3 ms·
This sounds the lawyers argument. Something is illegal so it shouldn't be done, and you get to get to act as if it didn't happen at all. Anyone who thinks diffe
by waps 12y ago
This sounds the lawyers argument. Something is illegal so it shouldn't be done, and you get to get to act as if it didn't happen at all. Anyone who thinks different, gets to pay restitution.
The thing to remember here is that law is a fiction, enforced by the state.
I don't think anyone is "siding against Sony", they just
1) Realize that if this is indeed a nation-state attacking, the perpetrators are beyond the reach of justice. So law really is a fiction in this case.
2) Are calling out Sony, not for being in the wrong, but for being stupid.
- skuhn 12y agoI agree, law is a social construct and a fiction as you say. US laws certainly do not always agree with my own moral code. If you prefer, I find these attackers and their actions to be immoral, which is solely my own judgment. Saying that Sony behaved stupidly isn't a problem in itself. I just feel like this is the dominant narrative and that it's been taken to the point where people are blaming Sony and not the attackers. It's analogous to the furor over companies like Yahoo being outed as supposed PRISM participants. Yes, that sucks but the US government is the culprit there. That's where the blame rightly belongs. I think it's easy for some people to look at this and say it just prevented the release of a not particularly exciting movie, no big deal. How would we all feel if it hit a little closer to home though? What if Putin decides that it offends him that many of the world's computers use an OS with a kernel created by a Finnish programmer and takes similar steps?