11 ms·

Some of the Sony leaks have demonstrated the company's ability to influence the news cycle, giving them pull with certain news organizations and editors to chan

Some of the Sony leaks have demonstrated the company's ability to influence the news cycle, giving them pull with certain news organizations and editors to change or remove parts of a story. I'm disappointed by the lack of evidence given by the FBI and other departments investigating the attack that directly tie the incident to a specific government or group of non-state actors. Many well-known security professionals have given opinions contrary of the FBI's findings, stating that it's not only difficult to determine the source of the attack but also incredibly dangerous to attribute the attack to a specific government given so little direct evidence. There are so many aspects to this story that don't add up, but most strikingly, the press's push to point the finger squarely at North Korea for all this.

bsenftner 12y ago
There needs to be quick resolution for the public to forget about it.
- dmschulman 12y ago
  And a resolution that removes all incompetency from Sony's end while simultaneously painting them as the victim of terrorism.
  - fuzzywalrus 12y ago
    I wish I could remember the HN thread, but another HNer who claimed to have worked for Sony Picture's security described the security system as non-existent and was surprised that it hadn't happened sooner... Now to go looking for that.
    - hsod 12y ago
      Even if their security system was poorly constructed, they're still victims of cyber terrorism.
      - encoded 12y ago
        I have to take exception with the term terrorism here. They were victims of cyber crime, sure.
        mbreese 12y ago
        Not necessarily Sony, but the last missives threatening 9/11-style attacks on movie theaters would count as terrorism. Up until that point it was a hacking scandal against Sony. Once you start threatening the movie-going public, then you move into terrorism.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      And any of us who've worked in a corporate environment know that Sony is by no means exceptional in that respect. There are security vulnerabilities all over cyberspace just waiting for someone to exploit them (just as in real life). We're protected mainly by some combination of good will, disinterest, and fear of punishment (also as in real life).
  - bo1024 12y ago
    I thought it was interesting how much the FBI wanted to paint this as a natural and normal part of their job. If I'm dumb enough to leave my computer vulnerable to the world and someone steals my credit card data, is the FBI going to come help me investigate too?
    - cjbprime 12y ago
      You're being rhetorical, but yes, citizens and companies can and do regularly report internet crimes to the FBI and have them investigated. Normally the FBI would want to see monetary loss of e.g. $50k (arbitrary number I just chose) before they start caring, so your credit card probably isn't going to cut it.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      You seriously think that your debit card is on the same playing field as this attack? Get real, the FBI doesn't care about your checking account, nor should they.
personZ 12y ago
Many well-known security professionals ...who are pandering to a crowd, and based upon essentially no information at all, but just the same sort of "I think" gut feeling notions that we see on HN. While there should always be questions about government honesty, it's rather incredible how far people will reach to find to clutch onto something that backs whatever their initial knee-jerk opinion was, seen throughout the comments here. Quite a few comments are among the "they're making this up to go to war", which is simply incredible: Are people so far out of the loop on world players or current events? The US in no universe will launch a military action against a rogue, shells-pointed-at-Seoul, nuclear armed nation because they hacked Sony. That premise alone is simply absurd. Is the US trying to isolate North Korea? They're already completely isolated. I mean...do people understand the situation North Korea is in, and the complete lack of tools to deal with this? The US gains literally nothing pointing the finger at North Korea.
- uid 12y ago
  > "they're making this up to go to war" literally nobody has said that, all that most people have said is that if you're going to accuse another nation of an act of "cyberwar" at least provide proof. Is that too much to ask?
  - personZ 12y ago
    "Opportunities to get backing for war are rare, and so there is good reason to think that the government would try to capitalize on them."..."USS Maine, anyone?"..."Queue an invasion of North Korea." Literally quite literally doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. And the general conspiratorial narrative is that the US is trying to blame a blameless North Korea to achieve...something. Not sure what.
    - uid 12y ago
      cite a single comment where somebody has said "they are making this up to go to war"
      - 12y ago
berberous 12y ago
Why is it 'incredibly dangerous' to do so? I continue to be blown away by Hacker News' collective refusal to believe that NK is likely behind this hack. Do you all also doubt that they were behind the other hacks mentioned by the FBI (e.g. on South Korean banks and media outlets)? Is it 'incredibly dangerous' to accuse them of that as well? I understand the post-Iraq mentality of demanding evidence before going to war with a country, but that's not what's going on here. Also, given how mouthy North Korea is, nobody finds it telling that other than a single denial on December 7th, they've been quiet? That denial, by the way, consisted of bullshit like saying that there were “a great number of supporters and sympathizers” with North Korea “all over the world,” including “champions of peace” who might initiate more “righteous reaction” against the United States’ “evildoings.”
