3 ms·

Well, except its not as though anyone is believing NK is behind it because Sony says to. So what does it matter what Sony gains from people believing NK did it?

Well, except its not as though anyone is believing NK is behind it because Sony says to. So what does it matter what Sony gains from people believing NK did it? Their credibility was never in question: when it comes to assigning blame for a cyberattack, Sony has none. The FBI, of course, is another story. But the two reasons you give for them to claim NK involvement would work just as well if any other nation or non-state actor were behind it. And you're just not thinking hard enough if you think NK has no reason to deny responsibility. Off the top of my head: maybe they would rather wriggle out of whatever "response" it is that the U.S. is cooking up, maybe they want to retain what credibility they can so NK can plausibly deny involvement in future attacks, maybe the fallout is also hurting their relations with China, etc.

sroerick 12y ago
I saw a "MPAA Cyberterrorism Expert" on CNN the other day. I think Sony and the MPAA have been doing quite a bit to get people to believe that DPRK was culpable. I saw Seth Green tweet a direct quote from a Sony Press Release yesterday. This news has also sparked these revelations: http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath So there are a lot of issues at play here, which is why I'm cautious to endorse any viewpoint without really good documentation. I definitely think you're right in saying North Korea has enough reason to deny responsibility. Let's not forget that Al Qaeda didn't take responsibility for 9/11 until 3 or 4 years after the fact.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Let's not forget that Al Qaeda didn't take responsibility for 9/11 until 3 or 4 years after the fact. Actually, applying the same line of reasoning also brought me to the same conclusion about Al Qaeda. When Osama initially denied involvement it rang true because he had no motive to deny it if he actually was behind it. He wasn't going to suddenly stop being no. 1 on the FBI's most wanted list. He already had two sizable terrorist attacks to his name. Whereas... consider what Bush and Cheney would have done if they had found conclusive proof that Mohammed Atta was the sole mastermind of the operation. "Sorry guys, we can't retaliate because the perpetrators are all dead"? Heh.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>Their credibility was never in question: when it comes to assigning blame for a cyberattack, Sony has none. As far as the public is concerned they do have some credibility. If for no other reason than they were the ones who were actually hacked. >The FBI, of course, is another story. But the two reasons you give for them to claim NK involvement would work just as well if any other nation or non-state actor were behind it. They would, but by spinning the NK involvement story they can count on Sony's cooperation. If they started contradicting Sony and arguing that it was China the whole thing would seem a lot less convincing. This is a joint effort. >And you're just not thinking hard enough if you think NK has no reason to deny responsibility. Off the top of my head: maybe they would rather wriggle out of whatever "response" it is that the U.S. is cooking up Ok so name a plausible response that would scare them. Invade? Uh, not happening. Economic sanctions? Already doing that. Talk shit about them at the UN? North Korea doesn't care. >maybe they want to retain what credibility they can so NK can plausibly deny involvement in future attacks Which: A) Again they would gain nothing from. B) Also completely goes against their modus operandi - when they gain military advantage they always crow about it. Every time. Did they cover up Taepodong? Hell no. They issued a press release. >maybe the fallout is also hurting their relations with China Or the opposite, because China would almost certainly be happy to mine the hacks for any useful intel. It's not like they are besties with the US.

sroerick 12y ago

I saw a "MPAA Cyberterrorism Expert" on CNN the other day. I think Sony and the MPAA have been doing quite a bit to get people to believe that DPRK was culpable. I saw Seth Green tweet a direct quote from a Sony Press Release yesterday. This news has also sparked these revelations: http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath So there are a lot of issues at play here, which is why I'm cautious to endorse any viewpoint without really good documentation. I definitely think you're right in saying North Korea has enough reason to deny responsibility. Let's not forget that Al Qaeda didn't take responsibility for 9/11 until 3 or 4 years after the fact.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Let's not forget that Al Qaeda didn't take responsibility for 9/11 until 3 or 4 years after the fact. Actually, applying the same line of reasoning also brought me to the same conclusion about Al Qaeda. When Osama initially denied involvement it rang true because he had no motive to deny it if he actually was behind it. He wasn't going to suddenly stop being no. 1 on the FBI's most wanted list. He already had two sizable terrorist attacks to his name. Whereas... consider what Bush and Cheney would have done if they had found conclusive proof that Mohammed Atta was the sole mastermind of the operation. "Sorry guys, we can't retaliate because the perpetrators are all dead"? Heh.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>Their credibility was never in question: when it comes to assigning blame for a cyberattack, Sony has none. As far as the public is concerned they do have some credibility. If for no other reason than they were the ones who were actually hacked. >The FBI, of course, is another story. But the two reasons you give for them to claim NK involvement would work just as well if any other nation or non-state actor were behind it. They would, but by spinning the NK involvement story they can count on Sony's cooperation. If they started contradicting Sony and arguing that it was China the whole thing would seem a lot less convincing. This is a joint effort. >And you're just not thinking hard enough if you think NK has no reason to deny responsibility. Off the top of my head: maybe they would rather wriggle out of whatever "response" it is that the U.S. is cooking up Ok so name a plausible response that would scare them. Invade? Uh, not happening. Economic sanctions? Already doing that. Talk shit about them at the UN? North Korea doesn't care. >maybe they want to retain what credibility they can so NK can plausibly deny involvement in future attacks Which: A) Again they would gain nothing from. B) Also completely goes against their modus operandi - when they gain military advantage they always crow about it. Every time. Did they cover up Taepodong? Hell no. They issued a press release. >maybe the fallout is also hurting their relations with China Or the opposite, because China would almost certainly be happy to mine the hacks for any useful intel. It's not like they are besties with the US.