesting)
One local theater chain is doing something about this:
They replaced the scheduled times of The Interview with a Team America sing-along.
Sony and the other theater chains have really screwed the US (and the West in general.) They caved in. NK doesn't have a monopoly on hacking, and in the future, this has emboldened every blackhat group worldwide because they know that they can not just breach a company, but actively control what that company does.
Going into tinfoil hat territory, I wonder if one of the hackers got some dirt on someone high up at Sony (and/or the theater chains) and was blackmailing them with it, so Sony used the NK thing as a way to pull the movie.
TERRORISM (Score:2)
I would love... (Score:2)
Re:I would love... (Score:4)
"It's win-win. We avoid the risk of bad publicity from someone blowing up a theatre showing the movie, and with all the attention from the threat combined with the fact that it can't be seen in theatres, home media sales will be through the roof! People will be lining up to buy the movie that was 'too dangerous to be shown in theatres' while thumbing their noses at the terrorists who don't want them to see it."
Actually (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
North Korea has nuclear weapons
And no long distance delivery system
and a million soldier army.
And no navy and airforce large enough to protect it as they make their way across the pacific.
South Korea might have a problem, but elsewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
South Korea is really the only reason we are pulling our punches with these guys or even care.
Sony didn't pull the movie (Score:5, Insightful)
They were forced to. And not by the hackers, by the five largest movie chains pulling out. At that point it was best to not show it at all.
I'm sure Sony will release it on DVD/BluRay/streaming once they get their shit together and beef up their security. Right now though, no, it makes no sense to release the movie to a few small theaters.
Re:Sony didn't pull the movie (Score:5, Funny)
"Right now though, no, it makes no sense to release the movie to a few small theaters."
But they'll miss out on it being eligible for the Oscars.
Eh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reasons between smoke and mirrors. (Score:2)
If Sony really wanted to make a statement they could release it on dvd or free with ads on any of the many streaming services.
If they bow to hacker pressure now, they just painted a larger target on themselves for future hack
They didn't really have a choice. (Score:2)
The Executives (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course I doubt NK has the reach to pull off those threats, but pretty chilling nonetheless...
Wrong threat maybe? (Score:2)
Or maybe not. It's probably just stupidity.
Yes, idiocy (Score:2)
We are talking a movie that has a lot of hype, but may not last past the first weekend. A lot of people were planning on seeing it, but are people going to make a statement and risk some lone gun nut coming in and killing several people
Is it commercially responsible to pay for the distributi
The US = Land of the Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's your main reason:
If ONE person is injured/killed within a 10 mile radius of a theater and the person doing the killing proclaims any notion of it being done because of the release of the movie, the relatives of the one shot will sue Sony for millions of dollars due to the release of the film that Sony KNEW could unleash terrorism. Imagine if it happened at 5 locations? What about one nutjob in one theater ala the Batman movie a few years ago? Sony would be put at fault for blatantly disregarding public safety by knowingly releasing a film. It's the same reason newspapers won't print an image of Mohammed or that South Park had to pull an episode that was going to show Mohammed.
Hyper-sensitivity to everything for fear of litigation.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
And yet the last temptation of christ... (Score:3)
We can't help but overreact (Score:5, Interesting)
Proof that Lawyers are the real terrorists (Score:2)
While on its face this reaction appears quite stupid, if there were just one physical attack on one theater, the survivors and families of the victims would sue Sony for a lot claiming that they had a credible threat and ignored it.
Mind you, I believe that they are just using this as a propaganda move. Free publicity, and when it does finally get released the attendance will be significantly higher than it otherwise would have been.
Misses the point (Score:2)
Is the nation-state of North Korea capable of setting off a single bomb in a single (basically public) location in the US?
If we knew that 5 theaters were going to be attacked, but didn't know which, does that mean we should go forward with the opening?
While I agree with the concern over bending to threats, I think it's a straw man to claim that the issue is whether 18,000 locations can be attacked and so I think the claim of "incapable" is actually wrong.
I'm an expert on cybersecurity as well (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been saying this from the get-go, Sony should not be coddled like they are the victim. This hack went on for months and probably for years they've been hiring the cheapest sysadmins overseas and buying 'solutions' from companies "well reviewed" in NetworkWorld (or whatever sponsored magazines middle management gets) to implement on their network that in the end didn't do squat.