- dmschulman 12y ago
  "I continue to be blown away by Hacker News' collective refusal to believe that NK is likely behind this hack." Skepticism is healthy and encourages discussion. I am not observing a "collective refusal" as you put it, but instead a strong skepticism from the tech community (a community who has a good basis to interpret this story with). "Do you all also doubt that they were behind the other hacks mentioned by the FBI (e.g. on South Korean banks and media outlets)? Is it 'incredibly dangerous' to accuse them of that as well?" The discussion is around a specific cybersecurity attack, not North Korea's capabilities, so that's a bit of a straw man argument. "I understand the post-Iraq mentality of demanding evidence before going to war with a country, but that's not what's going on here." No rational person is making a case for war over this, but the fact that you mention going to war over this demonstrates why it is incredibly dangerous to make these assumptions about North Korea without looking at all the available evidence. "Also, given how mouthy North Korea is, nobody finds it telling that other than a single denial on December 7th, they've been quiet?" Quite the opposite. I think it would fit the profile if North Korea was being mouthy at this point in time. Their silence would suggest this is a delicate situation for them politically and they don't know how to respond to it.
  - unchocked 12y ago
    It's like what Lenin said...you look for the person who will benefit and uh...
nraynaud 12y ago
There is also the very strong polarization of everything in the US. When they choose a target they just paint everything about it in black. On a related note, I discovered that many Americans have no ideas of the tremendous role of Russia in WWII, it has been completely erased from US collective memory the only thing that's left in popular US memory is USSR, communism is bad (and I'm pretty sure the details of why are blurry), and Russia can only be evil. They are now painting other targets that way, like Iran, NK, and they used the same propaganda against Iraq. I guess they don't know (and acknowledge and take part of the responsibility for) the role of the US in creating the current situation in Korea. There is a real lack of a measured and intellectual discourse in US public space (and by radiating influence, it's crushing it in the rest of the world).
- JackFr 12y ago
  What you seem to be saying, is that because you know of no measured and intellectual discourse in the United States, there is none. Maybe you're looking in the wrong place. Honestly, yours is truly a superficial, fake-sophisticate straw man, devoid of facts or information and pandering to the most simplistic anti-American tropes. I was happy to ignore it, but this caught my eye: > I guess they don't know (and acknowledge and take part of the responsibility for) the role of the US in creating the current situation in Korea. I'm curious what you mean by that.
  - SiVal 12y ago
    Well, since he's upset that Americans don't give Russians enough credit for their WWII contributions, such as the gift of a Stalinist government to the Korean Peninsula, he's probably blaming the US for "creating the current situation" in which the South Koreans have been denied the benefits of life in a Stalinist Workers Paradise.
- aragot 12y ago
  > I discovered that many Americans have no ideas of the tremendous role of Russia in WWII Oh we have. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of... I quote: "Female deaths in connection with rapes in Germany are estimated to 240,000". Stalin himself had to ask them to be more gentle, what an irony from such a horrible person. Besides, Russia was on the side of Hitler until Hitler betrayed it. It's not like they chose to be on the same side as US and democracy and freedom for the last year of WWII, it was the definition of "coincidence".
droopybuns 12y ago
Is it worth observing how quickly we have stopped talking about rectal feeding of Guantanamo Bay detainees?
double0jimb0 12y ago
Every part of the "It's NK" reaction from all institutions of power/news seem just really off. Both MSM and gov't are running with it, without question. And now, most strangers off the street will parrot that same answer. Call it a PR success. My guess, there are some serious, institutional-shaking smoking gun emails between media execs, lobbyists, gov't. Official PR response of all parties presently guilty is to make as much noise about anything that's not in the data dump.
- nemo 12y ago
  "My guess, there are some serious, institutional-shaking smoking gun emails between media execs, lobbyists, gov't." Wouldn't those be released in the SPE exec. mail dumps?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
jason46 12y ago
Seems like there would be substantial traffic logs if 100TB+ of data flowed from Sony to NK, right? Surely the NSA would have seen this traffic, why was Sony not informed of this? Also nobody at Sony noticed suspicious persistent connections to their gateway? Seems if it was not an inside the job the "hackers" must of had access for months to a year to gather that amount of data. I haven't gone looking, but I have doubts the movie in question even existed if there are not copies running rampant on the net. Yes I agree too much of what we're being told does not make sense.
