Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Offer to Sony from 2600

2600.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 200 posts

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#81

Post by dantillberg »

junto wrote: post #77

I guess a movie about two brave maverick North Korean TV stars heading to Washington to assassinate Obama, the evil emperor of the United States could also be a 'funny' comedy movie to watch. Seriously though, while the plot of the film is both purile and offensive to the North Korean dictator personally, should NK be behind the attack on Sony (im still not convinced) then it is definitely an ulterly inappropriate re…

> Is the western media, specifically the US media going to publish a written complaint from NK?

I imagine that many major US newspapers would love to publish an op-ed by Kim Jong-un. The New York Times, for example, published this op-ed by Vladimir Putin last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau....

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#82

Post by happyscrappy »

nomercy400 wrote: post #47

So, the threat is to expose private and sensitive data retrieved in the hack when The Interview is leaked? Who says The Interview wasn't obtained during the hack, and will be leaked by the same party issuing the threat?

The goal, which is working so far, is to prevent the release of the movie. The movie should be released because fuck whoever did this. Sony may be hated for good reason but not releasing only encourages this type of thing.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#83

Post by vezzy-fnord »

zaroth wrote: post #45
briandear wrote: post #39

Funny how the U.S. government goes nuts over an offensive YouTube video or Koran burning video, but suddenly Obama's administration calls out Sony for "making a mistake" for caving to (allegedly) North Korea? Does anyone else find this to be a double standard? We can "offend" North Korea, but if we "offend" Islam, then somehow that's different? I say let's offend everyone. That's what free speech means.

I think Terry Jones burning a Koran is starting to get into the "you're putting peoples lives in danger just to prove what a ridiculously pompous ass you are" camp. There is a fairly well defined limit to free speech, e.g. yelling "fire!" in a theater. Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory. But as far as Obama's quip against Sony goes... I was really surprised to read that…

yelling "fire!" in a theater.

Which is a completely legal thing to do, provided there is actually a fire.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#84

Post by srj »

zaroth wrote: post #23
jarcane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sony owns several digital release platforms. If they want this movie out, they could make it happen tomorrow. This is just PR speak. They might cave and release anyway, but Lynton's statement is deliberately weak and duplicitous, once again attempting to deflect all blame from themselves rather than admit to any mistake on their part.

I'm not sure they are in complete control, although it's a great image of master manipulation to imagine they are. I'm waiting until I really understand the whole story to start assigning any blame. I'm more interested at this point in figuring out what this means for the future. Do we live in a world now where state-actors will target specific companies and basically try to rip them to shreds and extort them? Now I'…

For probably most nations the "state-actors" part is irrelevant as they have no magic hacking method not afforded to anyone else. The exceptions are nations host to companies that supply hardware and software to be backdoored.

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#85

Post by connie_lingus »

zaroth wrote: post #12
logn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Now we want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of, for instance, DVD or piracy. And we want everything related to the movie, including its trailers, as well as its full version down from any website hosting them immediately." If only we had passed SOPA and CISPA, we'd be so much safer right now.

If anything I think this shows how poorly the US Gov is prepared for cyber-warfare. The last decade was no cake walk, but the next decade will truly be eye opening. The FBI told Sony they didn't know if the theaters were safe. Seriously, WTF are we paying them for if they can't tell us, with absolute certainty, that our theaters are safe from terrorist attacks on Christmas. That's not very comforting... So what I'm h…

The FBI told Sony they didn't know if the theaters were safe. Seriously, WTF are we paying them for if they can't tell us, with absolute certainty, that our theaters are safe from terrorist attacks on Christmas. That's not very comforting...

uhhh terrorist attacks and terrorism are, by definition, "not very comforting" and in many ways are impossible to stop, thus the word "terror" that is used so prominently in their constructions.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#86

Post by yourad_io »

tehansen wrote: post #67
k-mcgrady wrote: post #25

Very little content here. Seems more like self-promotion and a silly offer that Sony would be stupid to take. Why let someone distribute the movie for free when they spent over $40m making it and can (worst case scenario) put it on a website they build and charge $10 to everyone that wants to watch it?

im still hoping its a very genius marketing campaign...but either way, setting the movie free (not as in beer) would send a powerfull message. cant think of a better xmas gift to humanity right now...

Sony is a major player in anti-piracy. If they did this, their position would be weakened when they next take a few John Schmoes to court for bittorrenting.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#88

Post by yourad_io »

kyledrake wrote: post #75

The last time people got this crazy about a hack, Kevin Mitnick was thrown in solitary confinement for months because they thought he could "whistle nuclear launch codes into prison telephones". 2600 made the documentary about it, Freedom Downtime, and I strongly recommend watching it if you never have. So what if North Korea did it (of course I'm skeptical of this, anyone with a computer can conduct the same activit…

> e-graffiti artists

That's brilliant. (I assume this refers to defacement s/kiddies)

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#90

Post by elwin »

acmecorps wrote: post #70
nicobn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the sentiment behind your comment but applying this doctrine does more good than harm. The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not exist in free democracies. Everything should be open for debate, discussion, parody, etc.. Not producing a movie because someone might feel insulted by it and then throw a temper tantrum is censorship by proxy in its purest form. The tyranny of s…

> The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not exist in free democracies Genuine question: Why is that?

Because a right not to be offended requires a power to suppress offensiveness. The right to life and the right to property would be meaningless if murder and theft were decriminalized. In the same way, a right not to be offended implies that offensiveness must be punished.

The power to suppress murder is a relatively small power, and its limits are easily determined by laws and courts. A power to suppress offensiveness would be broad and vague, capable of suppressing anything anyone might object to. Since taking offense is so subjective, it would be difficult for this power to be administered by a neutral third party. It would be prone to abuses.

A right not to be offended requires an arbitrary power incompatible with freedom.

Post reply on HN