The Ethics behind the SonyLeaks (and SPECTRE-Leaks)

24

Comments

  • Posts: 315
    bondjames wrote: »
    There is no way in hell that a president of the United States would confidently come out and make these statements, which would be absolutely idiotic, if there was a legitimate threat.

    Don't be too quick to assail a President for making idiotic statements. We had to endure 8 years of Bush's wit and wisdom. YIKES!

    The beautiful part of freedom of expression is that today's controversy often becomes tomorrow's classic work of art. Let the artist censor his own work not the church, organization or government. 'The Interview' will be out and available to anyone in the world before 'Spectre' is done filming.

    Here we sit with pretend names on a website of a fictional character we all enjoy who trusted no one. Ironic isn't it. All of us can be targets of computer mischief of any kind, at any time.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    FLeiter wrote: »
    Let the artist censor his own work not the church, organization or government.

    On this I agree 100%.

    I am all for freedom of expression and limits on censorship.

    I am also all for whistleblowers, whether they be corporate or government. At the end of the day, anything that shifts power back a small way toward the little people, I'm all for....
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    More James Bond's? Nah, the world needs more Jack Bauers.

    Agreed. I want more of them all. Bauer, Hunt, Bond, & Bourne

    And Batman.
    FLeiter wrote: »
    Let the artist censor his own work not the church, organization or government.

    Absolutely.

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 2,015
    And now this :

    "Dear Mr. Michael Lynton (CEO of Sony Entertainment),

    We shall first-off begin this message with an expression of sympathy as you have failed to release "The Interview" as you believe that hackers shall carry out a new operation to cause malicious damage within your organisation.

    I would like to inform you that we all know the hacks didn't come from North Korea (we think everybody knows about this already).

    What we would like to say is that by not releasing "The Interview", you are denying us the privilege of the Freedom Of Information Act (1966).

    Unfortunately, due to your organisation panicking at first sight of trouble, we find this very cowardly of both yourself and your organisation (Sony Entertainment).

    We know that Mr. Paulo Coelho has offered Sony Entertainment a sum of $100,000 for the rights of the movie; where he shall then be able to upload the movie onto BitTorrent.

    Obviously, you shall not be responding to his generous offer - so please respond to ours with a public conference, we wish to offer you a deal...

    Release "The Interview" as planned, or we shall carry out as many hacks as we are capable of to both Sony Entertainment, and yourself.

    Obviously, this document was only created by a group of 25 - 30 Anons, but there are more of us on the internet than you can possibly imagine.


    We are Anonymous,
    We are Legion,
    We do not forgive,
    We do not forget,
    Expect us."

    And another interesting read :
    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-hack-skeptics,news-20037.html

    "The U.S. security-intelligence complex is running amok once again," Sean Sullivan, a security adviser at Finnish antivirus firm F-Secure, tweeted. "Washington, D.C., is incapable of saying 'we don't know.'"
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    And another interesting read :
    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-hack-skeptics,news-20037.html

    "The U.S. security-intelligence complex is running amok once again," Sean Sullivan, a security adviser at Finnish antivirus firm F-Secure, tweeted. "Washington, D.C., is incapable of saying 'we don't know.'"

    Thank you for posting this @Suivez_ce_parachute

    This further confirms my suspicions that this is not a North Korea attack.

    Which raises interesting questions: namely, who benefits from this attack and therefore who could have done it? Could it have been an inside job, to test the security of a corporation's network? Keep in mind also that Sony Pictures is part of a Japanese conglomerate. Therefore could it have been China (a more likely source than North Korea if you think about it) given their animosity to Japan?

    Could it in fact have been the US, as part of its 'war gaming' to give corporations a heads up that their security systems are not up to scratch? Cybersecurity is something the CIA takes very seriously.

    Obama's comments just confirmed for me that there is more to this than we know, and not in a good way. He shouldn't have said anything about it because he gave it away.

    If someone discusses it where it is not to be discussed, then go after him/her. I have never agreed with making policy decisions based on 'fear' of something happening that has not happened.
  • Posts: 315
    There are interesting similarities between the current Sony/North Korea escapade and one which occurred in 1941.(There are a few spoilers coming.)

    Fritz Lang, a German film director who had the fled Germany in the 1930's, produced one of his finest works with 'Man Hunt'. It is the story of an Englishman who is also a noted big game hunter. He has tired of actually killing his prey and now derives pleasure from the 'sporting stalk'. He decides to stalk the world's biggest game-Adolph Hitler. He obviously does not complete his task, is captured by the Nazis and tortured and then escapes.(Please watch the movie for more.)