- Buge 12y ago
  You think the movie never existed? So the whole thing is a conspiracy by Sony and the US government? So Sony intentionally leaked all their own financial data? Sony leaked all their own private compromising emails?
  - jason46 12y ago
    So Sony leaked all their guts, but this movie?
    - Buge 12y ago
      Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. My point is that this can't be a conspiracy by Sony, because they would never leak the extremely compromising information that has been leaked. A lot of the leaked information makes them look very bad. If you are trying to say that the movie not being leaked means the movie never existed, that doesn't make sense. If North Korea did hack Sony, they would not leak the movie because they hate the movie and don't want anyone to see it. If a group of other hackers hacked Sony and are pretending to be North Korea (compiling code on computers with the Korean language), then they wouldn't leak the movie because North Korea wouldn't leak it and they are pretending to be North Korea.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  A film is usually completed many months before release; photography generally wraps more than a year in advance of release. The script can float about for years before release. Scripts aren't secret, with rare exceptions (eg a big franchise film like the new Star Wars) - they're shred around freely, because any script worth its salt is registered with the Writer's Guild for copyright establishment purposes, so there's no big advantage to keeping it secret. Only film buffs enjoy reading film scripts, the general public does not. Details about who's attached to a project as a star/director, or senior technician are easily available through trade newspapers and industry newsletters. The 'packaging' of a film ('Seth Rogen to star in The Interview') is the first stage of the marketing, taking place as long as 2-3 years before release, sometimes longer. Basically the way you get a film made is this: Write the script; find some famous actors who like it; get them to sign (largely) non-binding 'letters of intent' to act in it if it manages to attract financing; call up investors (including studios) and say 'do you want to put up the money for this? It's a great script, and I've got letters of intent from Seth and James!'; proceed to the stage of writing more binding contracts once you have money in the bank. Long story short, there has been plenty of time for NK to become aware of the film and get offended about it. By some accounts the idea was in development since the last decade but got shelved when Kim Jong-Il died.
downandout 12y ago
The strongest evidence of a North Korean tie isn't what happened - it's what didn't happen. They didn't release The Interview on torrent sites. Whether this was the work of the NK government, or one of their brainwashed citizens, it doesn't really matter. Their objective was to stop the impending embarrassment of their Dear Leader, and that is exactly what happened. NK was at a bare minimum the cause of the hack, and was almost certainly the perpetrator. Quite often the easiest way to identify a criminal is to look at who benefited most from the crime.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  The initial demand asked for money reward. It could easily be some organized crime hackers that wanted money, and then blamed it on North Korea to throw off everyone's scent. On the Internet nobody knows you're North Korea (if you're sophisticated enough). Also, their main evidence seems to be that "they used the same hacking software as North Korea had used before - and can be found on the black market". So this is a little like some hackers buying forensics tools that can hack iPhones, the same ones the police are buying, and then saying the police hacked the celebrity nudes a few months ago.
  - rconti 12y ago
    I've never understood why so many here ignore the CONTENT of the releases from the GOP. It's so clearly NK or an NK sympathizer. I don't see that kind of regional outrage and anger typically being used to frame someone else.
- geographomics 12y ago
  What you describe is not evidence of anything. One could take the exact same set of observations and equally well conclude that this is a false flag operation.
  - buttcoinslol 12y ago
    What would the US Government gain from that? This isn't going to serve as casus belli for a war with North Korea. North Korea stands to gain the most from this.
j_lev 12y ago
The facts presented in the FBI's statement were inconclusive enough to allow North Korea to deny the charges (which they have done). Assuming the FBI have no reason to lie, the more interesting question is "why did the FBI make a statement mentioning North Korea at all?" The FBI could have chosen to not name the suspect. The only reason I can come up with is that the US is trying to send a message to the world (perhaps China specifically?) that the US is irrational, and may do something crazy at any moment. The historical precedent would be the game of brinksmanship that played out over the Cuban missile crisis. Obama just doesn't have that sheen of crazy that Eisenhower had.
- mcnamara 12y ago
  The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred when Kennedy was President, not Eisenhower. And you really only find that "convince the adversary we're crazy so they're too scared to do anything" strategy in the Nixon administration.
  - j_lev 12y ago
    Sorry yeah I don't know why I said Eisenhower. I stand by the assertion that the US was trying to come off as a little crazy in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

