Silly? I wish I could have asked you guys a week ago if you thought it was silly the idea of North Korea pulling off a cyber attack of the magnitude they did? Followed by threats -- empty or not -- that ultimately resulted in the losses that it did?
I don't want to come off as any less patriotic as you guys, but I think you're being a bit naive to think that North Korea is so crippled with respect to their capabilities. And what they can't do themselves, I'm sure they can afford to outsource.
"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Call it what it is.
Well seeing they had a well publicized cyber attack on South Korea back in March of 2013 and cases of simliar stuff before that your assumption that I would have presumed they were incapable of a cyber attack on Sony would be misguided. There is nothing new here. They are not a threat to movie theatres here. I would go see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation.
Ditto.
If they have nuclear capability they probably could round up a few crazies. Doesn't take a lot to shoot up a movie theater. Never underestimate your enemy; Bin Laden took down two buildings with box cutters being his most powerful weapon.
Silly? I wish I could have asked you guys a week ago if you thought it was silly the idea of North Korea pulling off a cyber attack of the magnitude they did? Followed by threats -- empty or not -- that ultimately resulted in the losses that it did?
I don't want to come off as any less patriotic as you guys, but I think you're being a bit naive to think that North Korea is so crippled with respect to their capabilities. And what they can't do themselves, I'm sure they can afford to outsource.
"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Call it what it is.
Well seeing they had a well publicized cyber attack on South Korea back in March of 2013 and cases of simliar stuff before that your assumption that I would have presumed they were incapable of a cyber attack on Sony would be misguided. There is nothing new here. They are not a threat to movie theatres here. I would go see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation.
Ditto.
If they have nuclear capability they probably could round up a few crazies. Doesn't take a lot to shoot up a movie theater. Never underestimate your enemy; Bin Laden took down two buildings with box cutters being his most powerful weapon.
I don't think I am underestimating anything. I think others are overestimating, and in doing so are giving them exactly what they want.
What I will admit is that none of us really know for sure, so all we can do is make up our own minds based on what info is public (or we otherwise have access to on our own). So, your mileage may vary but as was said earlier I would have gone to see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation or fear.
Silly? I wish I could have asked you guys a week ago if you thought it was silly the idea of North Korea pulling off a cyber attack of the magnitude they did? Followed by threats -- empty or not -- that ultimately resulted in the losses that it did?
I don't want to come off as any less patriotic as you guys, but I think you're being a bit naive to think that North Korea is so crippled with respect to their capabilities. And what they can't do themselves, I'm sure they can afford to outsource.
"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Call it what it is.
Well seeing they had a well publicized cyber attack on South Korea back in March of 2013 and cases of simliar stuff before that your assumption that I would have presumed they were incapable of a cyber attack on Sony would be misguided. There is nothing new here. They are not a threat to movie theatres here. I would go see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation.
Ditto.
If they have nuclear capability they probably could round up a few crazies. Doesn't take a lot to shoot up a movie theater. Never underestimate your enemy; Bin Laden took down two buildings with box cutters being his most powerful weapon.
I don't think I am underestimating anything. I think others are overestimating, and in doing so are giving them exactly what they want.
What I will admit is that none of us really know for sure, so all we can do is make up our own minds based on what info is public (or we otherwise have access to on our own). So, your mileage may vary but as was said earlier I would have gone to see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation or fear.
What you or I would decide to do is a personal decision; what SONY and the Theaters decided had greater ramifications - both ethically and legally. On the infinitesimal chance that something happened it would have been their necks in a noose.
To say this is nothing new is simply untrue.
It is true. You know nothing about it, because either you aren't paying attention to what goes on in the world outside our borders, or you haven't researched what has gone on prior to the Sony hack.
The attack was unprecedented with respect to the leverage it created and how that leverage was used to manipulate elements of American society to North Korea's favor. What did the cyber attack of 2013 accomplish? I know nothing about it, probably because it actually was a non-event. But I doubt we'll be forgetting this one anytime soon.
The hack itself is most certainly NOT unprecedented, as anyone with a computer can find out in under 2 minutes. But most Americans couldn't care less what North and South Korea do to each other, especially when no shots are being fired, hence the 2013 “Dark Seoul” hack, along with countless others mostly against South Korea, have flown under the radar screen here. The only thing that has changed from the Sony hack is the perception of North Korea in the US.