    At the time of the movie(1939) England was not at war with Germany. Both England and the USA were trying to avoid war and chose isolationist policies or complete appeasement. Many people feared that producing a film showing an assassination attempt of Hitler would be a tipping point(like any thing would have stopped him). When the script was developed from the novel, it was offered to director John Ford. Who was quietly persuaded by U. S. government officials to not have any further involvement. The project was then presented to Fritz Lang.

    But Lang was not free to say his peace about the dangers of Hitler. There was a torture scene that was cut and other scenes toned down as to not be so truthful, lest the Nazis get madder. 'Man Hunt' is one of my favorite films and even more so when it's placed in the context of the times and the intrigue of governments trying to avoid stating the obvious.

    Another good political thriller is Fred Zinnemann's 'Day of the Jackal' and the attempt to kill France's Charles de Gaulle.
  • Maybe I just have a simplistic take on all of this. Regardless of who is responsible for the original leak, as far as I'm concerned the motive is clear: this is a case of cyberterrorism. Therefore, anyone who participates in spreading the content of ANY of these leaks...details of upcoming scripts, confidential memos, any of it...is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. Period. Now, I'm not including info that Eon chooses to release to the public, footage that is taken from shoots in public places, and that sort of thing. But spreading any information that originates with the leaked material, whatever your intent, seems to me an act that aids the designs of the criminals. Arguing , "well the genie is out of the bottle" is disingenuous. We're beyond the realm of previous generations of spoilers here folks, and it's time to acknowledge that fact. Debating the statements of the President of the U.S., the decisions of the powers that be at Sony, and the culpability of consumerist society as a whole, are all secondary considerations. The primary issue is this: Do we or do we not stand united against terrorism? If the answer is "Yes," then we do everything in our power to STOP, not aid, the dissemination of the information that originates from these hacks. If the answer is "No" then...well, a whole lot of thens, perhaps the least important of which is that we have no business claiming that an agent of the British Secret Service is our hero.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Maybe I just have a simplistic take on all of this. Regardless of who is responsible for the original leak, as far as I'm concerned the motive is clear: this is a case of cyberterrorism. Therefore, anyone who participates in spreading the content of ANY of these leaks...details of upcoming scripts, confidential memos, any of it...is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. Period. Now, I'm not including info that Eon chooses to release to the public, footage that is taken from shoots in public places, and that sort of thing. But spreading any information that originates with the leaked material, whatever your intent, seems to me an act that aids the designs of the criminals. Arguing , "well the genie is out of the bottle" is disingenuous. We're beyond the realm of previous generations of spoilers here folks, and it's time to acknowledge that fact. Debating the statements of the President of the U.S., the decisions of the powers that be at Sony, and the culpability of consumerist society as a whole, are all secondary considerations. The primary issue is this: Do we or do we not stand united against terrorism? If the answer is "Yes," then we do everything in our power to STOP, not aid, the dissemination of the information that originates from these hacks. If the answer is "No" then...well, a whole lot of thens, perhaps the least important of which is that we have no business claiming that an agent of the British Secret Service is our hero.

    Amen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    The primary issue is this: Do we or do we not stand united against terrorism? If the answer is "Yes," then we do everything in our power to STOP, not aid, the dissemination of the information that originates from these hacks. If the answer is "No" then...well, a whole lot of thens, perhaps the least important of which is that we have no business claiming that an agent of the British Secret Service is our hero.

    It is here that I respectfully disagree with you.

    I am absolutely against terrorism. Stop it at its source.

    However, once the information (in the case of movie data - not personal information) is released, I am all for discussion, with the only consideration being, don't spread/leak it to people who don't want to see it. So I'm all for spoiler threads and closed discussion. That's freedom of speech which is absolutely vital in a democracy. The information that is being discussed is not 'personal'. It's corporate.

    It is the conflation of the 'united against terrorism' argument with discussion after the fact of leaked non-personal information above that I take issue with, and find not correct and simplistic imo. One can be united against terrorism and still privately discuss the non-personal information that has been leaked.

    In a similar vein, that's why I have serious problems with US debate that focuses on not criticizing the decision to go to Iraq in 2003, suggesting it is unpatriotic and not loyal to the thousands of men and women who died in service. Nonsense: the act of pre-emptive war on the basis of faulty and to some extent conjured evidence was a completely idiotic one, universally agreed after the fact, and understood by many prior to it taking place. Those men and women who died (on both sides of the war), did so needlessly. One can still be 'patriotic' and say that. In fact I suggest it is patriotic to say that. Those are the facts, and making dangerous conflations obscures it. So conflation is the problem.
  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    bondjames wrote: »

    In a similar vein, that's why I have serious problems with US debate that focuses on not criticizing the decision to go to Iraq in 2003, suggesting it is unpatriotic and not loyal to the thousands of men and women who died in service. Nonsense: the act of pre-emptive war on the basis of faulty and to some extent conjured evidence was a completely idiotic one, universally agreed after the fact, and understood by many prior to it taking place. Those men and women who died (on both sides of the war), did so needlessly. One can still be 'patriotic' and say that. In fact I suggest it is patriotic to say that. Those are the facts, and making dangerous conflations obscures it. So conflation is the problem.

