Jump to content

US Politics


Thorgi Duke of Frisbee
 Share

  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Death Penalty

    • Yay
    • Nay
    • Case-by-case
    • I judge from afar in my death penalty-less country


Recommended Posts

NPR.  I thought it seemed unlikely too, but their explanation was that they're always preparing for a potential war with SK, and they know that shutting down SK's electronic capabilities would be absolutely essential in that war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony Pictures didn't really lose the battle, the US Gov't defiently did. There's plenty stuff floating around that US gov't gets involved with helping out private companies on the "cyber warfare" front since most aren't really equipped to deal with a foreign state trying to intrude on them. Much in the same way Sony wouldn't be equipped if a  foreign state was to have gone with conventional warfare. That would be on US gov'ts head for not protecting their citizens and businesses from a foreign power much as happened here. Just being digital warfare folks treat it differently for some reason.

A film studio is pretty benign, but there's likely many nations trying to get at the private data of US corporations with much more sensitive details such as tech companies, banks, engineering firms, etc.

 

Also I'm not fully up on US laws at all, and there's two above me who I imagine can help, but does US not have an Information Commissioner or any Data Protection laws, cos there's a lot of news that's hitting sites such as what folks have said about how much JLaw is getting paid, Snapchat acquisitions, etc that's only possible from news sites scouring through all the emails that got pulled off the servers which'd be considered very illegal over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony Pictures didn't really lose the battle, the US Gov't defiently did.

I would agree with you if Sony had told the government it was happening and asked for help, but my point was that Sony kept it secret for a long time. It's hard for the government to try to respond when the people under attack don't tell you about it.

 

As far as the other stuff goes: first amendment.  Once the information is released publicly they're under no obligation not to look at and report on it (assuming they're not the ones who hacked it in the first place).  Sony is under an obligation to protect the information, the New York Times is not.

 

*Edit* - There are exceptions to that (classified information for one), but that's a good enough explanation for this situation.

Edited by TheMightyEthan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, I guess I can see why there's contention between EU and US over the geographic locations of servers and such.

 

Also gov't likely has known for a while, it's not really a great idea for the gov't to be keeping a running announcement of each of their nations companies attacked by foreign powers. I know from a report a couple years ago many companies are hit on an almost constant basis, most getting blocked or redirected but some will come through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but think that maybe Sony pulling the movie wasn't a bad thing. I mean look at what happened at the Dark Knight Rises premier in Colorado. The world is full of crazies, and even if the threat of terrorism isn't real, someone some where is going to use the movie premier to attack and kill innocent people for their own needs. The threat from the "hackers" is pretty much a green light to anyone who wants to prove themselves.

 

Sony probably knew this, and they had to make a decision to either release the movie and guarantee an attack on innocent lives, or drop the movie. They know that releasing this movie is almost a sure thing that someone will die, and if it were me I would've done the same thing. No movie is worth someone being killed, no matter who does the murdering.

 

Did the terrorists win in this situation? Probably, but there was way more at stake here than some hacker terrorists. Sony was stuck in the role of executioner, and they decided to flip the switch on their movie rather than innocent lives. Maybe they deserve some credit for not being a money mongering company who doesn't care about the individual customer. Maybe they did this at the risk of their own company to save peoples lives.

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I can't help but look at the bigger picture here and the greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't blame them for their decision, but it's a bad outcome as far as the big picture is concerned.  If you give in to this kind of thing it just encourages it, and that's not even touching on all the freedom of expression issues.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100%. I'm disappointed at the end result, but I just can't help thinking about what Sony had to consider when canceling this movie.

 

I hope this doesn't set a trend of private businesses giving into terrorist demands, but I just don't think think its as simple as giving into terrorist demands on Sony's end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony is a Japanese company.

 

The talk is all about the US, so this has been confusing me, as well.

 

If anything, Sony should launch a cyber attack on NK from all countries it has offices.  What are they going to do?  Declare war on everyone?

 

Why?  Just to be a dick back to those mother fuckers.

Edited by TheRevanchist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony is a Japanese company. And North Korea has Japanese hostages. I wonder if that had anything to do with it?

 

You know, I hadn't even thought about that and it seems entirely possible that played into it.  I mean, honestly, nobody was going to "9/11" any theaters on the release date.  That whole thing with Dark Knight Rises was one psychopath who just happened to pick that time and place to go on a rampage.  The movie itself had nothing to do with it.  North Korea can't even get a toaster into space.  I hardly expect them to be able to coordinate a bunch of terrorist attacks on movie theaters, assuming the government was even involved in this.  Even if they could, picking a fight with the US on that level is tantamount to suicide.  We put up with a lot of bullshit from North Korea, but that would be where we draw the fucking line.

 

Executing political prisoners, though?  That's far more likely.  Sony is really in a no-win situation here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm just saying that Sony Japan technically has the final word in running the place (unless I just don't understand subsidiaries). And that Japan doesn't want to upset North Korea any more than they do by not being blown off the face of the planet. In response to The Interview being canceled, I mean. I am just shootin' shit here, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't blame them for their decision, but it's a bad outcome as far as the big picture is concerned.  If you give in to this kind of thing it just encourages it, and that's not even touching on all the freedom of expression issues.

I really hope this calm right now is Sony going through the legal hoops to get the movie on many VOD platforms as possible (Like what FDS said). It be a good "Fuck you, NK" sort of thing. In a way, I think this whole event ties into the need for an open internet but that is another whole different monster topic all together.

 

Come on Santa Sony, you can do it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Word I heard is it won't see light of day in any official capacity, VOD or otherwise, as Sony Pictures wouldn't be able to claim back on insurance.

 

The various components of Sony are pretty autonomous, and Sony Pictures is a bit more than just Sony, to point they've 'sued themselves' in the past. It's an American company, based in Hollywood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have so many mixed feelings on the issue...I understand the opinion on pulling it/not releasing it/not showing i. But I also see how it can make a precedent. Then there is the fact that it feels like the past decade+ has basically shown how we disregard any principles when it comes to terrorism...

It would have been slightly better if they had just went VOD as FDS stated. At least that way it is seen as slightly sending an FU to NK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always the chance they're just delaying the release while they work with the government to get to the bottom of this.  I know they said they have no plans for release, but you don't exactly cancel a release because of terrorist threats and then openly say that you'll release it later.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True...it'd be a smart move to release it later and market it as, "The Movie that pissed off terrorists and was banned from theaters!" 

Read an article in the NY Times that said, "Seth Rogen makes a career on being offensive."  And? Are we supposed to cower in fear at the possibility of pissing off dictators,religious extremists, fill in the blank? 


Supposedly this was the first film in history that featured a world leader being targeted for assassination? Man I hope they do a VOD release in a few months.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...