Instead of being coddled, they should be fined for aiding and abetting and breaking privacy laws.
I absoluetly bet it is Sex Blackmail! (Score:5, Insightful)
If North Korea got this information and threatened to reveal it, that would definitely explain why Sony caved quicker than the Iraqian army when first attacked by Isis.
Theaters are not worried about 9/11 (Score:4, Interesting)
Regal Cinema et al. are not really worried about terror strikes. Muslim terrorists have made threats against various movies for decades and it hasn't stopped anything from being shown, and this is from groups that have proven experience blowing things up.
What these companies are in fact scared shitless is the kind of cyberattack that Sony suffered. As bad as Sony security might have been, I guarantee it was heads and shoulders above what any of these theater chains have in place. Sony was able to shrug off millions in damages, but for AMC it could be lights out. At the very least it would beat out the profits of showing a mediocre comedy. This is why they're scared to show the interview - concerns about "terror attacks" are a smokescreen.
Obligitory I.T. Crowd reference (Score:3)
I think this video sums it up pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The Batman, Theater Attack Comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
In the article, the Peter Singer states, "Someone killed 12 people and shot another 70 people at the opening night of Batman: The Dark Knight [Rises]. They kept that movie in the theaters. You issue an anonymous cyber threat that you do not have the capability to carry out? We pulled a movie from 18,000 theaters."
In some ways, the comparison between the response to this current threat against movie theaters and the rampage that happened 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado is appropriate. Both target movie theaters and the people in them. But that's where it ends.
The Aurora shooting has gone down in history as an unforeseeable tragedy the fault of which lay entirely with the shooter. Everyone said, "This was very sad," and no one's expecting any victims' civil suits to win anything.
In fairly extreme contrast, ***IF*** Sony were to allow the movie to be shown in theaters and ***IF*** someone attacked a movie theater for any reason relating to the showing of the movie, then Sony would be very publicly acknowledged as having fault in the harm done to theater-goers and would be sued out of existence.
Everything in this decision has to do with LIABILITY. Even if the probability is extremely low, the potential liability is astronomical. It doesn't make financial sense for Sony to allow the movie to be shown.
Aside: Notice who the puppets and the puppet-masters are here. Those making the threats hold the strings, but they're not playing Sony. They're playing the American public. They know that the American public are so unhappy with their opportunities to be super-rich that they see legal liability as one of their few chances to get MILLIONS! As such, the nation is extremely risk-averse thus thoroughly negating out espoused resolve to not be susceptible to terroristic threats.
To be cliche, the enemy is us.
I can't belive I have to say this (Score:3)
is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously.
Who said anything about them having to hit 18,000 locations simultaneously. That isn't how terrorism works. The 911 guys did not have have to hit thousands of targets, they only tried for three, managed only two (counting the WTC complex as a single target) and look at all the trouble they caused!
A coordinated attack on only a handful of movie theaters the same night would be plenty to cause an economically significant portion of this countries population spend the holiday Christmas - New Years stretch cowering in their homes rather than going out and spending money. It would almost certainly lead to all kinds of wild ill considered national security response.
Hell look at the Batman Shooting a few years ago. It takes one suicide attacker to "hit" a theater with essentially no real resources. A few thousand in counterfeit notes (which DPRK has produced in the past) would allow would be assailants to put together the arsenal they need. Its perfectly plausible even DPRK could get three or four people into this country with limited fake credentials and no access to anything privileged enough to do even a basic background check.
I am not saying "OMG we all going to die here" but you can't completely dismiss the threat either here. Having hit Sony they have already demonstrated some capability.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're saying this is a false flag operation by the shadow government to instill more fear in people, and to allow the passing of additional laws which expands their power and further justifies their abuse of the law and our rights?
I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your news letter.
The really scary thing is no matter how paranoid the scenario you come up with these days, reality might be trying even ha
yeah. 18,000? One pipe bomb is enough (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just silly to act like someone would need to attack 18,000 theatres simultaneously for it to be bad. ONE pipe bomb in ONE theater would be a problem. The capability to do so? I made pyrotechnic devices in 6th grade. I knew, in 6th grade, that if I used a metal pipe as the casing instead of a cardboard tube I'd have a bomb. This guy is pretending bad guys don't or can't do what many of us could do in elementary school.
If I see this guy at a cybersecurity conference I may have to call him out on his BS.