    This. Without a doubt this.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am absolutely against terrorism. Stop it at its source.

    However, once the information (in the case of movie data - not personal information) is released, I am all for discussion, with the only consideration being, don't spread/leak it to people who don't want to see it.

    And how do you police the spread of such information to those who don't want to see it? You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Iraq war and the leaking of SPECTRE are even remotely similar. In fact I find the comparison disturbing. One is in the public interest, the other absolutely is not.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am absolutely against terrorism. Stop it at its source.

    However, once the information (in the case of movie data - not personal information) is released, I am all for discussion, with the only consideration being, don't spread/leak it to people who don't want to see it.

    And how do you police the spread of such information to those who don't want to see it? You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Iraq war and the leaking of SPECTRE are even remotely similar. In fact I find the comparison disturbing. One is in the public interest, the other absolutely is not.

    I'm sorry you find it disturbing. The similarity is in suggesting that my discussing the leaks in a spoiler only thread may be 'aiding terrorism'. It is that which is 'disturbing'. I have every right to discuss what I want in a spolier only thread. It has nothing to do with whether I support terrorism or not. It has to do with freedom of speech and freedom to debate. As I said, this is 'corporate' information. I am not discussing 'Bab's email address' which was also leaked.

    Regarding your fear about not wanting to see leaked information. Be careful, don't visit spoiler threads and if you still come across it, then don't visit the forum. That's your right, just as it is my right to discuss it on spoiler only threads.

    Suggesting I'm aiding terrorism is a bit much. That's my point.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am absolutely against terrorism. Stop it at its source.

    However, once the information (in the case of movie data - not personal information) is released, I am all for discussion, with the only consideration being, don't spread/leak it to people who don't want to see it.

    And how do you police the spread of such information to those who don't want to see it? You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Iraq war and the leaking of SPECTRE are even remotely similar. In fact I find the comparison disturbing. One is in the public interest, the other absolutely is not.

    I'm sorry you find it disturbing. The similarity is in suggesting that my discussing the leaks in a spoiler only thread may be 'aiding terrorism'. It is that which is 'disturbing'. I have every right to discuss what I want in a spolier only thread. It has nothing to do with whether I support terrorism or not. It has to do with freedom of speech and freedom to debate. As I said, this is 'corporate' information. I am not discussing 'Bab's email address' which was also leaked.

    Regarding your fear about not wanting to see leaked information. Be careful, don't visit spoiler threads and if you still come across it, then don't visit the forum. That's your right, just as it is my right to discuss it on spoiler only threads.

    Suggesting I'm aiding terrorism is a bit much. That's my point.

    I don't think you're aiding terrorists, but the dissemination of this information makes those who partake in such acts complicit. Just because the information isn't a threat to national security does not mean it's a free for all. If we lap this kind of content up without a moments thought, the message that is sent to those who carry out such acts is, 'Thanks, what else have you got?'. Plus, it's not just corporate information, it is the product of one's creative time and energy and the fact you think it's fair game because it falls under the corporate 'Sony' banner exemplifies where and why I think people are misguided about such things.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am absolutely against terrorism. Stop it at its source.

    However, once the information (in the case of movie data - not personal information) is released, I am all for discussion, with the only consideration being, don't spread/leak it to people who don't want to see it.

    And how do you police the spread of such information to those who don't want to see it? You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Iraq war and the leaking of SPECTRE are even remotely similar. In fact I find the comparison disturbing. One is in the public interest, the other absolutely is not.

    I'm sorry you find it disturbing. The similarity is in suggesting that my discussing the leaks in a spoiler only thread may be 'aiding terrorism'. It is that which is 'disturbing'. I have every right to discuss what I want in a spolier only thread. It has nothing to do with whether I support terrorism or not. It has to do with freedom of speech and freedom to debate. As I said, this is 'corporate' information. I am not discussing 'Bab's email address' which was also leaked.

    Regarding your fear about not wanting to see leaked information. Be careful, don't visit spoiler threads and if you still come across it, then don't visit the forum. That's your right, just as it is my right to discuss it on spoiler only threads.

    Suggesting I'm aiding terrorism is a bit much. That's my point.

