Those are the thoughts rolling around in my head too, Nomad.
Well, not being American we don't have one of those fancy constitution things. Weirdly we continue to trundle along reasonably well without one.
Also, this is a private company giving in to the demands of a bunch of hackers who stole a bunch of emails and files they were too tech-ignorant to properly protect and/or delete DESPITE Sony already having had hacking controversy in the not too distant past. NOT a government giving in to the demands of terrorists. A term the US likes to throw about so much that it's basically lost all meaning anyway (though weirdly, not when any mass shootings involving white men are involved..hmm).
Over here we've had several instances of plays and musicals being cancelled or driven out of theaters because they've upset particular groups (for example, Sikh's angrily besieging theaters which were showing a controversial play where a murder is committed inside a temple). Should they have caved in and cancelled the play? No idea, don't know how bad the content was, but since then, the world has magically continued to turn afterwards with plenty of examples of controversial theater being produced. If it made some of their writers think twice before creating something that openly mocks minority groups then all the better.
I just really dislike some pisspot dictator of a cruel joke of a country getting to dictate to me what media I can enjoy. If you are foreign(I don't mean that as an accusation or an attack) - you really don't get how intrinsic that right is to our idea of being American.
I say that as one of the more liberal members of the forum.
Also, this is a private company giving in to the demands of a bunch of hackers who stole a bunch of emails and files they were too tech-ignorant to properly protect and/or delete DESPITE Sony already having had hacking controversy in the not too distant past. NOT a government giving in to the demands of terrorists.
I think that's something Americans are missing here. This was a decision not done by the US government, but a private corporation. Now, if the US government forced Sony to release the movie so they don't give in to the hackers (since there is speculation that North Korea was even behind the attack anyway), would the reaction be more positive? To me, getting the government directly involved in our media would be the bigger worry than a private company deciding to pull a movie.
Am I upset that the movie got pulled? Of course I am, because the whole situation is ridiculous. However, Sony is a business, and as a business they made a decision. To me, this isn't about The United States of America bowing to terrorism, it's a business decision.
For everyone criticizing this movie: how many of y'all have seen it?
Fair enough, Domano - and that is a good point. That said, it really sticks in my craw. I just don't like it, but yes - it isn't Obama giving in to terrorism(like some on the right are sure to claim), and you are 100% right there.
pyxistyx wrote:Also, this is a private company giving in to the demands of a bunch of hackers who stole a bunch of emails and files they were too tech-ignorant to properly protect and/or delete DESPITE Sony already having had hacking controversy in the not too distant past. NOT a government giving in to the demands of terrorists.
I think that's something Americans are missing here. This was a decision not done by the US government, but a private corporation. Now, if the US government forced Sony to release the movie so they don't give in to the hackers (since there is speculation that North Korea was even behind the attack anyway), would the reaction be more positive? To me, getting the government directly involved in our media would be the bigger worry than a private company deciding to pull a movie.
Am I upset that the movie got pulled? Of course I am, because the whole situation is ridiculous. However, Sony is a business, and as a business they made a decision. To me, this isn't about The United States of America bowing to terrorism, it's a business decision.
I think what people in this thread are missing is that the theater chains declined to show the movie in their houses.
If none of the theaters are going to show your movie, then what's the point of releasing it?
Do we have proof this was a NK attack? I'm assuming it probably was, but I'm also assuming they have little better than dialup over there.
And the threat of violence really makes this different than people petitioning target not to sell GTA. It's closer to Sarkeesian electing not to give a speech at a college due to a terrorist threat.
Do we have proof this was a NK attack? I'm assuming it probably was, but I'm also assuming they have little better than dialup over there.
And the threat of violence really makes this different than people petitioning target not to sell GTA. It's closer to Sarkeesian electing not to give a speech at a college due to a terrorist threat.
No definitive proof has been released yet, but the reports I've read/heard are saying that there are a lot of 'footprints' in the way the hack was done that highly suggests it came from Korean hackers.
Fair enough, Domano - and that is a good point. That said, it really sticks in my craw. I just don't like it, but yes - it isn't Obama giving in to terrorism(like some on the right are sure to claim), and you are 100% right there.