I really don't understand what all the downplay accomplishes. You can't solve problems that aren't properly defined.
No one is downplaying anything. North Korea has been enhancing its cyber attack capabilities for several years, this is publicly known and I have no question that is being watched closely by the intelligence community here and abroad. But cyber capabilities do not automatically translate to capabilities to carry out movie theater attacks on US soil. There is no evidence that anyone has offered to suggest that that have any capabilities beyond cyber that could be considered a threat. I think that too much OVERPLAY has occurred on the part of Sony and other entertainment companies (hard to really blame them, but it is true IMO) and I think the president was right in acknowledging that fact. I agree that you can't solve problems that aren't properly defined, but I would argue that your point of view is not helping to properly defining the problem.
Anyhow, agree to disagree I guess.
Yep. 
[Edited on 12/23/2014 by gondicar]
And now that common sense has prevailed I will go to this movie.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/12/23/the-interview-thursday/20808469/
I don't think I am underestimating anything. I think others are overestimating, and in doing so are giving them exactly what they want.
What I will admit is that none of us really know for sure, so all we can do is make up our own minds based on what info is public (or we otherwise have access to on our own). So, your mileage may vary but as was said earlier I would have gone to see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation or fear.
What you or I would decide to do is a personal decision; what SONY and the Theaters decided had greater ramifications - both ethically and legally. On the infinitesimal chance that something happened it would have been their necks in a noose.
It was clearly corporate risk assessment at play, but I think it was less about the threat of actual violence and more about not wanting to be a target of more cyber hacks. That is where the waters get very murky here...is state-sponsored cyber hacking of private business systems an issue for he US gov't to address, or the private sector itself, and how do we (the US gov't and private enterprise) deal with and react to this kind of activity. This is the real issue that this hack brings to the surface, IMO.
And now that common sense has prevailed I will go to this movie.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/12/23/the-interview-thursday/20808469//blockquote >
Excellent news.
Don't forget to factor in specific threats of violence against US citizens.
Such as?
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
Meh, North Korea threatens us at least once a month for some perceived insult. If I reacted to every threat our enemies hurl at the U.S. I would never leave my house.
Don't forget to factor in specific threats of violence against US citizens.
Such as?
Of course you already know I'm talking about this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sony-pictures-hackers-make-911-like-threat-over-the-interview-release/
I thought you meant threats against specific US citizens.
In any case, the movie is being screened this weekend so it won't be long before we find out how credible the sabre rattling really is (or isn't).
I don't think I am underestimating anything. I think others are overestimating, and in doing so are giving them exactly what they want.
What I will admit is that none of us really know for sure, so all we can do is make up our own minds based on what info is public (or we otherwise have access to on our own). So, your mileage may vary but as was said earlier I would have gone to see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation or fear.
What you or I would decide to do is a personal decision; what SONY and the Theaters decided had greater ramifications - both ethically and legally. On the infinitesimal chance that something happened it would have been their necks in a noose.
It was clearly corporate risk assessment at play, but I think it was less about the threat of actual violence and more about not wanting to be a target of more cyber hacks. That is where the waters get very murky here...is state-sponsored cyber hacking of private business systems an issue for he US gov't to address, or the private sector itself, and how do we (the US gov't and private enterprise) deal with and react to this kind of activity. This is the real issue that this hack brings to the surface, IMO.
I think we are saying the same thing; I started this thread to complain about the government bitching rather than being proactively involved with SONY.
and re: the comment someone else made about do I get on planes? Again; the government runs the TSA. I wouldn't leave airport security up to AA or Delta. The government should have been invloved with this from the beginning.
And if anyone wants to feel less than safe; three weeks ago a friend of mine bought a ticket for her daughter using AA points. She neglected to put her daughters name on the ticket. The girl checked a bag at the counter and went through security without anyone noticing the discrepancy. Made it from SF to NYC
I don't think I am underestimating anything. I think others are overestimating, and in doing so are giving them exactly what they want.
What I will admit is that none of us really know for sure, so all we can do is make up our own minds based on what info is public (or we otherwise have access to on our own). So, your mileage may vary but as was said earlier I would have gone to see the movie in an instant without the slightest of hesitation or fear.
