6 ms·

Interesting how so much of the discussion in about retaliation and how little seems to be about being certain who was behind what.

by Quequau 12y ago

palmer_eldritch 12y ago
I guess what really happened doesn't matter much, what's important is what people believe. How fun would it be if the US started an all-out war against NK (ok, that's really unlikely but let's just imagine it) and then find out it was all the doing of some 15yo American kid in his parents basement.
- aikah 12y ago
  > How fun would it be if the US started an all-out war against NK Like against Iraq,you mean,which had nothing to do with 9/11 and which half is now basically run by the worse terrorists in the history of terrorism?
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    And now another Bush is aiming for the white house... Then again, do NK have any natural resources that the energy corporations could make a dime on?
    - maaku 12y ago
      Probably lots, but there would be no exploitable occupation. The south would take over a unified Korea, and they have plenty of qualified resource extraction companies.
      - digi_owl 12y ago
        Yeah, i guess Samsung (seriously, that company is a real life ACME) would be quite happy to move into NK.
- eggnet 12y ago
  There is plenty of reason to go to war with NK without this. Unfortunately, also plenty of reason not to, namely, the threat against SK.
SEJeff 12y ago
But at the same time, it is a touchy line. I'm almost certain that the NSA has their claws into the North Korean network infrastructure in several places. The more the USG discloses, the easier it is for the DPRK to find those places where the USG hacked them and fix it. This is all a coy game of cat and mouse.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  I genuinely don't see how/why this comment would have been downvoted. Can someone who did at least provide context as to why?
innguest 12y ago
You should be upvoted to the maximum. Bloodthirst not only blinds but creates evil, manipulates others into believing lies, and the effect is then compounded.
rmxt 12y ago
The article doesn't critically analyze the whole thing at all. Merely a single line obliquely drops a hint that there's some uncertainty involved about "attacks" in the "electronic world" in general: Traditional deterrents don’t work as well in the electronic world, where it can be hard to detect who is responsible for an attack and even harder to negotiate with them. The only real information from actual government officials is that it merits an "appropriate response" -- the article sets up the reader to think that this response should be against North Korea, when we aren't given any context at all as to whether or not actual government officials think that should be the case. It's disappointing to see these low-on-details, high-on-chest beating pieces being cranked out.
legohead 12y ago
Also, why would the US retaliate over a company.. a Japanese company no less.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  I don't think Sony has been truly Japanese in a long long time. The company is a conglomerate. And the part that got hit recently was Sony Studios, their movie making part located in Hollywood. Wish i could relocate the article, because Sony has the dubious honor of being a company that sued itself by proxy. This by Sony studios being a MPAA member, and MPAA suing a bunch of electronics companies over lax copyright enforcement (Sony included).
- simonblack 12y ago
  Sony is an important member of the MPAA. You know, those people who have deep pockets to lobby (read 'bribe') the US lawmakers into things like DMCA, SOPA, and the copyright provisions of Free-Trade agreements.
logfromblammo 12y ago
This has been making my bullshit detector ping loudly, ever since the first mention of North Korea. Every article that I have seen recently in the mainstream news boldly implicates North Korea as the culprit, with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. When I don my foil hat and wear my fnord-detecting goggles, this is what I find. - The US federal government has been attempting to assemble a military "cyber command" with both offensive and defensive capabilities since 2005, if not sooner. 2005 was when I first heard about it, but it wasn't actually called "cyber command" until late 2006. - China has a military-sponsored unit of network security professionals, which would be proven very capable, if any of the attacks attributed to them could actually be traced back to them. - North Korea is simultaneously ally and irritant to China. Blaming China for past network security breaches has not produced the expected political support. Using North Korea as a more reviled and less diplomatically capable proxy, who also happens to have both a well-funded corps of network security professionals and a rapid and tenacious propaganda response to any possible slight to the country or its leadership, may be a safer means to achieving the desired result. - Truly damaging security breaches rarely achieve news media saturation. Front-page stories in every outlet are rarer still. - Nations occasionally conduct false flag operations for propaganda or political gain. So my current working hypothesis is as follows. A US intelligence organization, with the support of federal network security contractors, worked with Sony insiders to "hack" Sony network security. As we already knew from previous breaches, Sony network security is weak, and they don't even implement the same standards they demand of their partners, contractors, and vendors. Key influencers in the media and entertainment industry are quietly encouraged to support the frame-up. The Congress will soon introduce a national cyber-security bill. Sony's movie, The Interview, is probably an otherwise unremarkable comedy that will enjoy a slight box-office boost from the unconventional publicity. When I take off the foil hat and fnord goggles, this is all just Sony acting like an ass, then getting checked hard by a small group of trolls doing it for the lulz. The news media should be thoroughly embarrassed by its decreasing commitment to fact-checking, but instead it will simply pretend it never happened.

