Sony vs North Korea: some companies are bigger than countries. So what?
Some companies may have more money than some countries, but comparisons are meaningless, says James Kirkup
We have brought up the issue of “who is to blame” in the Sony hack several times. Original reports indicated North Korea was likely behind it. Then we heard no, they were not. Some speculated China was involved, simply because Mandiant was called in by Sony. Others suggest this is a group of individuals, with no state-sponsorship, using the political climate to throw off would-be investigators. Now? We’re back to the beginning, with North Korea being named as ‘definitely’ involved. There’s only one problem at this point…
Yesterday afternoon, news outlets all over started reporting that the U.S. is blaming North Korea for the attacks on Sony. These accusations are all based on what appears to be a wide variety of unnamed “officials” with no indication that they are in a position to know anything about the breach. The New York Times article, which appears to be a central source of the accusations, says “administration officials” among other terms, but again do not qualify why said officials would have any specific knowledge of the investigation. That article has been dissected to a degree showing how the firm title accusing North Korea buckles under subsequent observations and quotes. Ultimately, we have a named FBI official in a position to have knowledge of the investigation on record saying it was not North Korea, and we have an unknown amount of unknown officials that may or may not have knowledge of the investigation. Yet, the prevailing thought based on watching social media is that most people believe North Korea was behind it.
According to the Washington Post, who spoke with an “intelligence official” who was “briefed on the investigation”, they are almost certain hackers working for North Korea were behind the attack. To counter this, we have pieces from Kim Zetter at Wired and security professional Marc Rogers who make a case that North Korea is likely not involved. One point that can’t be said enough is that “attribution is hard” given the nature of computer intrusions and how hard it is to ultimately trace an attack back to a given individual or group. Past attacks on Sony have not been solved, even years later. The idea that a mere two weeks into the investigation and there is positive attribution, enough to call this an act of war, seems dangerous and questionable.
Intelligence officials believe with “99 percent certainty” that hackers working for the North Korean government carried out the attack, said one individual who was briefed on the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity. — Washington Post
At this point, it certainly could be North Korea. Or China. Or a group of people with no political affiliation, laughing at their tricks that have thrown the rest of society for a loop. As we have said before, it would be best if we reserve judgement until there is a documented forensic trail that truly establishes some level of attribution with certainty. At that point, Sony Pictures and the U.S. government can determine the best way forward. As Jason Koebler at Vice writes, “Reaction to the Sony Hack Is ‘Beyond the Realm of Stupid’” and has a wide variety of points that put the events in perspective.
Following up on the “fallout” angle, it appears that this attack has resulted in the cancellation of two movies. The first movie canceled, ‘The Interview’ has been extensively covered in the media and is accompanied by diverse commentary saying it was the right thing to do or it was caving in to terrorist demands. According to The Wrap, the second movie cancelled, not even in full production, is titled “Pyongyang” and was to star Steve Carell. Produced by company New Regency and directed by Gore Verbinski, the story is based on a graphic novel and follows a Westerner that is accused of espionage in North Korea. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), it was also to be a comedy.
While the technical investigation into the breach is carried out, Tech Crunch reports that Sony is being forced to embrace legacy technology such as faxes and face-to-face meetings. Given that the compromise appears to be extensive, companies cannot assume that the attackers have stopped accessing the network. To err on the side of caution, they must assume that just about every device on their network is compromised.
Finally, in the wake of the North Korea guessing game, we’d like to offer a few points of perspective. When the Guardians of Peace (GOP) called for the cancellation of ‘The Interview’, no one thought it would work. Yet it did. Since the demands of the GOP centered around that and the demands have now been met, Jake Kouns asks if that means the leaks are over? Cyber War News reminds us that one hack led to one movie being cancelled and the world cares deeply. Yet every day, hundreds of companies are hacked leading to tens of thousands of credentials being leaked. Despite that, no one cares. It is interesting how a large media company can have such influence outside the scope of their usual means of influence (i.e. movies). Despite the veiled threats from the GOP suggesting December 25 may see “9/11 type attacks”, President Obama is saying there is no credible threat and encouraging Americans to go to the movies according to CNN. Finally, Mitt Romney chimes in with this great idea:
.@SonyPictures don’t cave, fight: release @TheInterview free online globally. Ask viewers for voluntary $5 contribution to fight #Ebola.