    I don't think you're aiding terrorists, but the dissemination of this information makes those who partake in such acts complicit. Just because the information isn't a threat to national security does not mean it's a free for all. If we lap this kind of content up without a moments thought, the message that is sent to those who carry out such acts is, 'Thanks, what else have you got?'. Plus, it's not just corporate information, it is the product of one's creative time and energy and the fact you think it's fair game because it falls under the corporate 'Sony' banner exemplifies where and why I think people are misguided about such things.

    I get your points.

    Sony and other corporations should take more care with their 'secure' data. Governments that want us to file our tax returns online should think twice. People should think twice about Apple pay.

    That is the debate to be had. It should not be lost on this 'aiding terrorism' fear argument.

    The information is already out there. Suggesting I am complicit by discussing it is something I do not agree with. That is similar to suggesting that I am aiding terrorism, which I also disagree with. I am not leaking the information. I am discussing leaked information. I am all for freedom of speech to discuss information that is available. Whether it be 'creative' or not, it is still 'corporate'. It is driven by an immense profit motive.

    I did not agree with the Gawker release from a few weeks back. That was out of context information and poor analysis of a dated script. It was broadly released, and I don't agree with that.

    I have no problems with true fans discussing this on a spoiler only thread as I've said time and time again.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I am absolutely against terrorism. Stop it at its source.

    However, once the information (in the case of movie data - not personal information) is released, I am all for discussion, with the only consideration being, don't spread/leak it to people who don't want to see it.

    And how do you police the spread of such information to those who don't want to see it? You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Iraq war and the leaking of SPECTRE are even remotely similar. In fact I find the comparison disturbing. One is in the public interest, the other absolutely is not.

    I'm sorry you find it disturbing. The similarity is in suggesting that my discussing the leaks in a spoiler only thread may be 'aiding terrorism'. It is that which is 'disturbing'. I have every right to discuss what I want in a spolier only thread. It has nothing to do with whether I support terrorism or not. It has to do with freedom of speech and freedom to debate. As I said, this is 'corporate' information. I am not discussing 'Bab's email address' which was also leaked.

    Regarding your fear about not wanting to see leaked information. Be careful, don't visit spoiler threads and if you still come across it, then don't visit the forum. That's your right, just as it is my right to discuss it on spoiler only threads.

    Suggesting I'm aiding terrorism is a bit much. That's my point.

    I don't think you're aiding terrorists, but the dissemination of this information makes those who partake in such acts complicit. Just because the information isn't a threat to national security does not mean it's a free for all. If we lap this kind of content up without a moments thought, the message that is sent to those who carry out such acts is, 'Thanks, what else have you got?'. Plus, it's not just corporate information, it is the product of one's creative time and energy and the fact you think it's fair game because it falls under the corporate 'Sony' banner exemplifies where and why I think people are misguided about such things.

    I get your points.

    Sony and other corporations should take more care with their 'secure' data. Governments that want us to file our tax returns online should think twice. People should think twice about Apple pay.

    That is the debate to be had. It should not be lost on this 'aiding terrorism' fear argument.

    The information is already out there. Suggesting I am complicit by discussing it is something I do not agree with. That is similar to suggesting that I am aiding terrorism, which I also disagree with. I am not leaking the information. I am discussing leaked information. I am all for freedom of speech to discuss information that is available. Whether it be 'creative' or not, it is still 'corporate'. It is driven by an immense profit motive.

    I did not agree with the Gawker release from a few weeks back. That was out of context information and poor analysis of a dated script. It was broadly released, and I don't agree with that.

    I have no problems with true fans discussing this on a spoiler only thread as I've said time and time again.

    I agree, the discussion is primarily one of security and I wasn't accusing you personally of being complicit, I was suggesting those who disseminate such information are, not those who discuss it.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    I agree, the discussion is primarily one of security and I wasn't accusing you personally of being complicit, I was suggesting those who disseminate such information are, not those who discuss it.

    Well, the scripts that leaked were scripts on paper that should not have been scanned and put in electronic format in the first place. They were screenplays on paper that should have stayed in that format, and be returned to Eon once the movie was released. There is the name of the person to whom each script was sent, as an "anti-copy" measure, on the scans that have leaked.

    So, a few multimillionnaires at Sony basically didn't care about the security of this data - they scanned it despite what was written on the first page, and sent it over Sony's network, which furthermore, was known to them to be under attack for month. I find it very telling : mind you, there's no one to fire them directly if they make a mistake. If a VFX artist publishes too early a few images of a storyboard on its private resume to run for a job somewhere, I guess he will have some problems. But big bosses trampled on elementary security measures. They cared about the security of these scripts about as much as the private data of their employees. It's a kind of "too big to fail" way of reasoning...