What you or I would decide to do is a personal decision; what SONY and the Theaters decided had greater ramifications - both ethically and legally. On the infinitesimal chance that something happened it would have been their necks in a noose.
It was clearly corporate risk assessment at play, but I think it was less about the threat of actual violence and more about not wanting to be a target of more cyber hacks. That is where the waters get very murky here...is state-sponsored cyber hacking of private business systems an issue for he US gov't to address, or the private sector itself, and how do we (the US gov't and private enterprise) deal with and react to this kind of activity. This is the real issue that this hack brings to the surface, IMO.
I think we are saying the same thing; I started this thread to complain about the government bitching rather than being proactively involved with SONY.
and re: the comment someone else made about do I get on planes? Again; the government runs the TSA. I wouldn't leave airport security up to AA or Delta. The government should have been invloved with this from the beginning.
And if anyone wants to feel less than safe; three weeks ago a friend of mine bought a ticket for her daughter using AA points. She neglected to put her daughters name on the ticket. The girl checked a bag at the counter and went through security without anyone noticing the discrepancy. Made it from SF to NYC
I went back and read your original post. Not sure what exactly you want the govt (and by "the govt" I assume we are talking about the president because I'm pretty sure the govt has been involved in this since before this past week) to do. Nationalize Sony?
No clue what if anything the gov't discussed/advised with SONY. Just feel that the gov't should have discussed the situation - tried to give assistance - and refrain from criticizing a private company. Kind of lie De Blasio should never have criticized the grand jury decision re; Garner. Obama did handle the Ferguson decision well when he stated whether you like it or not this is the law. SONY should have been supported publically for being the victim.
Um,. they did. They spoke up immedialtey about this non threat. This was 3 days before Obama spoke and before the movie chains got stupid.
DHS: No credible threat to Sony movie launch
By David Perera
12/16/14 5:53 PM EST
The Homeland Security Department says there’s no reason to think there’s a credible plot to attack U.S. movie theaters on Christmas Day as a protest against the Sony movie “The Interview,” despite threats from the Sony hackers.
A DHS official, speaking on condition of background, said the department is aware of a threat made Tuesday by the group that hacked Sony.
“We are still analyzing the credibility of these statements, but at this time there is no credible intelligence to indicate an active plot against movie theaters within the United States,” the official said.
No clue what if anything the gov't discussed/advised with SONY. Just feel that the gov't should have discussed the situation - tried to give assistance.
You have no clue whether they did or not, but are criticizing them for not. Hmmm.
Well, they did and Sony did what they wanted to anyway. Turns out the Sony agrees with the govt after all and is releasing the movie.
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
In that case the government stepped in changed the way of doing things and to some extent reasssured the public that it would not happen again. Here all we have is the president saying essentially "Well I wish they would have called me because I would have told them not to give in to these tactics." How that would make anyone feel better I don't know.
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
In that case the government stepped in changed the way of doing things and to some extent reasssured the public that it would not happen again. Here all we have is the president saying essentially "Well I wish they would have called me because I would have told them not to give in to these tactics." How that would make anyone feel better I don't know.
The comparison is ridiculous, and borderline offensive.
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
In that case the government stepped in changed the way of doing things and to some extent reasssured the public that it would not happen again. Here all we have is the president saying essentially "Well I wish they would have called me because I would have told them not to give in to these tactics." How that would make anyone feel better I don't know.
You wear your biased hatred for Obama quite well. Obama said we should not give in to terror tactics. He said the move should be released. Basically, that follows what was said in 2001. Don't give in to terrorists. What a shame that you have lost your ability to ever be unbiased.
Rusty you are missing the point, it is the subject matter of the film that is wrong. The movie calls for an assassination attempt on a current world leader, doesn't matter if the people they would send are idiots and could never accomplish it, to suggest an agency or group would try to recruit people to carry out such an act is what the issue is, and again, if it was about any NATO ally President, they would not find it funny. If another country did a movie suggesting something like that for this country, nobody in the Pentagon would find it funny.
It's this one way street, if we do not like a country, it's leader or people, we feel it is fine to humiliate them, threaten them etc. etc. It is just plain wrong.
Naturally you, as a Muslim, do not highly value the notion of freedom of expression.