Unfortunately for Romney and those supporting his idea, a CNN email flash arrived shortly after the Tweet saying “Sony Pictures has no further release plans for ‘The Interview,’ a company spokesperson tells CNN’s Brian Stelter, discouraging speculation that it might release the movie digitally.”
It's a sad day when American companies bow to the demands of terrorists through the guise of "public safety". Freedom isn't safe, it must be fought for everyday. #Art by #Munk_One
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
It's a sad day when American companies bow to the demands of terrorists through the guise of "public safety". Freedom isn't safe, it must be fought for everyday. #Art by #Munk_One
I'll just repeat what I wrote to Idris. It is interesting that this English movie, refused by some theaters in '06 is not being brought up in the media… And now the U.S. govt is standing behind Sony (of course) for "freedom of expression"...
Interestingly, in 2006, two US cinema chains, Regal and Cinemark, refused to screen the British mockumentary Death of a President, which depicts the fictional assassination of the then-US president, George W. Bush, on the grounds that the film was morally distasteful.
Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.[1] It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States". The United States Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history of threatening the President.
So, threatening the life of a U.S. president is a felony, but threatening another leader "through comedy" is freedom of expression?
Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.[1] It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States". The United States Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history of threatening the President.
So, threatening the life of a U.S. president is a felony, but threatening another leader "through comedy" is freedom of expression?
If you're threatening a leader "through comedy" as you've put it, you're not delivering a threat! You're delivering a satire. How much more context beyond setting the film's genre as comedy, and casting someone who isn't Kim Jong-un as Kim Jong-un in the film would it take for any reasonably intelligent person to recognize this as being satirical and 100% fictitious? I mean, all it would take was Kim Jong-un personally watching the scene where he is blown up in the film (which has now leaked), and touching his face, and recognizing that he is, lo and behold, not dead.
You seem to think Kim Jong-un wouldn't comprehend this concept; I believe otherwise. This will always be a subjective debate, because neither of us know him.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Who are these "terrorists"? Has it been confirmed that all of the hacks, threats etc are from the same "terrorist group"?
As far as the public knows, absolutely nothing has been confirmed. To determine who is at fault for all of some of this with any certainty would require cyber-sleuthing of questionable legality, so we in the public will likely never know who was/were/is/are responsible. Once power is abused to determine where fault truly lays, even then, the public will never know the outcome.
“This is something that’s being treated as a serious national security matter,” he said. “There is evidence to indicate that we have seen destructive activity with malicious intent that was initiated by a sophisticated actor.”
Earnest would not publicly name the “sophisticated actor” behind the attack, even as U.S. officials have linked North Korea to the hack — something Pyongyang has denied. “I’m not in a position to confirm any attribution at this point,” Earnest said.
The incident remains under investigation by the FBI and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, and Earnest said those efforts are “progressing.” Earnest said it’s unlikely officials will be able to fully disclose the eventual response. “I don’t anticipate that we’ll be in a position where we’re gonna be able to be completely forthcoming about every single element of the response that has been decided upon,” he said.
What happened to the good ol' days where a knife in the back came from a distinct entity, instead of masked by proxies, ISPs, IP redirects and firewalls?
And why are we acting with such cowardice when these anonymous cyber-bullies have yet to prove they possess any power when separated from their screens?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's a sad day when American companies bow to the demands of terrorists through the guise of "public safety". Freedom isn't safe, it must be fought for everyday. #Art by #Munk_One - Sony Pictures is a subsidiary of 'Sony', Sony is Japanese company.
But fine, Sony an American Company bows to terrorist thugs through the guise of public safety.