    I guess Eon won't sue them for scanning the screenplays, though. They are "Too big to have problems with"...

    So, the dissemination started with whose who scanned the papers. And we're talking about millionnaires who are about 45 yo : they "know" how the Internet work. They're not 80yo who are clueless and don't realize once you scan some private papers and make a PDF file, it can be copied and be everywhere at any time if you make any mistake - basically making all the protection of sending papers worthless.



  • bondjames wrote: »
    The primary issue is this: Do we or do we not stand united against terrorism? If the answer is "Yes," then we do everything in our power to STOP, not aid, the dissemination of the information that originates from these hacks. If the answer is "No" then...well, a whole lot of thens, perhaps the least important of which is that we have no business claiming that an agent of the British Secret Service is our hero.

    It is here that I respectfully disagree with you.

    Well, at least we can discuss this matter respectfully. Thanks for that!
    bondjames wrote: »

    It is the conflation of the 'united against terrorism' argument with discussion after the fact of leaked non-personal information above that I take issue with, and find not correct and simplistic imo. One can be united against terrorism and still privately discuss the non-personal information that has been leaked.

    In a similar vein, that's why I have serious problems with US debate that focuses on not criticizing the decision to go to Iraq in 2003, suggesting it is unpatriotic and not loyal to the thousands of men and women who died in service. Nonsense: the act of pre-emptive war on the basis of faulty and to some extent conjured evidence was a completely idiotic one, universally agreed after the fact, and understood by many prior to it taking place. Those men and women who died (on both sides of the war), did so needlessly. One can still be 'patriotic' and say that. In fact I suggest it is patriotic to say that. Those are the facts, and making dangerous conflations obscures it. So conflation is the problem.

    As someone who took to the streets several times in opposition to the immoral and unnecessary Iraq War, I think you're the one making dangerous conflations here. And frankly, I think you're doing so solely to justify the actions you take to satisfy your curiosity regarding the details of a movie currently under production, which is a petty goal at best. The time to stick to one's principles is precisely when one could benefit in some way from relaxing them. My view is that trading in this information in any way serves the goals of those who posted it in the first place, therefore I refuse to do so. You are free to hold a different viewpoint but please don't seek to enoble yourself (and tear me down) by suggesting that my viewpoint in any way resembles that of the apologists for the Iraq debacle.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think you're aiding terrorists, but the dissemination of this information makes those who partake in such acts complicit. Just because the information isn't a threat to national security does not mean it's a free for all. If we lap this kind of content up without a moments thought, the message that is sent to those who carry out such acts is, 'Thanks, what else have you got?'. Plus, it's not just corporate information, it is the product of one's creative time and energy and the fact you think it's fair game because it falls under the corporate 'Sony' banner exemplifies where and why I think people are misguided about such things.

    Exactly. Thank you, @RC7.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    I agree, the discussion is primarily one of security and I wasn't accusing you personally of being complicit, I was suggesting those who disseminate such information are, not those who discuss it.

    Well, the scripts that leaked were scripts on paper that should not have been scanned and put in electronic format in the first place. They were screenplays on paper that should have stayed in that format, and be returned to Eon once the movie was released. There is the name of the person to whom each script was sent, as an "anti-copy" measure, on the scans that have leaked.

    So, a few multimillionnaires at Sony basically didn't care about the security of this data - they scanned it despite what was written on the first page, and sent it over Sony's network, which furthermore, was known to them to be under attack for month. I find it very telling : mind you, there's no one to fire them directly if they make a mistake. If a VFX artist publishes too early a few images of a storyboard on its private resume to run for a job somewhere, I guess he will have some problems. But big bosses trampled on elementary security measures. They cared about the security of these scripts about as much as the private data of their employees. It's a kind of "too big to fail" way of reasoning...

    I guess Eon won't sue them for scanning the screenplays, though. They are "Too big to have problems with"...

    So, the dissemination started with whose who scanned the papers. And we're talking about millionnaires who are about 45 yo : they "know" how the Internet work. They're not 80yo who are clueless and don't realize once you scan some private papers and make a PDF file, it can be copied and be everywhere at any time if you make any mistake - basically making all the protection of sending papers worthless.