bsenftner 12y ago

There needs to be quick resolution for the public to forget about it.

dmschulman 12y ago
And a resolution that removes all incompetency from Sony's end while simultaneously painting them as the victim of terrorism.
- fuzzywalrus 12y ago
  I wish I could remember the HN thread, but another HNer who claimed to have worked for Sony Picture's security described the security system as non-existent and was surprised that it hadn't happened sooner... Now to go looking for that.
  - hsod 12y ago
    Even if their security system was poorly constructed, they're still victims of cyber terrorism.
    - encoded 12y ago
      I have to take exception with the term terrorism here. They were victims of cyber crime, sure.
      - mbreese 12y ago
        Not necessarily Sony, but the last missives threatening 9/11-style attacks on movie theaters would count as terrorism. Up until that point it was a hacking scandal against Sony. Once you start threatening the movie-going public, then you move into terrorism.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    And any of us who've worked in a corporate environment know that Sony is by no means exceptional in that respect. There are security vulnerabilities all over cyberspace just waiting for someone to exploit them (just as in real life). We're protected mainly by some combination of good will, disinterest, and fear of punishment (also as in real life).
- bo1024 12y ago
  I thought it was interesting how much the FBI wanted to paint this as a natural and normal part of their job. If I'm dumb enough to leave my computer vulnerable to the world and someone steals my credit card data, is the FBI going to come help me investigate too?
  - cjbprime 12y ago
    You're being rhetorical, but yes, citizens and companies can and do regularly report internet crimes to the FBI and have them investigated. Normally the FBI would want to see monetary loss of e.g. $50k (arbitrary number I just chose) before they start caring, so your credit card probably isn't going to cut it.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    You seriously think that your debit card is on the same playing field as this attack? Get real, the FBI doesn't care about your checking account, nor should they.

personZ 12y ago

Many well-known security professionals ...who are pandering to a crowd, and based upon essentially no information at all, but just the same sort of "I think" gut feeling notions that we see on HN. While there should always be questions about government honesty, it's rather incredible how far people will reach to find to clutch onto something that backs whatever their initial knee-jerk opinion was, seen throughout the comments here. Quite a few comments are among the "they're making this up to go to war", which is simply incredible: Are people so far out of the loop on world players or current events? The US in no universe will launch a military action against a rogue, shells-pointed-at-Seoul, nuclear armed nation because they hacked Sony. That premise alone is simply absurd. Is the US trying to isolate North Korea? They're already completely isolated. I mean...do people understand the situation North Korea is in, and the complete lack of tools to deal with this? The US gains literally nothing pointing the finger at North Korea.

uid 12y ago
> "they're making this up to go to war" literally nobody has said that, all that most people have said is that if you're going to accuse another nation of an act of "cyberwar" at least provide proof. Is that too much to ask?
- personZ 12y ago
  "Opportunities to get backing for war are rare, and so there is good reason to think that the government would try to capitalize on them."..."USS Maine, anyone?"..."Queue an invasion of North Korea." Literally quite literally doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. And the general conspiratorial narrative is that the US is trying to blame a blameless North Korea to achieve...something. Not sure what.
  - uid 12y ago
    cite a single comment where somebody has said "they are making this up to go to war"
    - 12y ago

berberous 12y ago

Why is it 'incredibly dangerous' to do so? I continue to be blown away by Hacker News' collective refusal to believe that NK is likely behind this hack. Do you all also doubt that they were behind the other hacks mentioned by the FBI (e.g. on South Korean banks and media outlets)? Is it 'incredibly dangerous' to accuse them of that as well? I understand the post-Iraq mentality of demanding evidence before going to war with a country, but that's not what's going on here. Also, given how mouthy North Korea is, nobody finds it telling that other than a single denial on December 7th, they've been quiet? That denial, by the way, consisted of bullshit like saying that there were “a great number of supporters and sympathizers” with North Korea “all over the world,” including “champions of peace” who might initiate more “righteous reaction” against the United States’ “evildoings.”