Is it the first time an American Company (or a company based in the U.S.) has bowed to the/a bully? I'm pretty sure our bully government has dictated the actions of the way some of our companies act/acted.
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,628
This is ridiculous. I read through the entire thread and I still agree with the OP. Everyone can have their takes and list different articles which have interesting opinions on what is happening but for my 2 cents this is jacked up and sad that we have to fear for the safety of movie-goers in a farce/comedic movie.
I'm going to watch Team America tonight at home since I cannot watch in a theater anytime soon.
Now that Sony has played their hand, what's to stop the hackers down the road from fucking with Sony over anything they find offensive?
Why limit this logic to hackers? What is to stop the wierd guy in his mom's basement with the 'People to Kill' list hanging next to him from placing a crank call to Sony and objecting about anything?
Ridiculous.
After “The Interview” imagined the death of Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, North Korea went ballistic. The film was re-edited in response to the Hermit Kingdom’s concerns — and, even so, the rogue nation may have sponsored Sony hacking that resulted in racist e-mails about President Obama coming to light.
But a film about an imagined assassination of President George W. Bush got a somewhat different reception in 2006. “Death of a President,” directed by Gabriel Range and produced by British public-television outlet Channel 4, took a serious look at the consequences of killing No. 43.
“It struck me that imagining the assassination of President Bush was a very potent way of saying, ‘Where has the prosecution of the war on terror taken us?’ ” Range said. “The purpose of the film was not to imagine how the world stage would reset with the assassination of George Bush. The intent of the film is really to use the assassination of President Bush as a dramatic device — using the future as an allegory to comment on the past.”
Some, of course, loathed this conceit for a political thriller.”I think it’s despicable,” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — no fan of Dubya — said in 2007. “I think it’s absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick.”
If a Democratic former first lady and U.S. senator from New York didn’t like the idea of “Death of a President,” it was no surprise Texas Republicans weren’t thrilled.
“I cannot support a video that would dramatize the assassination of our president, real or imagined,” Gretchen Essell, the party’s spokesman in the Lone Star State, said. “I find this shocking, I find it disturbing. I don’t know if there are many people in America who would want to watch something like that.”
Some media outlets refused to run ads for the movie and some movie theater chains refused to show it in theaters.
The reception at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW: chilly.
“We are not going to comment because it does not dignify a response,” the White House said.
Some comments even anticipated the hubbub over “The Interview.”
“It is an appalling way to treat the head of state of another country,” said Eric Staal of the international Republican outreach organization Republicans Abroad.
Yet, in some corners, “Death of a President” earned measured praise for its production value, if not its purpose. Exhibit A: Washington Post film review.
And since when did freedom of speech include making threats to assassinate world leaders? Why isn't that considered terrorism but the other party giving their response is?
Imagine if someone made a comedy in some other country where Obama is threatened with assassination. I'm sure many american's jimmies would be rustled. And call that racism and terrorism.
Key word: COMEDY. Since when did a fictional movie that's recognized as satire by all involved in its production have any bearing on reality?
Since the object of the movie's premise has no clue what a satire is. Really, I'm beside myself that just because this country knows it's a joke, everyone in the world should, particularly the guy who's supposedly getting assassinated in the movie. We live in a bubble and they were playing with fire from the get-go of production. We KNOW that Kim Jong-un is a dangerous man, so why taunt him?
this thread is hilarious. damn it...if only kim jong un had a better grasp of satire!
The bolded parts are exactly what I've been trying to say this entire thread. It's common sense to not go after a dangerous dictator and explore the idea of assassinating him as American entertainment. I swear that half of America most likely does not have this so-called common sense, the least being Seth Rogan and Whatshisface.
We're all outraged at the hacking of Sony Pictures; and we'll all concerned with the national security implications; and we're all expecting the government to launch some form of cyber retaliation or to increase sanctions on North Korea, which they say is behind the hacking, but …
… is making a movie about the assassination of the living, breathing leader of a nation – even that nation – ever a good idea?
