US Politics

[TheMightyEthan]

US government says it was North Korea.  Official announcement coming later today.

 

Though pretty much everybody already knew that.

[staySICK]

man we got George Clooney to join PXOD?

 

[TheMightyEthan]

Well this is good: 
 

Sony lawyer David Boies said the Hollywood studio planned to release the movie at some point.
 
"Sony only delayed this," Boies said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "It will be distributed. How it's going to be distributed, I don't think anybody knows quite yet."

 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/22/us-sony-cybersecurity-usa-idUSKBN0JX1MH20141222?utm_source=twitter
 
Also, Obama says it wasn't an act of war.  I disagree with that, but can understand not wanting to get involved in rhetoric that could lead toward a re-initiation of military hostilities on the Korean peninsula.

[Mr. GOH!]

You really think the Sony hack constitutes a casus belli, Ethan? Do you think it was intended to provoke a war? Or do you think we are already at war with North Korea, in the sense of an armed conflict?

Edited December 22, 2014 by Mr. GOH!

[Saturnine Tenshi]

That's a good question, GOH. On one hand, I'm biased against companies like Sony. On the other, more logical hand, I suppose it could be considered an attack since Sony is undeniably part of the economy. Just not an attack in a more tangible guns 'n' grenades form.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Saturnine Tenshi

[Mr. GOH!]

An hacking attack, even on the order of a foreign government, is not necessarily an act of war. Intelligence agencies routinely hack foreign businesses and government. Fuck, we tapped the Chancellor of Germany's phone! Surely not every such attack is an act of war. 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Mr. GOH!

[Saturnine Tenshi]

True enough. But at what point does it become one?

[Mr. GOH!]

That's what I'm asking Ethan. My own view is that "act of war" is a descriptive category, not a prescriptive category. I do not believe that the Sony hack is an act of war because: (1) it was not intended to provoke a military response against NK; (2) although the US and NK do not have a mutually recognized peace agreement, they are not currently in armed conflict, so the hack isn't an act undertaken during a real state of war; and (3) I do not think it is sufficient grounds to justify an armed response from the US. 

 

Edit: I'm also somewhat skeptical that NK is actually behind the hack, after reading several articles by security experts criticizing the thin evidence presented by the government. 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Mr. GOH!

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Ah, okay. I think that's a good general outline. Although it's hard to tell whether there were any ulterior motives if it was in fact North Korea that's responsible for the hacking.

 

And I sure wouldn't put it past the gov't to drum up or support a conclusion that so many people have already come to with no real evidence.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Saturnine Tenshi

[Mr. GOH!]

My guess is that the government is basing its statement on bad data or interference from interest groups within the government who see blaming NK as a way to get more resources, influence, or funding.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Gosh, our gov't would never do something so scummy and underhanded to its own citizens!

[TheMightyEthan]

My guess is they have more specific information that they're not releasing.

 

Anyway, I view it as an actual attack in the sense of attempting to do violence/damage, rather than the more intelligence-gathering type attacks you referenced.  The fact that it's a cyber attack does not automatically change that.

 

*Edit* - I am sure they weren't trying to start a war (or at least a re-escalation of the "current" war that exists on paper), but I do view it as an act that would justify a military response.  That said, I think such a military response would be a colossally terrible idea.

Edited December 22, 2014 by TheMightyEthan

[CorgiShinobi]

What Ethan said.

 

The only culprits I can imagine going through all this trouble are either North Korea or perhaps a group in South Korea worried that our actions would make North Korea hostile.

 

So long as you're not in the camp that still suspects Sony Pictures is promoting the movie with this nonsense, you can surmise whomever you please. I just happen to lose a bit of my soul whenever I see crackpot theories on how this is all about increasing sales of a Seth Rogen and James Franco comedy.

[Mister Jack]

I personally consider every foreign hack an act of war, both by us and by other countries. That said, everyone knows that sometimes you just have to pick your battles. If we started a military conflict over every spying incident we'd be living in the Warhammer universe.

[Mr. GOH!]

As noted by several analysts, there was no indication early on that The Interview had anything to do with the hack. It was only after rampant speculation in the media that the alleged hackers began to reference the movie and threaten Sony should it be released to theaters. There is also some indication that the bad English in communications from the hackers is faked bad English in which the errors are not like those made consistently by native Korean speakers.