dmschulman 12y ago
"I continue to be blown away by Hacker News' collective refusal to believe that NK is likely behind this hack." Skepticism is healthy and encourages discussion. I am not observing a "collective refusal" as you put it, but instead a strong skepticism from the tech community (a community who has a good basis to interpret this story with). "Do you all also doubt that they were behind the other hacks mentioned by the FBI (e.g. on South Korean banks and media outlets)? Is it 'incredibly dangerous' to accuse them of that as well?" The discussion is around a specific cybersecurity attack, not North Korea's capabilities, so that's a bit of a straw man argument. "I understand the post-Iraq mentality of demanding evidence before going to war with a country, but that's not what's going on here." No rational person is making a case for war over this, but the fact that you mention going to war over this demonstrates why it is incredibly dangerous to make these assumptions about North Korea without looking at all the available evidence. "Also, given how mouthy North Korea is, nobody finds it telling that other than a single denial on December 7th, they've been quiet?" Quite the opposite. I think it would fit the profile if North Korea was being mouthy at this point in time. Their silence would suggest this is a delicate situation for them politically and they don't know how to respond to it.
- unchocked 12y ago
  It's like what Lenin said...you look for the person who will benefit and uh...

nraynaud 12y ago

There is also the very strong polarization of everything in the US. When they choose a target they just paint everything about it in black. On a related note, I discovered that many Americans have no ideas of the tremendous role of Russia in WWII, it has been completely erased from US collective memory the only thing that's left in popular US memory is USSR, communism is bad (and I'm pretty sure the details of why are blurry), and Russia can only be evil. They are now painting other targets that way, like Iran, NK, and they used the same propaganda against Iraq. I guess they don't know (and acknowledge and take part of the responsibility for) the role of the US in creating the current situation in Korea. There is a real lack of a measured and intellectual discourse in US public space (and by radiating influence, it's crushing it in the rest of the world).

JackFr 12y ago
What you seem to be saying, is that because you know of no measured and intellectual discourse in the United States, there is none. Maybe you're looking in the wrong place. Honestly, yours is truly a superficial, fake-sophisticate straw man, devoid of facts or information and pandering to the most simplistic anti-American tropes. I was happy to ignore it, but this caught my eye: > I guess they don't know (and acknowledge and take part of the responsibility for) the role of the US in creating the current situation in Korea. I'm curious what you mean by that.
- SiVal 12y ago
  Well, since he's upset that Americans don't give Russians enough credit for their WWII contributions, such as the gift of a Stalinist government to the Korean Peninsula, he's probably blaming the US for "creating the current situation" in which the South Koreans have been denied the benefits of life in a Stalinist Workers Paradise.
aragot 12y ago
> I discovered that many Americans have no ideas of the tremendous role of Russia in WWII Oh we have. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of... I quote: "Female deaths in connection with rapes in Germany are estimated to 240,000". Stalin himself had to ask them to be more gentle, what an irony from such a horrible person. Besides, Russia was on the side of Hitler until Hitler betrayed it. It's not like they chose to be on the same side as US and democracy and freedom for the last year of WWII, it was the definition of "coincidence".

droopybuns 12y ago

Is it worth observing how quickly we have stopped talking about rectal feeding of Guantanamo Bay detainees?

double0jimb0 12y ago

Every part of the "It's NK" reaction from all institutions of power/news seem just really off. Both MSM and gov't are running with it, without question. And now, most strangers off the street will parrot that same answer. Call it a PR success. My guess, there are some serious, institutional-shaking smoking gun emails between media execs, lobbyists, gov't. Official PR response of all parties presently guilty is to make as much noise about anything that's not in the data dump.

nemo 12y ago
"My guess, there are some serious, institutional-shaking smoking gun emails between media execs, lobbyists, gov't." Wouldn't those be released in the SPE exec. mail dumps?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

jason46 12y ago

Seems like there would be substantial traffic logs if 100TB+ of data flowed from Sony to NK, right? Surely the NSA would have seen this traffic, why was Sony not informed of this? Also nobody at Sony noticed suspicious persistent connections to their gateway? Seems if it was not an inside the job the "hackers" must of had access for months to a year to gather that amount of data. I haven't gone looking, but I have doubts the movie in question even existed if there are not copies running rampant on the net. Yes I agree too much of what we're being told does not make sense.

