3 ms·

So, so far we've seen 0 actual proof that NK is behind the Sony hack, big allegations from the US government, NK which wants to be included in the investigation

by NietTim 12y ago

So, so far we've seen 0 actual proof that NK is behind the Sony hack, big allegations from the US government, NK which wants to be included in the investigation and the US which doesn't want NK included in the investigation. I'm having this strange feeling of déjàvu....

higherpurpose 12y ago
NK isn't the most reliable entity, but it's at least strange that NK would go "come here and see if we did it", and US is like "Uh no, we already know you did it!" when its evidence doesn't look so solid.
- NietTim 12y ago
  Exactly, and that is the reason why I don't trust the US. Why not be 100% transparent in the investigation? What is there to lose?
  - hackerblues 12y ago
    I of course have no idea what the real answer is, but if you play out the hypothetical this is hardly a paradox. NK hacks Sony. US uses technique x to attribute the attack to NK. In the course of a shared investigation NK learns what technique x is. NK changes their future operations to counter technique x. The US loses the ability to use technique x to attribute attacks.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - brazzy 12y ago
        Allowed? By whom?
      - pdabbadabba 12y ago
        It's not that they're not allowed to use the technique. We just wouldn't want to help them do it.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    You have no idea how they obtained whatever evidence they have. The source(s) may very well be classified, in which case they _cannot_ share any of it. NK spys, wire taps, etc. None of this could be disclosed. I wish I knew too, and Im not trying to convince you to blindly trust them (because I don't either), but you have to at least acknowledge the fact that they may very well have "something to lose". My wife was in the Navy for six years and had a relatively high security clearance for an enlisted member. More than once she knew far more about a situation than was being reported on the news.
    - mokus 12y ago
      With the present level of trust in the U.S. government, especially with respect to "cyber" behaviors, it seems ill-advised to publicly announce an intention to retaliate based on "trust us, we have proof it's them but we won't tell you what it is". It's right up there with "we have proof Iraq's got WMD's but we wont tell you what it is". Whether it's true or not, the point is they don't have the brownie points right now to be able to say that and be believed.
      - EpicEng 12y ago
        Agreed, but I'm not sure they have much of a choice. Let's assume that the Fed is telling the truth and that they do in fact have hard evidence. As they have not presented this evidence, we have to conclude that it is classified. So, they cannot present the raw intel, but they also cannot step back and do nothing as this is a hot, national issue which is now about more than a security breach at a movie company. So, they come forward with the accusation and assure the public that a "proportional and appropriate" response will be dealt. Of course, this scenario paints the best possible picture of the Fed. It may or may not be the case. However, short of evidence which in no way compromises a classified source, it would be their only option. I just don't see the motive behind framing NK for this. Given, I/we don't typically have a clue about what actually goes on at this level of international relations, but there is no obvious motive at present time.
        mokus 12y ago
personZ 12y ago
But you don't have to see proof, and it is no one's burden to convince you. The US is not trying to prosecute North Korea in court. This isn't an amendments issue. And despite the ridiculous recurring claims, the US is not using this as a context of war. "NK which wants to be included in the investigation" It is incredible that people are actually falling for this. North Korea said "let us in on the investigation or we will attack you". Who is going to say yes to this, even if one were so naive as to think the request were truthful (which it most certainly is not). It amazingly achieved its goal, however.
- ssmoot 12y ago
  The US shouldn't attempt to convince their citizens of anything before attacking another country? I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK. At least to me that seems a very reasonable interpretation of the fuzzy political language of: "we'll have a response at a time, place and method of our choosing". I don't dispute that NK comes off loopy. Or that a joint investigation seems unlikely. That doesn't automatically follow that the FBI report is faultless though.
  - personZ 12y ago
    I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK. He said absolutely no such thing, and it is rather incredible if people think this. The US has warned that they will respond, which will end up being a complaint in the UN. Just to be clear, North Korea regularly warns the US of nuclear annihilation, imminent attacks, and so on...and people think the thing that will put the US over the top is a minor Sony hack?
    - throwaway751822 12y ago
      North Korea has a history of only threatening violence, but the United States has the history of following through. The last time the US said it would respond "at a time and place of its choosing", I believe it decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, did it not?
    - ssmoot 12y ago

by NietTim 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

NK isn't the most reliable entity, but it's at least strange that NK would go "come here and see if we did it", and US is like "Uh no, we already know you did it!" when its evidence doesn't look so solid.

