3 ms·

>You realize it isn't the same kid every time, right? The whole point of doing something for lulz is to laugh about it within a group of like-minded people who

>You realize it isn't the same kid every time, right? The whole point of doing something for lulz is to laugh about it within a group of like-minded people who share techniques and hacks. Yes. I both realize this and posited the admittedly outrageous notion that rest may have reacted to one or two of them getting arrested by the FBI by developing better opsec and engaging in a bit of misdirection. >See GP post for reason. That it was really about not showing a film making fun of the leader makes them look silly. It was a film made by a foreign enemy that has threatened them countless times about the assassination of their leader. They were pretty open that they took it plenty seriously - if they didn't fear being made to look silly by complaining about it at the UN why would they fear looking silly because of the hack? FWIW, if you made a similar film endorsing the assassination of a sitting US president the secret service would treat it as a national security threat. >then these supposed non-Koreans messed up by having so much evidence point to DPRK. As far as I'm aware there was no evidence that wouldn't have been easy enough to fake by hackers who had the skills to breach Sony's security. When I hear the word "sloppy" I can't help but think "deliberately placed in order to deceive".

lern_too_spel 9y ago
> I both realize this and posited the admittedly outrageous notion You apparently skipped why it is outrageous. There are no lulz if nobody knows about it. > They were pretty open that they took it plenty seriously - if they didn't fear being made to look silly by complaining about it at the UN why would they fear looking silly because of the hack? Complaining about how a country's leadership is depicted is one thing. If a President is depicted as a fool who gets assassinated by other countries, the US has every right to take offense. Retaliating with an illegal hack shows thin skin and (what you somehow have kept forgetting to address since GGGP post) exposes other hacks. > As far as I'm aware there was no evidence that wouldn't have been easy enough to fake by hackers who had the skills to breach Sony's security. And you have yet to give a plausible reason for anybody to go through that trouble. In the meantime, we have lots of public evidence that says that DPRK has done similar hacks in the past, and the agencies claim to have additional bulletproof private evidence that they don't want to burn their sources for.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >You apparently skipped why it is outrageous. There are no lulz if nobody knows about it. I'm sure there were plenty of "lulz" to be had among their little group and while they'd like the admiration of joe bloggs as well as their peers, joe bloggs' admiration can be ceded if it means the FBI isn't kicking their door in. >Retaliating with an illegal hack shows thin skin This is how your cultural lens filters it but it is not how they would see it. From their perspective, this hack would demonstrate North Korean technological superiority (important, because they have an insecurity surrounding this), while the outcome would demonstrate the moral decrepitude, hypocrisy and incompetence of the American and Japanese "imperialist aggressors". This is the nature of both their mindset and propaganda and it is very consistent. No innocent life was taken. There was nothing really immoral about the act from their perspective (or in general). The simplest explanation is just that they didn't do it. I can well imagine that they erroneously believed (and probably reported in pyongyang newspapers) that the hack was performed by a secretive admiring ally. >If a President is depicted as a fool who gets assassinated by other countries, the US has every right to take offense. I like how when the tables are turned you somehow see it as something more serious. Your cultural filter is on display. >And you have yet to give a plausible reason for anybody to go through that trouble. Trying to prevent your door from getting kicked in by the FBI is more than a plausible reason. >In the meantime, we have lots of public evidence Yeah, like "here are some IP addresses in a log that ended up there because they were 'sloppy'". No potential for fakery there. >the agencies claim to have additional bulletproof private evidence I trust that about as much as I trusted the CIA's claim that they had bulletproof unseen evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It wasn't put on display because of national security concerns. It wasn't put on display because it doesn't exist. The CIA goes to Congress every so often with their cap in hand asking for more money. This is the exact kind of thing they use to justify their budget increase. I typically bear this in mind when I hear them cite evidence that we are being protected from seeing for our own good.

lern_too_spel 9y ago

> I both realize this and posited the admittedly outrageous notion You apparently skipped why it is outrageous. There are no lulz if nobody knows about it. > They were pretty open that they took it plenty seriously - if they didn't fear being made to look silly by complaining about it at the UN why would they fear looking silly because of the hack? Complaining about how a country's leadership is depicted is one thing. If a President is depicted as a fool who gets assassinated by other countries, the US has every right to take offense. Retaliating with an illegal hack shows thin skin and (what you somehow have kept forgetting to address since GGGP post) exposes other hacks. > As far as I'm aware there was no evidence that wouldn't have been easy enough to fake by hackers who had the skills to breach Sony's security. And you have yet to give a plausible reason for anybody to go through that trouble. In the meantime, we have lots of public evidence that says that DPRK has done similar hacks in the past, and the agencies claim to have additional bulletproof private evidence that they don't want to burn their sources for.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>You apparently skipped why it is outrageous. There are no lulz if nobody knows about it. I'm sure there were plenty of "lulz" to be had among their little group and while they'd like the admiration of joe bloggs as well as their peers, joe bloggs' admiration can be ceded if it means the FBI isn't kicking their door in. >Retaliating with an illegal hack shows thin skin This is how your cultural lens filters it but it is not how they would see it. From their perspective, this hack would demonstrate North Korean technological superiority (important, because they have an insecurity surrounding this), while the outcome would demonstrate the moral decrepitude, hypocrisy and incompetence of the American and Japanese "imperialist aggressors". This is the nature of both their mindset and propaganda and it is very consistent. No innocent life was taken. There was nothing really immoral about the act from their perspective (or in general). The simplest explanation is just that they didn't do it. I can well imagine that they erroneously believed (and probably reported in pyongyang newspapers) that the hack was performed by a secretive admiring ally. >If a President is depicted as a fool who gets assassinated by other countries, the US has every right to take offense. I like how when the tables are turned you somehow see it as something more serious. Your cultural filter is on display. >And you have yet to give a plausible reason for anybody to go through that trouble. Trying to prevent your door from getting kicked in by the FBI is more than a plausible reason. >In the meantime, we have lots of public evidence Yeah, like "here are some IP addresses in a log that ended up there because they were 'sloppy'". No potential for fakery there. >the agencies claim to have additional bulletproof private evidence I trust that about as much as I trusted the CIA's claim that they had bulletproof unseen evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It wasn't put on display because of national security concerns. It wasn't put on display because it doesn't exist. The CIA goes to Congress every so often with their cap in hand asking for more money. This is the exact kind of thing they use to justify their budget increase. I typically bear this in mind when I hear them cite evidence that we are being protected from seeing for our own good.