No Doug, I think people should be free to express themselves but if that expression is hurtful, demeaning, humiliating to others, then the person, or company should refrain from that. Even in the Bible Galatians spells out very clear in Chapter 15 verses 19-22 the characteristics of sinful nature versus goodly nature that God wants people to demonstrate.
5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious, sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, envy, drunkenness, orgies and the like. I warn you as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, against such things there is no law.
Later on in 6:8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature from that nature will reap destruction.
IF SONY did not know if would be hurtful to Kim Jun Un and the North Koreans, when they was informed of their feelings about it, they should have been sorry. They are not, their goal is money and making fun of that country's leader. We here in this country know it is a spoof, but since it is hurtful, to anyone, it should not be shown.
I also wonder, IF someone even Koreans in this country retaliate and do an act of terror at a movie theatre showing the film, will SONY feel any moral responsibility for that? It's not a question of being held hostage by another country dictating to us what we can do here, they are calling our attention to what they perceive it to mean, and that they feel strongly enough to want us not to show the film. I think that should be respected, even though that request was delivered with a threat.
I get that hacking Sony is not an act of war, but how is threatening a 9/11-esque attack on theater-goers anything less than terrorism?
It is terrorism, but that response is being provoked by the movie going forward. We can say they do not have a right to blow up a threatre, they feel we are threatening their Pressident. Assassinations are really not a funny topic. As I asked before if the movie was about assassinating a NATO ally leader, none of those countries would think it was funny, so apparently we are the only country that thinks it is funny.
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
North Korea is a nuclear armed country, to ignore what they are saying, that there will be severe consequences to us if the movie is shown, and if we do not cooperate in the fact finding on who did the cyber attack, is bad foreign policy.
POINT: Don't humiliate or make fun of a nuclear armed country or it's leaders, OR don't complain when they launch one that kills millions of people.
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
In that case the government stepped in changed the way of doing things and to some extent reasssured the public that it would not happen again. Here all we have is the president saying essentially "Well I wish they would have called me because I would have told them not to give in to these tactics." How that would make anyone feel better I don't know.
The comparison is ridiculous, and borderline offensive.
What is ridiculous is that you could possibly find anything offensive in that statement, let alone inaccurate. Like it or not, dougrhon speaks the truth here.
But I do agree the original 9/11 comment was not relevant and should have been omitted here. That's why I passed over it yesterday. dougrhon did well explaining why it was a silly comment.
Actually, it was very relevant to the argument that we should fear North Korea. We didn't fear another attack from people who actually had the shown the ability to attack us. I'm sorry if that flew over your head.
And doughron is a biased individual who will always stand on the opposite side of Obama. It makes his arguments weak as he does not take the time to ever give them any further thought.
Who here argues that fear of North Korea is necessary? Not me, and it's a strange argument to make if anyone is.
And your recollection of fear following 9/11 is inaccurate. Plenty of economic data to back that up, represented as major losses in industries like tourism, air travel, etc. It took a lot more than gentle assurances to get this country back to normal.
but I think you're being a bit naive to think that North Korea is so crippled with respect to their capabilities. And what they can't do themselves, I'm sure they can afford to outsource
but let's at least acknowledge that, this time, it was much more than empty threats and typical rhetoric. The cyber attack was very successful not only at face value but also in terms of legitimizing the threats that followed. So what's the formula we use here, say if 1 in every 1000 threats from DPNK are acted upon do we stop dismissing them as hollow? I think the fact that they acted this time changes everything.
o say this is nothing new is simply untrue. The attack was unprecedented with respect to the leverage it created and how that leverage was used to manipulate elements of American society to North Korea's favor. What did the cyber attack of 2013 accomplish? I know nothing about it, probably because it actually was a non-event. But I doubt we'll be forgetting this one anytime soon.
I really don't understand what all the downplay accomplishes. You can't solve problems that aren't properly defined. Call it what it is.
Don't forget to factor in specific threats of violence against US citizens. This wasn't just a computer crime against some corporation. A lot more than credit card numbers and private emails were compromised in this attack.
It will get even murkier when you evaluate situations involving banks and other infrastructure-critical "private" corporations. That includes internet backbone, Google, etc.
These are all your words. I would say you fear North Korea quite a bit.
After 9/11, there was a short period of the tourism and air travel, but it was very short.