One of the best movies of the 1970s was called "Day of the Jackal," which told the story of an assassin plotting to kill Charles de Gaulle, the president of France. When the movie was released, however, de Gaulle had been dead for three years.
In 2009 director Quentin Tarantino released "Inglourious Basterds," the fictional story of U.S. soldiers in World War II on a mission to assassinate Nazi leaders, including Hitler. The war had been over for more than 50 years.
There was a British film in 2006, a "mockumentary" (fake documentary) called "Death of a President" about the fictional aftermath following the assassination of George W. Bush.
It was an awful idea (and I don't recall that it did great a the box office.) But Bush was still in office, and it's not as if a president already is threatened by innumerable kooks.
Still, the U.S. didn't launch a cyber attack on the filmmaker's company.
News reports indicate that the attack on Sony, conducted by hackers calling themselves "Guardians of Peace," was the worst ever attack on a company in the United States and that North Korea is behind it.
Embarrassing emails were released, and other company documents, and there were threats, which caused Sony to cancel the release of "The Interview," a comic film that is said to culminate in a scene depicting the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
As Eric Talmadge, the Associated Press's North Korea bureau chief put it, "If the U.S. government's claim is correct that North Korea was involved in the unprecedented hack attack on Sony Pictures that scuttled Seth Rogen's latest comedy, no one can say they weren't warned. The movie, 'The Interview,' pushed all of North Korea's buttons.
"No country would welcome a movie portraying the glib and graphic assassination of its leader.
"But nowhere could it be expected to generate more official outrage and possible reprisals than in North Korea, home to the world's most intense cult of personality, where even the hint of criticism of the ruling Kim dynasty can mean a long stint in prison and where it's a serious offense to merely crumple up a newspaper with any of the leaders' images."
The Sony attack is a wake-up call to the vulnerability of the Internet – for all of us.
It's a national security issue.
It's also a free speech issue.
Lots of American entertainers have made fun of Kim Jong Un.
We get to say what we want to say in this country. And we should defend that right with all of the weapons we possess – technological and otherwise.
But how about a little common sense along the way?
I like a goofy slapstick comedy as much as the next guy.
The bolded parts are exactly what I've been trying to say this entire thread. It's common sense to not go after a dangerous dictator and explore the idea of assassinating him as American entertainment. I swear that half of America most likely does not have this so-called common sense, the least being Seth Rogan and Whatshisface.
We're all outraged at the hacking of Sony Pictures; and we'll all concerned with the national security implications; and we're all expecting the government to launch some form of cyber retaliation or to increase sanctions on North Korea, which they say is behind the hacking, but …
… is making a movie about the assassination of the living, breathing leader of a nation – even that nation – ever a good idea?
One of the best movies of the 1970s was called "Day of the Jackal," which told the story of an assassin plotting to kill Charles de Gaulle, the president of France. When the movie was released, however, de Gaulle had been dead for three years.
In 2009 director Quentin Tarantino released "Inglourious Basterds," the fictional story of U.S. soldiers in World War II on a mission to assassinate Nazi leaders, including Hitler. The war had been over for more than 50 years.
There was a British film in 2006, a "mockumentary" (fake documentary) called "Death of a President" about the fictional aftermath following the assassination of George W. Bush.
It was an awful idea (and I don't recall that it did great a the box office.) But Bush was still in office, and it's not as if a president already is threatened by innumerable kooks.
Still, the U.S. didn't launch a cyber attack on the filmmaker's company.
News reports indicate that the attack on Sony, conducted by hackers calling themselves "Guardians of Peace," was the worst ever attack on a company in the United States and that North Korea is behind it.
Embarrassing emails were released, and other company documents, and there were threats, which caused Sony to cancel the release of "The Interview," a comic film that is said to culminate in a scene depicting the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
As Eric Talmadge, the Associated Press's North Korea bureau chief put it, "If the U.S. government's claim is correct that North Korea was involved in the unprecedented hack attack on Sony Pictures that scuttled Seth Rogen's latest comedy, no one can say they weren't warned. The movie, 'The Interview,' pushed all of North Korea's buttons.