NietTim 12y ago
Exactly, and that is the reason why I don't trust the US. Why not be 100% transparent in the investigation? What is there to lose?
- hackerblues 12y ago
  I of course have no idea what the real answer is, but if you play out the hypothetical this is hardly a paradox. NK hacks Sony. US uses technique x to attribute the attack to NK. In the course of a shared investigation NK learns what technique x is. NK changes their future operations to counter technique x. The US loses the ability to use technique x to attribute attacks.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - brazzy 12y ago
      Allowed? By whom?
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      It's not that they're not allowed to use the technique. We just wouldn't want to help them do it.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  You have no idea how they obtained whatever evidence they have. The source(s) may very well be classified, in which case they _cannot_ share any of it. NK spys, wire taps, etc. None of this could be disclosed. I wish I knew too, and Im not trying to convince you to blindly trust them (because I don't either), but you have to at least acknowledge the fact that they may very well have "something to lose". My wife was in the Navy for six years and had a relatively high security clearance for an enlisted member. More than once she knew far more about a situation than was being reported on the news.
  - mokus 12y ago
    With the present level of trust in the U.S. government, especially with respect to "cyber" behaviors, it seems ill-advised to publicly announce an intention to retaliate based on "trust us, we have proof it's them but we won't tell you what it is". It's right up there with "we have proof Iraq's got WMD's but we wont tell you what it is". Whether it's true or not, the point is they don't have the brownie points right now to be able to say that and be believed.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      Agreed, but I'm not sure they have much of a choice. Let's assume that the Fed is telling the truth and that they do in fact have hard evidence. As they have not presented this evidence, we have to conclude that it is classified. So, they cannot present the raw intel, but they also cannot step back and do nothing as this is a hot, national issue which is now about more than a security breach at a movie company. So, they come forward with the accusation and assure the public that a "proportional and appropriate" response will be dealt. Of course, this scenario paints the best possible picture of the Fed. It may or may not be the case. However, short of evidence which in no way compromises a classified source, it would be their only option. I just don't see the motive behind framing NK for this. Given, I/we don't typically have a clue about what actually goes on at this level of international relations, but there is no obvious motive at present time.
      - mokus 12y ago

personZ 12y ago

But you don't have to see proof, and it is no one's burden to convince you. The US is not trying to prosecute North Korea in court. This isn't an amendments issue. And despite the ridiculous recurring claims, the US is not using this as a context of war. "NK which wants to be included in the investigation" It is incredible that people are actually falling for this. North Korea said "let us in on the investigation or we will attack you". Who is going to say yes to this, even if one were so naive as to think the request were truthful (which it most certainly is not). It amazingly achieved its goal, however.

ssmoot 12y ago
The US shouldn't attempt to convince their citizens of anything before attacking another country? I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK. At least to me that seems a very reasonable interpretation of the fuzzy political language of: "we'll have a response at a time, place and method of our choosing". I don't dispute that NK comes off loopy. Or that a joint investigation seems unlikely. That doesn't automatically follow that the FBI report is faultless though.
- personZ 12y ago
  I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK. He said absolutely no such thing, and it is rather incredible if people think this. The US has warned that they will respond, which will end up being a complaint in the UN. Just to be clear, North Korea regularly warns the US of nuclear annihilation, imminent attacks, and so on...and people think the thing that will put the US over the top is a minor Sony hack?
  - throwaway751822 12y ago
    North Korea has a history of only threatening violence, but the United States has the history of following through. The last time the US said it would respond "at a time and place of its choosing", I believe it decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, did it not?
  - ssmoot 12y ago