Oh for sure--and I'm right there with you. This sets up a really bad precedent that I'm not comfortable with.
As an example, Alamo Drafthouse was going to screen Team America in place of The Interview. Paramount responded by cancelling those plans as well.
And as it's been stated previously, all of this over perceived threats from hackers that may or may not include North Korea's involvement.
In 1973, the English rugby team played Ireland in the face of death threats and a huge escalation of violence in Northern Ireland at the time. The previous year the Welsh and Scottish teams refused to travel which many felt at the time gave the those that wish to cause trouble an invitation to make more. In the end, the home and mostly Irish crowd spontaneously appualed the English team for five minutes.
Irish Rugby, primarily due to the rather silly notion that it was a "garrision" or English game, still had its brushes with the IRA and its ilk, including some of it players being hurt by the terrorist organisation. It never caved to any of its craven demands and I'm not aware of a single player or supporter who would blame it for any violence perpetrated against its members.
In 2007, we had another example when the Irish Rugby team played in Croke Park, which I explained at the time why it was such an issue. In case many are wondering, this was met with death threats and protests.
As an aside, I still get a little emotional hearing Brian Moore (Former English player, QC and journalist) struggling to speak after the Irish anthem.
I'm sure I could cite many other examples but these are the ones I've direct experience with.
Nomad, you are absolutely correct here and I share his surprise. Really folks, the world has a wealth of experience on how you deal with these issues. And claiming there is a difference between government and private business are simply wrong. You give into these demands you are making a rod for everyone's back.
Question: If Sony releases the movie despite the threat and ends up causing harm to some people, as the hackers promised, do all third parties that voice support for the release bear some of the moral burden? If Sony is made to repay the victims, are those third parties obligated to chip in?
No and No. The responsibility lies completely with those that commit the act. Full. Stop.
I'm sorry to do this, Thirteenth, but let me give you are real world example of your logic and it won't be pretty. The IRA planted a two small bombs in a bin in a supermarket (mall) in Warrington, Liverpool in 1993. Planting not one but two charges in a bin ensured that the bin acted like a grenade and shredded bodies surrounding it. The blast killed 2 people. A three year boy, who died at the scene, and a twelve year boy old you spent two painful days fighting for his life after receiving the full blast of the explosion. The IRA's statement was;
Responsibility for the tragic and deeply regrettable death and injuries caused in Warrington yesterday lies squarely at the door of those in the British authorities who deliberately failed to act on precise and adequate warnings.
And all that even ignores your logic that the IRA would not have been killing people if the British State just pulled out of Northern Ireland. What could have gone wrong? A well armed private army that was at this point conducting Proxy Bombings. I might very well be a hypocrite but I know for damn sure I'm not sharing the same moral logic as the IRA.
pyxistyx wrote:Also, this is a private company giving in to the demands of a bunch of hackers who stole a bunch of emails and files they were too tech-ignorant to properly protect and/or delete DESPITE Sony already having had hacking controversy in the not too distant past. NOT a government giving in to the demands of terrorists.
I think that's something Americans are missing here. This was a decision not done by the US government, but a private corporation. Now, if the US government forced Sony to release the movie so they don't give in to the hackers (since there is speculation that North Korea was even behind the attack anyway), would the reaction be more positive? To me, getting the government directly involved in our media would be the bigger worry than a private company deciding to pull a movie.
There's also things like the prisoner exchange negotiations going on between Japan and North Korea. We don't know if there was also pressure from the Japanese gov't to pull the film in order to keep North Korea at the negotiation table. Or if there's other things going on behind the scenes that we're not privy to for any other reason.
We might be relatively safe from NK taking action, but the movie was also slated for worldwide distribution. Would this provoke North Korea to attack South Korea? Japan? If North Korea did attack South Korea over this film what happens with US-Japan-South Korea relations? And so on.
I don't necessarily agree with their decision to pull the film, but I don't think this is a black and white situation either (and it's especially interesting given that it's a multinational issue). I also think Sony knew they were playing with fire with this release (North Korea has been pissed about this film for quite a while now) so it's hardly surprising that we're at this point right now.