Buge 12y ago
You think the movie never existed? So the whole thing is a conspiracy by Sony and the US government? So Sony intentionally leaked all their own financial data? Sony leaked all their own private compromising emails?
- jason46 12y ago
  So Sony leaked all their guts, but this movie?
  - Buge 12y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. My point is that this can't be a conspiracy by Sony, because they would never leak the extremely compromising information that has been leaked. A lot of the leaked information makes them look very bad. If you are trying to say that the movie not being leaked means the movie never existed, that doesn't make sense. If North Korea did hack Sony, they would not leak the movie because they hate the movie and don't want anyone to see it. If a group of other hackers hacked Sony and are pretending to be North Korea (compiling code on computers with the Korean language), then they wouldn't leak the movie because North Korea wouldn't leak it and they are pretending to be North Korea.
anigbrowl 12y ago
A film is usually completed many months before release; photography generally wraps more than a year in advance of release. The script can float about for years before release. Scripts aren't secret, with rare exceptions (eg a big franchise film like the new Star Wars) - they're shred around freely, because any script worth its salt is registered with the Writer's Guild for copyright establishment purposes, so there's no big advantage to keeping it secret. Only film buffs enjoy reading film scripts, the general public does not. Details about who's attached to a project as a star/director, or senior technician are easily available through trade newspapers and industry newsletters. The 'packaging' of a film ('Seth Rogen to star in The Interview') is the first stage of the marketing, taking place as long as 2-3 years before release, sometimes longer. Basically the way you get a film made is this: Write the script; find some famous actors who like it; get them to sign (largely) non-binding 'letters of intent' to act in it if it manages to attract financing; call up investors (including studios) and say 'do you want to put up the money for this? It's a great script, and I've got letters of intent from Seth and James!'; proceed to the stage of writing more binding contracts once you have money in the bank. Long story short, there has been plenty of time for NK to become aware of the film and get offended about it. By some accounts the idea was in development since the last decade but got shelved when Kim Jong-Il died.

downandout 12y ago

The strongest evidence of a North Korean tie isn't what happened - it's what didn't happen. They didn't release The Interview on torrent sites. Whether this was the work of the NK government, or one of their brainwashed citizens, it doesn't really matter. Their objective was to stop the impending embarrassment of their Dear Leader, and that is exactly what happened. NK was at a bare minimum the cause of the hack, and was almost certainly the perpetrator. Quite often the easiest way to identify a criminal is to look at who benefited most from the crime.

higherpurpose 12y ago
The initial demand asked for money reward. It could easily be some organized crime hackers that wanted money, and then blamed it on North Korea to throw off everyone's scent. On the Internet nobody knows you're North Korea (if you're sophisticated enough). Also, their main evidence seems to be that "they used the same hacking software as North Korea had used before - and can be found on the black market". So this is a little like some hackers buying forensics tools that can hack iPhones, the same ones the police are buying, and then saying the police hacked the celebrity nudes a few months ago.
- rconti 12y ago
  I've never understood why so many here ignore the CONTENT of the releases from the GOP. It's so clearly NK or an NK sympathizer. I don't see that kind of regional outrage and anger typically being used to frame someone else.
geographomics 12y ago
What you describe is not evidence of anything. One could take the exact same set of observations and equally well conclude that this is a false flag operation.
- buttcoinslol 12y ago
  What would the US Government gain from that? This isn't going to serve as casus belli for a war with North Korea. North Korea stands to gain the most from this.

j_lev 12y ago

The facts presented in the FBI's statement were inconclusive enough to allow North Korea to deny the charges (which they have done). Assuming the FBI have no reason to lie, the more interesting question is "why did the FBI make a statement mentioning North Korea at all?" The FBI could have chosen to not name the suspect. The only reason I can come up with is that the US is trying to send a message to the world (perhaps China specifically?) that the US is irrational, and may do something crazy at any moment. The historical precedent would be the game of brinksmanship that played out over the Cuban missile crisis. Obama just doesn't have that sheen of crazy that Eisenhower had.

mcnamara 12y ago
The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred when Kennedy was President, not Eisenhower. And you really only find that "convince the adversary we're crazy so they're too scared to do anything" strategy in the Nixon administration.
- j_lev 12y ago
  Sorry yeah I don't know why I said Eisenhower. I stand by the assertion that the US was trying to come off as a little crazy in the Cuban Missile Crisis.