"No country would welcome a movie portraying the glib and graphic assassination of its leader.
"But nowhere could it be expected to generate more official outrage and possible reprisals than in North Korea, home to the world's most intense cult of personality, where even the hint of criticism of the ruling Kim dynasty can mean a long stint in prison and where it's a serious offense to merely crumple up a newspaper with any of the leaders' images."
The Sony attack is a wake-up call to the vulnerability of the Internet – for all of us.
It's a national security issue.
It's also a free speech issue.
Lots of American entertainers have made fun of Kim Jong Un.
We get to say what we want to say in this country. And we should defend that right with all of the weapons we possess – technological and otherwise.
But how about a little common sense along the way?
I like a goofy slapstick comedy as much as the next guy.
But killing the head of state of another nation?
Not funny.
This is ridiculous. Common sense in a movie? Seriously? It's a movie. 100% fake. It's a script made up entirely by writers. I can't even imagine how many worse movies there are out about killing a political figure in another country or the US.
Sony needs to man up and release this stupid movie. Nothing is going to happen. Except more of Sony's personal info being leaked. Which will happen anyway.
0
Options
WhatYouTaughtMe
I have no idea what's going on right now! Posts: 4,957
I'm not saying North Korea should show the movie in their country. If they don't like it fine, don't show it, like the above mentioned UK film wasn't released here. Saying we shouldn't release it here at home out of fear, is absurd. North Korea's response to a stupid fucking movie is over the top. Again, I really believe their decision not to release it has everything to do with how much financial damage can be done to sony and not a fucking thing to do with people's safety.
I'm not saying North Korea should show the movie in their country. If they don't like it fine, don't show it, like the above mentioned UK film wasn't released here. Saying we shouldn't release it here at home out of fear, is absurd. North Korea's response to a stupid fucking movie is over the top. Again, I really believe their decision not to release it has everything to do with how much financial damage can be done to sony and not a fucking thing to do with people's safety.
Well, some people just don't have that common sense then. They live in a bubble where they think that they can assimilate assassinations of whomever they want without recourse and use the word "comedy" as if it's an excuse to getting away with it. Kind of like that saying "There's truth behind every joke". Well, the joke's on Sony now, isn't it? As well as the ridiculous American public whining about a terrible movie that they don't get to see.
Well, some people just don't have that common sense then. They live in a bubble where they think that they can assimilate assassinations of whomever they want without recourse and use the word "comedy" as if it's an excuse to getting away with it. Kind of like that saying "There's truth behind every joke". Well, the joke's on Sony now, isn't it? As well as the ridiculous American public whining about a terrible movie that they don't get to see.
I agree.
0
Options
WhatYouTaughtMe
I have no idea what's going on right now! Posts: 4,957
I get your point about the casual way movies can touch on some serious subjects/threats. I just can't make the leap as a rational person that a work of fiction is dangerous. Should they not have made the movie White House Down because it depicted an attempted government overthrow? I mean cmon! It's make believe! How many movies have involved all kinds of terrorist plots etc...caving to some looney toon dictator in an oppressive country is baffling to me. Am I allowed to express my opinion of Lil' Kim? Should I be afraid to walk down the street for wishing somebody would clip this guy already? Think of the conditions people live in there and tell me the world wouldn't be a better place without that regime?
I cant believe this thread is still going and some folks are so passionate about such a silly topic...meanwhile the banksters screwed us again and....crickets....
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11300895/Sony-vs-North-Korea-some-companies-are-bigger-than-countries.-So-what.html
Sony vs North Korea: some companies are bigger than countries. So what?