Do we have proof this was a NK attack? I'm assuming it probably was, but I'm also assuming they have little better than dialup over there.
According to anonymous sources within US intelligence services, yes, there is evidence that North Korea was directly tied to the hack. Whether that's hiring the hackers or perpetrating the hack themselves isn't clear.
The thing is, I know we're all used to thinking of North Korea less as a sovereign nation and more as a punchline for Team America jokes, but they're well-versed in cyberattacks and have been doing them for years. They regularly hack corporations, governments, and media in South Korea in retaliation for those outlets criticizing the North Korean regime. This is just the first time they've turned their eye on an American(ish) corporation.
If none of the theaters are going to show your movie, then what's the point of releasing it?
And yet it's Sony that's taking the brunt of the blame here and being told that they're caving in to terrorism, not Cinemark or Carmike or Regal.
I can't help but think that if this movie had been released to theaters, and those theaters had opted to show it, that at least some of them would have wanted some sort of increased security presence just in case. And then this would all be over in the Police State thread as an example of our looming military dictatorship. Anything less than "lawl North Korea!" is caving in somehow.
Well, at least it is going to be a good time to be an Information Assurance professional.
From the little bit that I read, Sony was ill-prepared to fend of this particular type of cyber-attack. Perhaps it is bad on them for not having sufficient security (though you'd think, if that was the case, that they'd have learned their lesson).
But the actions of the movie theaters, and in particular Paramount, are patently ridiculous.
From the little bit that I read, Sony was ill-prepared to fend of this particular type of cyber-attack. Perhaps it is bad on them for not having sufficient security (though you'd think, if that was the case, that they'd have learned their lesson).
If there's anything we've learned this year, it's that huge corporations DO NOT have sufficient IT budgets, staffing, training, etc. IT is usually a low priority and security even less so because it has a nasty habit of "getting in the way" (which is exactly what security is supposed to do) of the execs.
The thing is, I know we're all used to thinking of North Korea less as a sovereign nation and more as a punchline for Team America jokes, but they're well-versed in cyberattacks and have been doing them for years.
According to South Korean reports, North Korea has been building a cyber-army of incredible magnitude for over a decade. In an interview with the Korea Herald, Professor Lee Dong-hoon of the Korea University Graduate School of Information Security said that North Korea has the third largest military cyber-warfare unit in the world, with over 3,000 troops—more than China. And the cyber force, Dong-hoon said, is directly under the control of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
(Source)
And yet it's Sony that's taking the brunt of the blame here and being told that they're caving in to terrorism, not Cinemark or Carmike or Regal.
I think their original response was fine where they put it on the theaters to decide if they want to show the film. I'm not sure if the decision to pull the film was due to further threats or simply because enough chains opted-out and Sony decided it would be simpler to just yank the film (hopefully until things calm down) because their distribution chain was disrupted due to many chains opting-out.
CNN now reporting a followup message last night from GoP, saying they will keep the rest of Sony's information safe, unless they ever release the movie on DVD, streaming, etc.
pyxistyx wrote:Also, this is a private company giving in to the demands of a bunch of hackers who stole a bunch of emails and files they were too tech-ignorant to properly protect and/or delete DESPITE Sony already having had hacking controversy in the not too distant past. NOT a government giving in to the demands of terrorists.
I think that's something Americans are missing here. This was a decision not done by the US government, but a private corporation. Now, if the US government forced Sony to release the movie so they don't give in to the hackers (since there is speculation that North Korea was even behind the attack anyway), would the reaction be more positive? To me, getting the government directly involved in our media would be the bigger worry than a private company deciding to pull a movie.
Am I upset that the movie got pulled? Of course I am, because the whole situation is ridiculous. However, Sony is a business, and as a business they made a decision. To me, this isn't about The United States of America bowing to terrorism, it's a business decision.