North Korea is a rogue state. If they could have physically attacked us, they would have done it by now.
[Edited on 12/25/2014 by jkeller]
I never called you a coward. I used your words to prove my point. As for the rest of your rant.... No, it is Christmas Eve. I'll ignore it. 
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
In that case the government stepped in changed the way of doing things and to some extent reasssured the public that it would not happen again. Here all we have is the president saying essentially "Well I wish they would have called me because I would have told them not to give in to these tactics." How that would make anyone feel better I don't know.
The comparison is ridiculous, and borderline offensive.
What is ridiculous is that you could possibly find anything offensive in that statement, let alone inaccurate. Like it or not, dougrhon speaks the truth here.
But I do agree the original 9/11 comment was not relevant and should have been omitted here. That's why I passed over it yesterday. dougrhon did well explaining why it was a silly comment.
There is no hope for you.
Back in 2001, a bunch of lowlifes flew airplanes into buildings. I suppose those who fear this North Korea attack don't go on airplanes or into tall buildings anymore.
In that case the government stepped in changed the way of doing things and to some extent reasssured the public that it would not happen again. Here all we have is the president saying essentially "Well I wish they would have called me because I would have told them not to give in to these tactics." How that would make anyone feel better I don't know.
The comparison is ridiculous, and borderline offensive.
What is ridiculous is that you could possibly find anything offensive in that statement, let alone inaccurate. Like it or not, dougrhon speaks the truth here.
But I do agree the original 9/11 comment was not relevant and should have been omitted here. That's why I passed over it yesterday. dougrhon did well explaining why it was a silly comment.
There is no hope for you.
Why don't you try articulating WHY you think his comment was ridiculous or offensive? Or you just hate dougrhon because he's conservative and automatically dismiss/ insult without consideration? Because lack of intellectual analysis is typically a conservative trait. I'm really confused, not used to fellow liberals being the drive by snarky types.
[Edited on 12/25/2014 by PerryBoynton]
I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative, and regardless of political ideology it should be obvious. Over 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 and scores and scores of combatants and non-combatants have died since as a result. There is no comparison. Period. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you is why I made the comment.
[Edited on 12/25/2014 by gondicar]
Maybe I am not interpreting the thread correctly but are posters here really fearing threats from a terrorist state who threatens the U.S. on regular basis without following through? Really? are we supposed to live our lives in fear from these clowns?
Maybe I am not interpreting the thread correctly but are posters here really fearing threats from a terrorist state who threatens the U.S. on regular basis without following through? Really? are we supposed to live our lives in fear from these clowns?
But they followed thru this time. No?
No, I don't see anyone here encouraging others to be afraid. Was calling Bin Laden a terrorist after 9/11 a submission to fear, or simply an honest assessment of the events that had just occurred?
Not sure I would put 911 in the same category with the Sony database hack job. I doubt we would have the creation of the Homeland security dept or the invasive airport security we have now as the result of a hack into a corporate database so I don't see the parallel.
Should we be concerned about cyber terror? Sure, but IMHO it is a different animal altogether.
Maybe I am not interpreting the thread correctly but are posters here really fearing threats from a terrorist state who threatens the U.S. on regular basis without following through? Really? are we supposed to live our lives in fear from these clowns?
But they followed thru this time. No?
No, I don't see anyone here encouraging others to be afraid. Was calling Bin Laden a terrorist after 9/11 a submission to fear, or simply an honest assessment of the events that had just occurred?
Not sure I would put 911 in the same category with the Sony database hack job. I doubt we would have the creation of the Homeland security dept or the invasive airport security we have now as the result of a hack into a corporate database so I don't see the parallel.
Should we be concerned about cyber terror? Sure, but IMHO it is a different animal altogether.
The cyber attack on a private company in itself is not with the 3 page of discussion here so far. Maybe on a technology website, sure. But the threats against ordinary American citizens that followed is what in my opinion makes it bona-fide terrorism and therefore fair comparison to 9/11 in some basic respects.
[Edited on 12/26/2014 by PerryBoynton]
If you are saying the threat to injure theater goers related to the cyber attack is terrorism I would tend to agree but IMHO the threat is no where near as concerning as one from the Arab terrorist groups we face today. Consider the sources and their actions.
