This is a pandering article where someone acts outraged to pander to an audience. Firstly, "cyberterrorism" has forever been defined as attacks on computer res

This is a pandering article where someone acts outraged to pander to an audience. Firstly, "cyberterrorism" has forever been defined as attacks on computer resources, not attacks on people. If a nation state crippled a business to coerce their actions, that is pretty much spot on with the definition of cyberterrorism. Secondly, who ever said that such a theater attack would have to simultaneously hit 18,000 theaters? The threat seemed to be that any theater could be at risk. I mean, is ten theater attacks okay? Five? Two? One? Sony and theaters are not the US military or the government. They're a risk abatement private enterprise. This is a terribly weak article. He redefines existing terminology and then strikes down absurd strawmen to get the cheering crowd to nod along.