    I wonder if movie studios like Buena Vista/Disney, Universal, Fox, WB, Paramount and New Line Cinema weren't doing the same old-fashioned screenplay sharing via email. I'm fairly sure that the SonyLeaks really is a precedent and that because of that all other major studios start acting. I can not believe that Sony was the only studio doing the screenplay sharing the old-fashioned way.
  • Posts: 12,506
    For me their is nothing ethical in people attempting to spoil and ruin other people's fun.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited December 2014 Posts: 12,459
    bondjames wrote: »
    The primary issue is this: Do we or do we not stand united against terrorism? If the answer is "Yes," then we do everything in our power to STOP, not aid, the dissemination of the information that originates from these hacks. If the answer is "No" then...well, a whole lot of thens, perhaps the least important of which is that we have no business claiming that an agent of the British Secret Service is our hero.

    It is here that I respectfully disagree with you.

    Well, at least we can discuss this matter respectfully. Thanks for that!
    bondjames wrote: »

    It is the conflation of the 'united against terrorism' argument with discussion after the fact of leaked non-personal information above that I take issue with, and find not correct and simplistic imo. One can be united against terrorism and still privately discuss the non-personal information that has been leaked.

    In a similar vein, that's why I have serious problems with US debate that focuses on not criticizing the decision to go to Iraq in 2003, suggesting it is unpatriotic and not loyal to the thousands of men and women who died in service. Nonsense: the act of pre-emptive war on the basis of faulty and to some extent conjured evidence was a completely idiotic one, universally agreed after the fact, and understood by many prior to it taking place. Those men and women who died (on both sides of the war), did so needlessly. One can still be 'patriotic' and say that. In fact I suggest it is patriotic to say that. Those are the facts, and making dangerous conflations obscures it. So conflation is the problem.

    As someone who took to the streets several times in opposition to the immoral and unnecessary Iraq War, I think you're the one making dangerous conflations here. And frankly, I think you're doing so solely to justify the actions you take to satisfy your curiosity regarding the details of a movie currently under production, which is a petty goal at best. The time to stick to one's principles is precisely when one could benefit in some way from relaxing them. My view is that trading in this information in any way serves the goals of those who posted it in the first place, therefore I refuse to do so. You are free to hold a different viewpoint but please don't seek to enoble yourself (and tear me down) by suggesting that my viewpoint in any way resembles that of the apologists for the Iraq debacle.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think you're aiding terrorists, but the dissemination of this information makes those who partake in such acts complicit. Just because the information isn't a threat to national security does not mean it's a free for all. If we lap this kind of content up without a moments thought, the message that is sent to those who carry out such acts is, 'Thanks, what else have you got?'. Plus, it's not just corporate information, it is the product of one's creative time and energy and the fact you think it's fair game because it falls under the corporate 'Sony' banner exemplifies where and why I think people are misguided about such things.

    Exactly. Thank you, @RC7.

    I actually agree with everything you wrote, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, and also this quoted part by @RC7. Thank you for putting this so succinctly and well.
  • RogueAgent wrote: »
    For me their is nothing ethical in people attempting to spoil and ruin other people's fun.

    Are you talking about movie studios trampling on VFX artists, using the fact these artists are not in it for the money but because they have fun in what they do ?
  • Posts: 725

    Well, the scripts that leaked were scripts on paper that should not have been scanned and put in electronic format in the first place. They were screenplays on paper that should have stayed in that format, and be returned to Eon once the movie was released. There is the name of the person to whom each script was sent, as an "anti-copy" measure, on the scans that have leaked.
    So, a few multimillionnaires at Sony basically didn't care about the security of this data - they scanned it despite what was written on the first page, and sent it over Sony's network, which furthermore, was known to them to be under attack for month. I find it very telling : mind you, there's no one to fire them directly if they make a mistake. If a VFX artist publishes too early a few images of a storyboard on its private resume to run for a job somewhere, I guess he will have some problems. But big bosses trampled on elementary security measures. They cared about the security of these scripts about as much as the private data of their employees. It's a kind of "too big to fail" way of reasoning...

    I guess Eon won't sue them for scanning the screenplays, though. They are "Too big to have problems with"...

    So, the dissemination started with whose who scanned the papers. And we're talking about millionnaires who are about 45 yo : they "know" how the Internet work. They're not 80yo who are clueless and don't realize once you scan some private papers and make a PDF file, it can be copied and be everywhere at any time if you make any mistake - basically making all the protection of sending papers worthless.

    If indeed an exec at Sony was responsible for scanning the script and distributed it over an already compromised network, I think we could all hope this fool and the others responsible, are sued by EON and at the very least, be the first fired, with Amy P not far behind. What ever previous support Pascal gave EON has become dust given the negative stuff in the hacked emails. SP's script is being trashed all over the world with Sony exec's own email text. Sony Japan will have to clean house as these people are now toxic to talent. The extensive SP leaks and negative text in the Sony's emails have and will continue to damage SP in ways we can't even guess at.