Some companies may have more money than some countries, but comparisons are meaningless, says James Kirkup
Yesterday afternoon, news outlets all over started reporting that the U.S. is blaming North Korea for the attacks on Sony. These accusations are all based on what appears to be a wide variety of unnamed “officials” with no indication that they are in a position to know anything about the breach. The New York Times article, which appears to be a central source of the accusations, says “administration officials” among other terms, but again do not qualify why said officials would have any specific knowledge of the investigation. That article has been dissected to a degree showing how the firm title accusing North Korea buckles under subsequent observations and quotes. Ultimately, we have a named FBI official in a position to have knowledge of the investigation on record saying it was not North Korea, and we have an unknown amount of unknown officials that may or may not have knowledge of the investigation. Yet, the prevailing thought based on watching social media is that most people believe North Korea was behind it.
According to the Washington Post, who spoke with an “intelligence official” who was “briefed on the investigation”, they are almost certain hackers working for North Korea were behind the attack. To counter this, we have pieces from Kim Zetter at Wired and security professional Marc Rogers who make a case that North Korea is likely not involved. One point that can’t be said enough is that “attribution is hard” given the nature of computer intrusions and how hard it is to ultimately trace an attack back to a given individual or group. Past attacks on Sony have not been solved, even years later. The idea that a mere two weeks into the investigation and there is positive attribution, enough to call this an act of war, seems dangerous and questionable.
Intelligence officials believe with “99 percent certainty” that hackers working for the North Korean government carried out the attack, said one individual who was briefed on the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity. — Washington Post
At this point, it certainly could be North Korea. Or China. Or a group of people with no political affiliation, laughing at their tricks that have thrown the rest of society for a loop. As we have said before, it would be best if we reserve judgement until there is a documented forensic trail that truly establishes some level of attribution with certainty. At that point, Sony Pictures and the U.S. government can determine the best way forward. As Jason Koebler at Vice writes, “Reaction to the Sony Hack Is ‘Beyond the Realm of Stupid’” and has a wide variety of points that put the events in perspective.
Following up on the “fallout” angle, it appears that this attack has resulted in the cancellation of two movies. The first movie canceled, ‘The Interview’ has been extensively covered in the media and is accompanied by diverse commentary saying it was the right thing to do or it was caving in to terrorist demands. According to The Wrap, the second movie cancelled, not even in full production, is titled “Pyongyang” and was to star Steve Carell. Produced by company New Regency and directed by Gore Verbinski, the story is based on a graphic novel and follows a Westerner that is accused of espionage in North Korea. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), it was also to be a comedy.
While the technical investigation into the breach is carried out, Tech Crunch reports that Sony is being forced to embrace legacy technology such as faxes and face-to-face meetings. Given that the compromise appears to be extensive, companies cannot assume that the attackers have stopped accessing the network. To err on the side of caution, they must assume that just about every device on their network is compromised.
Finally, in the wake of the North Korea guessing game, we’d like to offer a few points of perspective. When the Guardians of Peace (GOP) called for the cancellation of ‘The Interview’, no one thought it would work. Yet it did. Since the demands of the GOP centered around that and the demands have now been met, Jake Kouns asks if that means the leaks are over? Cyber War News reminds us that one hack led to one movie being cancelled and the world cares deeply. Yet every day, hundreds of companies are hacked leading to tens of thousands of credentials being leaked. Despite that, no one cares. It is interesting how a large media company can have such influence outside the scope of their usual means of influence (i.e. movies). Despite the veiled threats from the GOP suggesting December 25 may see “9/11 type attacks”, President Obama is saying there is no credible threat and encouraging Americans to go to the movies according to CNN. Finally, Mitt Romney chimes in with this great idea:
.@SonyPictures don’t cave, fight: release @TheInterview free online globally. Ask viewers for voluntary $5 contribution to fight #Ebola.
Unfortunately for Romney and those supporting his idea, a CNN email flash arrived shortly after the Tweet saying “Sony Pictures has no further release plans for ‘The Interview,’ a company spokesperson tells CNN’s Brian Stelter, discouraging speculation that it might release the movie digitally.”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I'll just repeat what I wrote to Idris. It is interesting that this English movie, refused by some theaters in '06 is not being brought up in the media… And now the U.S. govt is standing behind Sony (of course) for "freedom of expression"...