 

The attack seems squarely aimed to damage Sony's reputation, which is not really an act of war. Sure, anything can be used to justify a war to a bloodthirsty or fearful populace, but that does not make everything an act of war. 

 

As far as cyber-attacks go, most intelligence-gathering operations involve hacking or overcoming security measures; are they not acts of war simply because the general public did not have access to the data gathered or the method of the hack? Hacking foreign businesses and governments to gather intelligence harms the target in that information thought secret and secure from the hacking party is no longer secret and secure from the hacking party and the hacking party may act on its new-found knowledge in ways that are against the target's interest. Both intelligence gathering and the Sony hack seek to damage their targets, just in different ways. What makes the Sony hack an act of war when intelligence gathering is not?

[TheMightyEthan]

Just analogizing to old-timey pre-digital espionage, which is typically not considered an act of war in the same way that a direct attempt to do damage is.

 

As far as who did it, I obviously have no real information about that, that's just my guess.

[Mr. GOH!]

I don't think government disclosure of business secrets of a foreign corporation would have been considered an unambiguous act of war in olden times, either. I do not think England would have gone to war with France just because a French spy released the entire scripts to Shakespeare's plays (entire scripts were hot intellectual property at the time) with author's and thespians' notes.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Mr. GOH!

[TheMightyEthan]

It's not just releasing secrets though, they've also been destroying computer records (wiping hard drives after they steal all the data) and disrupting company operations.  It's more like if French agents stole the scripts, burned everything else, and then hung around to interfere with Shakespeare afterward.

[Mr. GOH!]

Still not an act of war.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, after I wrote that I decided I agree.

[FredEffinChopin]

They've also threatened further retaliation over the film and over the accusations of hacking, and presumably used threats of violence (aka terrorism) to scare Sony into holding off on the film release, which certainly infringes on artistic expression in a way someone within the country couldn't come close to doing. 

 

Is it an "act of war"? I have no idea. I'm sure there is a definite answer to that in some legal sense. If we're sharing our own personal ideas, then yes, I would say they are. A strategic move that aims to deprive an "enemy" of a resource is a military one, even without the threats of violence. Should an "act of war" always be met by a declaration of war? No, not necessarily. I do not think this means anyone should be "going to war" with DPRK. That being said, they've been threatening us for a long time whenever a fit of bluster happens to be convenient, and we always just laugh them off as a bunch of kooks before we go drop more bombs somewhere in the Middle-East. I don't know how this should be responded to, but I think it's more than just a matter of a private corporation being vandalized, and is certainly a matter of national concern. 

[TheMightyEthan]

I just keep thinking: what if instead of digitally they had sent in a special forces team to do the same thing in person, would it have been an act of war?  I can't decide.

[Vecha]

I don't see it as an "armed" act of war...but I think it could warrant a response to do similar hacks against the countries businesses. Not necessarily referring to NK both because it's vague on who actually did it...and I'm sure we are already fucking with NK digitally anyhow.

I would hope no country would want to kill thousands of people(both their own and their foe) over hacking/espionage. 

Now...if a country fucked up the infrastructure of another countries to obscene levels(think black-outs for days/weeks) that it throws a country in near chaos...and they won't relent, I could see armed action taking place. But I don't even see that happening...

[Mr. GOH!]

What strategic resource did the Sony hack remove or seek to remove, Fredeffinchopin?

 

There is no real usable legal definition of an act of war on its own; there are legal definitions for what constitutes an act of war when the phrase is used in context in the text of specific laws, such as under US Code section 2331, which pertains to federal terrorism laws.

 

To my mind,  "act of war" means one of three things: (1) an act giving rise to a legitimate declaration of war against the actor (bombing Pearl Harbor); (2) an act undertaken during armed conflict between nation-states that advances the interests of one participant in the conflict at the expense of other participants; and (3) an act intended to provoke a war. These are, of course, general categories. But to call something like the Sony hack an act of war would dilute the meaning of "war." Nobody was killed. Nobody intended anybody to get killed. The ability of the US to wage war was not seriously affected. If anything, the hack was an act of cyberterrorism or even a psychological operation, but not an act of war. 

[TheMightyEthan]

I agree with your definition, but the problem is the first option is so vague. You're essentially defining "an act of war" as "an act that justifies war" and we haven't gotten anywhere.