    EON has to be livid and they are very litigious when it comes to protecting their franchise. They may have to hold their fire until the film is released, but afterwards, particularly if the film does not perform well, or even if it does, the knives will come out. The press is yammering today about Sony's promise to get the Interview somehow still distributed. Yes, and the first sign of a new hack, and they will scatter like rats.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    EON must be disgusted and livid, I feel sure you are right about that. But - and do not tell me if I am wrong - I heard the script leaks were from an early draft. Everybody and their Uncle Joe will find faults with early scripts and chat about them with each other if they get their hands on them. If Sony personnel who scanned these pages can be traced, they should be fired, in my opinion. However, my impression is that Sony does not fire employees (certainly upper level) easily.

    Private emails being read is really a shame for many reasons, for all involved, and certainly ethically upsetting. I am not at all sure that Amy Pascal will be fired or even should be because of comments in her private emails. But if specific people can be confirmed as scanning script pages (when told not to do so) as well as those not ordering the appropriate investigation into earlier leaks and giving proper support to increasing their computer system's security ... those people are liable, in my opinion, and should be fired (and would probably be consequently sued).
  • Posts: 6,601
    Whatever negativity surrounds the film right now, IMO it could work well in having them all strengthen their will to make this a film, that proves them wrong. Whatever is now, will only cause more interest and if people don't expect wonderful, they will be even more surprised, if they get wonderful. However, most of the people, who will see the moie, don't even know anything about the script or else.
  • But if specific people can be confirmed as scanning script pages (when told not to do so)

    All the leaked screenplays are scanned papers. You can even see some gray lines on the left where the sheets of papers were stuck to one another, thanks to whatever system made them a single block to read, before those who did the scans remove that system in order to scan the pages one by one. They were so confident that all the scans contain the first page where it is stated that Eon will sue anyone photocopying this...

    So, IMO we're not really sure if North Korea is behind all this (many experts are not buying the FBI claims, and they do not look like conspiracy nuts to me), but we are sure at least three persons made a mistake at Sony and at MGM (and we have the names written across every pages of each leak).

    Btw, you're lucky you've not been spoiled yet by some elements. Here in France, I could hear a major spoiler about SPECTRE on the French radio for instance (in the Europe 1 afternoon show), without any warning.

    As for Sony's attitude to hacking, about an earlier incident : "VP of legal compliance Courtney Schaberg said in an email that Sony wouldn’t be disclosing the breach, even to those affected, because of a lack of breach notification rules in Brazil, “the limited data fields involved and… the fact that notifying would not likely have much effect in terms of mitigating potential damages”.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2014/12/12/195-security-incidents-sony-pictures-hack/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    As someone who took to the streets several times in opposition to the immoral and unnecessary Iraq War, I think you're the one making dangerous conflations here. And frankly, I think you're doing so solely to justify the actions you take to satisfy your curiosity regarding the details of a movie currently under production, which is a petty goal at best. The time to stick to one's principles is precisely when one could benefit in some way from relaxing them. My view is that trading in this information in any way serves the goals of those who posted it in the first place, therefore I refuse to do so. You are free to hold a different viewpoint but please don't seek to enoble yourself (and tear me down) by suggesting that my viewpoint in any way resembles that of the apologists for the Iraq debacle.

    Sorry, you're the one who first made the conflation with aiding terrorists.

    We are seeking to discuss leaks that are in the public domain. That's our right. We're not disseminating it. We're discussing what has already been disseminated in a proper way on a spoiler thread.

    There's no need to start resorting to unsubstantiated, suspected insinuations regarding my curiosity, or any of the other users of this forum who have chosen to discuss the leaks appropriately and politely in a specific spoiler thread however. Congratulations on your opposition to the Iraq war by the way. At least we can agree on that.

    You're entitled to your opinion, but making comparisons to terrorists is hyperbole due to a lack of a better argument and is is, as you said, simplistic. I could just as easily say that you started it to 'tear me and others down' and to 'enoble' yourself. I did not however. I chose to discuss and provide counters to your assertions.

    Pulling the 'terrorist' card in this case is as incorrect as pulling the 'unpatriotic' card in the case of the Iraq war in my opinion. That combined with your "Do we or do we not stand united against terrorism?" comment smelled uncomfortably like 'with us or against us'. Why? Since in both cases the accusor is consciously or subconsciously using comparisions and statements to 'shame' or embarrass the accused in order to stymy discussion and honest debate. It would have been better to just argue your case, but that perhaps is asking too much. You are the one guilty of laying it on thick, not me. I'm simply responding to your shocking initial comparision.

