4 ms·

Petrobras is hardly a private corporation - the Brazilian government is the majority shareholder[1]. What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this

Petrobras is hardly a private corporation - the Brazilian government is the majority shareholder[1]. What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. Per your own link, broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance. [1] http://peakenergystrategist.com/archives/tag/petrobras/ http://peakenergystrategist.com/archives/tag/petrobras/

xnull2guest 12y ago
Petrobras is very close to 50% owned by the public, but okay. There's plenty of other examples including the IT systems of various private firms around the world, Stellar, Cetel, IABG, Huawei, Deutsche Telekom, even some multinational companies based in the US. > What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. 100% agree. It is very different and establishing boundaries here is an important keystone to US cyberwarfare norm efforts. Unlike other posters I would separate sabotage from 'corporate doxxing' - Stuxnet then is very different. > broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance Which depends on the perspective - as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" and the US is well known for international propaganda, I could well understand if another nation state considered the private company partners to be an extension of fundamental military importance (and certainly the US considers it a keystone of international efforts and calls it "Psychological Warfare").
- csandreasen 12y ago
  > as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" Whoa - that's a bold claim. I'm assuming that you're referring to this[1], which claims that Bruce Bennett from the RAND Corporation was consulted five days after North Korea began making threats towards Sony over the film. The CEO of Sony claimed that someone at the State Department agreed with his assessment. Consulting about the political ramifications of a film after a foreign leader threatens violent action is different than being actively involved in the development of the film. I still very much disagree that Sony could be considered a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, but will concede that North Korean leadership is crazy and would make up any excuse. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-sony-emails-allege-u-s-govt-official-ok-d-controversial-ending-to-the-interview.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-s...

xnull2guest 12y ago

Petrobras is very close to 50% owned by the public, but okay. There's plenty of other examples including the IT systems of various private firms around the world, Stellar, Cetel, IABG, Huawei, Deutsche Telekom, even some multinational companies based in the US. > What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. 100% agree. It is very different and establishing boundaries here is an important keystone to US cyberwarfare norm efforts. Unlike other posters I would separate sabotage from 'corporate doxxing' - Stuxnet then is very different. > broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance Which depends on the perspective - as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" and the US is well known for international propaganda, I could well understand if another nation state considered the private company partners to be an extension of fundamental military importance (and certainly the US considers it a keystone of international efforts and calls it "Psychological Warfare").

csandreasen 12y ago
> as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" Whoa - that's a bold claim. I'm assuming that you're referring to this[1], which claims that Bruce Bennett from the RAND Corporation was consulted five days after North Korea began making threats towards Sony over the film. The CEO of Sony claimed that someone at the State Department agreed with his assessment. Consulting about the political ramifications of a film after a foreign leader threatens violent action is different than being actively involved in the development of the film. I still very much disagree that Sony could be considered a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, but will concede that North Korean leadership is crazy and would make up any excuse. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-sony-emails-allege-u-s-govt-official-ok-d-controversial-ending-to-the-interview.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-s...