Interesting how so much of the discussion in about retaliation and how little seems to be about being certain who was behind what.

by Quequau 12y ago

Interesting how so much of the discussion in about retaliation and how little seems to be about being certain who was behind what.

palmer_eldritch 12y ago

I guess what really happened doesn't matter much, what's important is what people believe. How fun would it be if the US started an all-out war against NK (ok, that's really unlikely but let's just imagine it) and then find out it was all the doing of some 15yo American kid in his parents basement.

aikah 12y ago
> How fun would it be if the US started an all-out war against NK Like against Iraq,you mean,which had nothing to do with 9/11 and which half is now basically run by the worse terrorists in the history of terrorism?
- digi_owl 12y ago
  And now another Bush is aiming for the white house... Then again, do NK have any natural resources that the energy corporations could make a dime on?
  - maaku 12y ago
    Probably lots, but there would be no exploitable occupation. The south would take over a unified Korea, and they have plenty of qualified resource extraction companies.
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Yeah, i guess Samsung (seriously, that company is a real life ACME) would be quite happy to move into NK.
eggnet 12y ago
There is plenty of reason to go to war with NK without this. Unfortunately, also plenty of reason not to, namely, the threat against SK.

SEJeff 12y ago

But at the same time, it is a touchy line. I'm almost certain that the NSA has their claws into the North Korean network infrastructure in several places. The more the USG discloses, the easier it is for the DPRK to find those places where the USG hacked them and fix it. This is all a coy game of cat and mouse.

SEJeff 12y ago
I genuinely don't see how/why this comment would have been downvoted. Can someone who did at least provide context as to why?

innguest 12y ago

You should be upvoted to the maximum. Bloodthirst not only blinds but creates evil, manipulates others into believing lies, and the effect is then compounded.

rmxt 12y ago

The article doesn't critically analyze the whole thing at all. Merely a single line obliquely drops a hint that there's some uncertainty involved about "attacks" in the "electronic world" in general: Traditional deterrents don’t work as well in the electronic world, where it can be hard to detect who is responsible for an attack and even harder to negotiate with them. The only real information from actual government officials is that it merits an "appropriate response" -- the article sets up the reader to think that this response should be against North Korea, when we aren't given any context at all as to whether or not actual government officials think that should be the case. It's disappointing to see these low-on-details, high-on-chest beating pieces being cranked out.

legohead 12y ago

Also, why would the US retaliate over a company.. a Japanese company no less.

digi_owl 12y ago
I don't think Sony has been truly Japanese in a long long time. The company is a conglomerate. And the part that got hit recently was Sony Studios, their movie making part located in Hollywood. Wish i could relocate the article, because Sony has the dubious honor of being a company that sued itself by proxy. This by Sony studios being a MPAA member, and MPAA suing a bunch of electronics companies over lax copyright enforcement (Sony included).
simonblack 12y ago
Sony is an important member of the MPAA. You know, those people who have deep pockets to lobby (read 'bribe') the US lawmakers into things like DMCA, SOPA, and the copyright provisions of Free-Trade agreements.

logfromblammo 12y ago

This has been making my bullshit detector ping loudly, ever since the first mention of North Korea. Every article that I have seen recently in the mainstream news boldly implicates North Korea as the culprit, with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. When I don my foil hat and wear my fnord-detecting goggles, this is what I find. - The US federal government has been attempting to assemble a military "cyber command" with both offensive and defensive capabilities since 2005, if not sooner. 2005 was when I first heard about it, but it wasn't actually called "cyber command" until late 2006. - China has a military-sponsored unit of network security professionals, which would be proven very capable, if any of the attacks attributed to them could actually be traced back to them. - North Korea is simultaneously ally and irritant to China. Blaming China for past network security breaches has not produced the expected political support. Using North Korea as a more reviled and less diplomatically capable proxy, who also happens to have both a well-funded corps of network security professionals and a rapid and tenacious propaganda response to any possible slight to the country or its leadership, may be a safer means to achieving the desired result. - Truly damaging security breaches rarely achieve news media saturation. Front-page stories in every outlet are rarer still. - Nations occasionally conduct false flag operations for propaganda or political gain. So my current working hypothesis is as follows. A US intelligence organization, with the support of federal network security contractors, worked with Sony insiders to "hack" Sony network security. As we already knew from previous breaches, Sony network security is weak, and they don't even implement the same standards they demand of their partners, contractors, and vendors. Key influencers in the media and entertainment industry are quietly encouraged to support the frame-up. The Congress will soon introduce a national cyber-security bill. Sony's movie, The Interview, is probably an otherwise unremarkable comedy that will enjoy a slight box-office boost from the unconventional publicity. When I take off the foil hat and fnord goggles, this is all just Sony acting like an ass, then getting checked hard by a small group of trolls doing it for the lulz. The news media should be thoroughly embarrassed by its decreasing commitment to fact-checking, but instead it will simply pretend it never happened.