    Freedom of speech is and must always be the guiding principle in my opinion, and curtailing discussion and debate must never be allowed in any democracy. That's my firmly held view and neither you, nor anyone else is going to change that.

    We are all doing our best to ensure people who don't want to see our discussion don't have to, and that discussion on the spoiler thread is interesting and learned, not gossipy.

    Let's leave it at that.
  • chipstickschipsticks NOT on TheDanielCraigForum where they think know Daniel Craig personally and Léa and Monica are ugly
    Posts: 560
    well hell that didn't take long @-)



    North Korea's internet appears to be under mass cyber attack


    December 22, 2014


    comment_9Cyj8TKSiVXqyG4khoau2u5357oWamxA.0.0.jpg



    Internet connectivity between North Korea and the outside world, though never robust to begin with, is currently suffering one of its worst outages in recent memory, suggesting that the country may be enduring a mass cyber attack a few days after President Obama warned the US would launch a "proportional response" to North Korea's hack against Sony.

    "I haven't seen such a steady beat of routing instability and outages in KP before," said Doug Madory, director of Internet analysis at the cybsecurity firm Dyn Research, according to Martyn Williams of the excellent blog North Korea Tech. Madory explained, "Usually there are isolated blips, not continuous connectivity problems. I wouldn't be surprised if they are absorbing some sort of attack presently."

    While it's entirely possible that this is due to run-of-the-mill maintenance or technical issues, it's hard to miss that the outage comes just days after President Obama condemned North Korea as responsible for the massive cyberattack against Sony and pledged a "proportional" US response.

    The outage also comes as China is investigating the accusations against North Korea over the Sony hack. North Korea's internet access is wired through China, which gives China more or less direct control over North Korea's access to the outside world.

    Yes, North Korea does have the internet. Very few citizens have access to it, it's slow, and the connection is shaky. But it allows North Korea's state media, its propagandists, and its vaunted cyberwarfare divisions a way to access the outside world, as well as ways for sympathetic Koreans in South Korea and Japan to link up with the Hermit Kingdom. The country is wired through China, North Korea's northern neighbor and sole ally.

    Why could this be happening? Did the US launch a cyber attack against North Korea in retaliation for the Sony hack? On the one hand, the White House has reportedly ruled out any sort of "demonstration strike" cyber reprisal against North Korean internet targets. On the other, that does not necessarily rule out a possible American effort to simply disrupt or sever North Korea's connection to the outside internet, if only to block future attacks.

    It's also possible that China is attempting to shut down North Korea's internet connections with the outside world, perhaps so as to avoid future North Korean attacks that would embarrass China. While China is North Korea's patron, it also typically seeks to tamp down the Hermit Kingdom's provocations, which Beijing rightly sees as bad for Chinese interests.

    Vigilante hackers could also theoretically be responsible, perhaps in an attempt to punish North Korea for the Sony attack, although past efforts by groups such as Anonymous have been spectacular failures.

    While it's possible that North Korea is preemptively closing off its own internet access, hoping to prevent or preempt any US reprisal attacks, that would not explain why connectivity occasionally pops back up, suggesting that either an outage or a deliberate attack is the cause.
    Card 6 of 11 Launch cards
    Could North Korea really have pulled off these attacks?

    Can North Korea — one of the poorest, most isolated countries in the world, a place where personal computers are banned and the internet does not officially exist — possibly be that good at hacking? Even some in the hacking community have been asking this question.

    The answer is, yes, North Korea really is that good at hacking. North Korean government hackers have launched a number of successful, high-profile attacks in recent years — as well as an unknown number of lower-profile ones. The attacks have been growing in scale and sophistication as North Korea ratchets up its largely military-run cyber warfare program.

    The first known attacks came in 2009 against South Korean and US web sites. While those attacks did little damage, they did alert US officials to the growing problem of cyber warfare. Since then, North Korea has launched increasingly sophisticated hacks against South Korea, including an attack in 2014 that seeded thousands of cell phones with an Angry Birds-style game containing malware that eventually gave the hackers control of those phones.

    North Korea keeps its own population offline, but its hackers are thought to be trained in China and Russia and are given higher status and better lifestyles within the country. According to defectors who have fled the country, one of the main reasons for the country's focus on cyber warfare is that it's much less expensive than traditional military weapons like planes, tanks, and bombs. And as the world grows ever more interconnected, those hackers can have a more devastating effect.



    http://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7433873/north-korea-internet-down

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Funny, I thought the internet was banned in NK.
  • aaron819aaron819 Switzerland
    Posts: 1,208
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Guys, it says in the article that very few citizens have access to it, and that it's used primarily by the state for propoganda purposes. Paragraph 5.
Sign In or Register to comment.