Unless I'm missing something that happened recently Sony is a public corporation... not private. It is effectively owned by the Shareholders ( I would amuse you and say the public but we all know its primarily a few large institutional investors)
Edit
For the record I do think this sends a troublesome message to the "hacker" community at large and I wouldn't be surprised to see the "war" escalate at a tremendous pace. Terror organizations want primarily to disrupt and decay Western society and there are so many ways now that they can reasonably be secure in that corporations will cave to demands. Since so much of our power is consolidated (for good or worse) into corporations now it leaves a good deal of our critical infrastructure outside direct control.
Where's Les Grossman when we need him?
The flip side is what shoptroll points out. This is just an escalation of the arms race between profits and loss. A slightly increased Loss Prevention budget along with some algorithm that decides at what point it's profitable to just adjust products to attacks will likely be the outcome.
For the record I do think this sends a troublesome message to the "hacker" community at large and I wouldn't be surprised to see the "war" escalate at a tremendous pace. Terror organizations want primarily to disrupt and decay Western society and there are so many ways now that they can reasonably be secure in that corporations will cave to demands. Since so much of our power is consolidated (for good or worse) into corporations now it leaves a good deal of our critical infrastructure outside direct control.
So what you're saying is that this is just further proof we're moving toward a dystopian Cyberpunk Cybahpuhnk future?
ClockworkHouse wrote:And yet it's Sony that's taking the brunt of the blame here and being told that they're caving in to terrorism, not Cinemark or Carmike or Regal.
I think their original response was fine where they put it on the theaters to decide if they want to show the film. I'm not sure if the decision to pull the film was due to further threats or simply because enough chains opted-out and Sony decided it would be simpler to just yank the film (hopefully until things calm down) because their distribution chain was disrupted due to many chains opting-out.
There was discussion of this on CNN this morning too. A bit of back and forth is still going on over whether movie chains actually refused to show it or Sony pulled it. Some are saying that Sony told the theater owners it was ok not to show and then they said thanks, we won't then.
Some are saying that Sony told the theater owners it was ok not to show
That was what one of the people in charge of the local indie theaters said this morning on a Boston focused NPR podcast I listen to. The problem then too is that the theaters would be responsible for additional security. And as pointed out on Daily Tech New Show in a reader email... a lot of theaters are staffed by teens so you then have the problem of what happens if a portion of your workforce won't appear because their parents are concerned about possible action.
And then we're back to how credible was that threat? Just because you can hack some computers doesn't mean you have people on the ground that will go into theaters with bombs or guns or whatever, actually committing a terrorist attack. There's a vast difference between a remote internet "attack" and a physical attack.
nel e nel wrote:If none of the theaters are going to show your movie, then what's the point of releasing it?
And yet it's Sony that's taking the brunt of the blame here and being told that they're caving in to terrorism, not Cinemark or Carmike or Regal.
Movie theaters are simply making an extremely rational business decision.
The way their licensing deals work with movie distributors, like Sony, and cinemas is that the distributor keeps most to virtually all of the theater take for a movie for a certain period of time after the movie is released. So what theater chain is going to want a movie that Sony isn't supporting with marketing and promotion, that they aren't going to make any money off of (and it will take up a screen that they could make money off of), and carries the threat of a terrorist incident that is going to tarnish their brand by association and leave them vulnerable to litigation if, god forbid, anything actually happened?
FBI officially linking attack to North Korea. I guess there were leaks last night that they would report this, but it's just now been confirmed on CNN.
That's interesting considering they were initially denying the link. Will be interesting to read about this later.
So what theater chain is going to want a movie that Sony isn't supporting with marketing and promotion
Huh? Every day I went to the gym last week I saw at least one advert for the movie on the TVs there.
Movie theaters are simply making an extremely rational business decision.
And in turn, Sony is making an extremely rational business decision to not spend the money to distribute and further market the movie if no one is going to show it.
FBI officially linking attack to North Korea. I guess there were leaks last night that they would report this, but it's just now been confirmed on CNN.
EDIT: Story from an hour ago, saying they were going to say this.
Unless I'm missing something that happened recently Sony is a public corporation... not private. It is effectively owned by the Shareholders ( I would amuse you and say the public but we all know its primarily a few large institutional investors)
You are correct--that was my mistake. The point of my comment was that it's Sony's call to make and to say that "America is giving in to terrorists" is a false statement.
Pages