So, threatening the life of a U.S. president is a felony, but threatening another leader "through comedy" is freedom of expression?
If you're threatening a leader "through comedy" as you've put it, you're not delivering a threat! You're delivering a satire. How much more context beyond setting the film's genre as comedy, and casting someone who isn't Kim Jong-un as Kim Jong-un in the film would it take for any reasonably intelligent person to recognize this as being satirical and 100% fictitious? I mean, all it would take was Kim Jong-un personally watching the scene where he is blown up in the film (which has now leaked), and touching his face, and recognizing that he is, lo and behold, not dead.
You seem to think Kim Jong-un wouldn't comprehend this concept; I believe otherwise. This will always be a subjective debate, because neither of us know him.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As far as the public knows, absolutely nothing has been confirmed. To determine who is at fault for all of some of this with any certainty would require cyber-sleuthing of questionable legality, so we in the public will likely never know who was/were/is/are responsible. Once power is abused to determine where fault truly lays, even then, the public will never know the outcome.
From an article in TIME yesterday featuring snippets with White House press secretary Josh Earnest (http://time.com/3640419/sony-hack-north-korea-white-house/):
“This is something that’s being treated as a serious national security matter,” he said. “There is evidence to indicate that we have seen destructive activity with malicious intent that was initiated by a sophisticated actor.”
Earnest would not publicly name the “sophisticated actor” behind the attack, even as U.S. officials have linked North Korea to the hack — something Pyongyang has denied. “I’m not in a position to confirm any attribution at this point,” Earnest said.
The incident remains under investigation by the FBI and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, and Earnest said those efforts are “progressing.” Earnest said it’s unlikely officials will be able to fully disclose the eventual response. “I don’t anticipate that we’ll be in a position where we’re gonna be able to be completely forthcoming about every single element of the response that has been decided upon,” he said.
What happened to the good ol' days where a knife in the back came from a distinct entity, instead of masked by proxies, ISPs, IP redirects and firewalls?
And why are we acting with such cowardice when these anonymous cyber-bullies have yet to prove they possess any power when separated from their screens?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's a sad day when American companies bow to the demands of terrorists through the guise of "public safety". Freedom isn't safe, it must be fought for everyday. #Art by #Munk_One
-
Sony Pictures is a subsidiary of 'Sony', Sony is Japanese company.
But fine, Sony an American Company bows to terrorist thugs through the guise of public safety.
Is it the first time an American Company (or a company based in the U.S.) has bowed to the/a bully? I'm pretty sure our bully government has dictated the actions of the way some of our companies act/acted.
Boooo! I gotta run. I'l be back!
I'm going to watch Team America tonight at home since I cannot watch in a theater anytime soon.
"I wish [Sony] had spoken to me first. I would have told them do not get into a pattern where you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-sony-made-a-mistake-2014-12#ixzz3MNHm341X
Why limit this logic to hackers? What is to stop the wierd guy in his mom's basement with the 'People to Kill' list hanging next to him from placing a crank call to Sony and objecting about anything?
Ridiculous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/17/forget-sonys-the-interview-this-award-winning-movie-imagined-the-assassination-of-george-w-
What do you mean 'even'...Obama? Cause Obama is a wuss himself?...So, 'even obama (a wuss) is calling sony out for being 'wussies'.
this thread is hilarious. damn it...if only kim jong un had a better grasp of satire!
I think you're reading way to much into his use of the word "even"
http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2014/12/19/the-interview-north-korea-sony-pictures/20647475/
Really? I thought it was a smartly loaded 'even' by JasonP. I'm kinda bummed now.
This is ridiculous. Common sense in a movie? Seriously? It's a movie. 100% fake. It's a script made up entirely by writers. I can't even imagine how many worse movies there are out about killing a political figure in another country or the US.
Sony needs to man up and release this stupid movie. Nothing is going to happen. Except more of Sony's personal info being leaked. Which will happen anyway.
I agree.
I agree.