Theaters To Drop Controversial 'The Interview'

max999 · Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:15 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 5):
WTF? Do they fear rogue North Korean agents entering movie theatres, and shooting up the audience?

Wait, there was an incident with a Batman movie......

There were 82 casualties and 12 dead in the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. Yet they continued to screen Batman all over the world despite that attack.

Canceling 'The Interview' was a total over-reaction even after Homeland Security said there's no actual risk of an attack.

TheCommodore · Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:39 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 50):
Canceling 'The Interview' was a total over-reaction even after Homeland Security said there's no actual risk of an attack.

And you can expect more of these examples in the years ahead.

With things the way they are in the world today, everyones twitchy, and with good reason !

Can you imagine if they didn't, not that I care really one way or the other. There would be just as much uproar as there is over the decision not to show it.

Damed if you do, and damed if you don't !

fr8mech · Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:19 pm

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 43):
- How would U.S. citizens feel if a foreign film company produced a movie about assassinating our current president? Seems wildly and unnecessarily provocative to me; insensitive at the very least.

It would not bother me one bit.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 43):
- Before this whole controversy, Sony had already made the decision not to release the movie in Asia, which is a huge market for them.

Which is their decision. It is a business decision that was made for business reasons. The decision by the movie houses and Sony to pull the film under threat of violence is a completely different thing.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 46):
On the other hand, I do believe that making fun of other countries and other culture solely for profit (let's not pretend this movie was a cultural exercise) is, to say the least, in bad taste, and needs to end.

Why? Because it may offend? We need to get away from this PC crap. It is probably the biggest threat to free expression than any government could ever be.

If something offends, then it offends. If it's in bad taste, then it is in bad taste.

Just remember, only YOU can control what offends YOU. You can choose to be offended or not.

You'll live a longer happier life if you brush off the minor shit. Maybe the tin-pot dictator can take a small lesson from that.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 51):
And you can expect more of these examples in the years ahead.

Sadly, you're correct. All it takes is one capitulation and the assholes of the world are emboldened.

mbmbos · Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:26 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 52):
Which is their decision. It is a business decision that was made for business reasons. The decision by the movie houses and Sony to pull the film under threat of violence is a completely different thing.

That's a little naive, don't you think? Sony chose not to show the movie in Asia - a market more lucrative than the U.S. market - for the very reason it would likely provoke violence. So Sony already caves to censorship.

Again, my point is this is far more nuanced than the "America F**k Yeah!" crowd would like us to believe.

EA CO AS · Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:30 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 50):
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 5):
WTF? Do they fear rogue North Korean agents entering movie theatres, and shooting up the audience?

Wait, there was an incident with a Batman movie......

There were 82 casualties and 12 dead in the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. Yet they continued to screen Batman all over the world despite that attack.

And more importantly, the shooter didn't go on his rampage in opposition to Batman movies. He just wanted to kill. Big difference.

N1120A · Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:31 pm

This is stupid. I think Sony must be getting pressured by the Japanese government.

Aesma · Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:22 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 14):
Except they used a server in Bosnia that had previously been used in another attack thought to be from NK.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/wo...s-north-korea-to-sony-hacking.html

A significant part of the Bosnian economy is due to hacking, it's pretty much legal and encouraged there.

cedarjet · Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:42 am

Everyone's saying Sony should make a stand but only Sony have anything to lose. And they have everything to lose, if something actually happened, America's culture of litigation would produce lawsuits which — given the existing threats — could be for unlimited damages. I don't see Seth Rogan putting his net worth up as collateral to Sony's insurance co.

Whoever green-lit this film was an idiot. Sure Sony are entitled to make a film about the killing of a head of state, but they and Rogan's half witted fans are not entitled to be immune to the consequences.

Finally, reviews were unanimous. The film is a stinker. Not only has Kim Jong Un revealed Angelina Jolie to be mental and all the other highlights of the leaked emails, but he's saved you from two tedious hours. Rejoice and move on.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:09 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 55):
This is stupid. I think Sony must be getting pressured by the Japanese government.

Doubtful. Sony is among the few multinational corporations in this country - they pressure the government, not the other way around.

fr8mech · Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:18 am

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 53):
That's a little naive, don't you think? Sony chose not to show the movie in Asia - a market more lucrative than the U.S. market - for the very reason it would likely provoke violence. So Sony already caves to censorship.

They made a business decision not to release the movie in Asia. Plain and simple. And, it really doesn't matter what their reasoning. So what if they feared violence. It is their prerogative to weigh risks and benefits and make a decision. But, when a decision is made out of fear due to the threats of a terrorist nation-state, the decision to bow out can only be seen as capitulation to that same terrorist nation-state and can only serve to engender more of the same.

It's not censorship, it is blackmail.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 57):
Sure Sony are entitled to make a film about the killing of a head of state, but they and Rogan's half witted fans are not entitled to be immune to the consequences.

Those consequences should not include threats of 9-11 level violence.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:26 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 59):
Those consequences should not include threats of 9-11 level violence.

From North Koreans?? How is that a credible threat? Do they have agents deployed all over the US? Gimme a break...this is the part I can't believe.

allrite · Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:43 am

Apparently the US is considering a 'proportional' response to Sony hacking attack.

I imagine that this could range from a small independent production destined for art house cinemas, the Disney Princess treatment or, if they really want an offensive, bring in Michael Bay.

cedarjet · Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:47 am

I agree the 9-11 reference is regrettable but let's face it, our leadership make threats like that on a daily basis. John McCain even set it to music ("Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"). So again, a little perspective please.

fr8mech · Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:08 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
From North Koreans?? How is that a credible threat? Do they have agents deployed all over the US? Gimme a break...this is the part I can't believe.

I'm pretty sure that on 9-10-2001 there was a preponderance of people in the US that would have said "Al-Queda are capable of what?".

Bottom line is that Sony and the big movie houses have bowed to threats of violence from a nation-state, and in doing so, opened the path for more of this crap.

Dreadnought · Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:31 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 5):
WTF? Do they fear rogue North Korean agents entering movie theatres, and shooting up the audience?

Yep. Although in reality they are worried that any incident (power outage, for instance) during a showing will cause some Nervous Nellies in the audience to panic, and you have a stampede, deaths etc.

On Fox they were suggesting that Sony should simply announce that they are making the movie available for free download worldwide, directly from them and from any torrent sites, youtube etc. NK did not want you to see this film - here it is. It removes any reason for continued threats. Sony strikes back in response to the hacks. And Sony will probably enjoy a good PR benefit among Americans for not cowering in a corner (as they look like now). I think it's a good idea. NK would get a lesson in that if they want to ensure nobody sees something, we will ensure it gets out to everyone.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:37 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
I'm pretty sure that on 9-10-2001 there was a preponderance of people in the US that would have said "Al-Queda are capable of what?".

Irrelevant - they had a track record of success.

North Korea can't even keep the lights on and the people fed, and they are a heavily-militarized nation.

Mir · Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:37 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 57):
Everyone's saying Sony should make a stand but only Sony have anything to lose.

As is the case whenever a studio puts out a film - they're the only ones taking the risk.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 57):
And they have everything to lose, if something actually happened, America's culture of litigation would produce lawsuits which — given the existing threats — could be for unlimited damages.

Which is why they have insurance. Incidentally, that's probably why they're not releasing anything - they get to collect more insurance money by giving in to cowardice than if they'd taken the right stand.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 57):
Finally, reviews were unanimous. The film is a stinker. Not only has Kim Jong Un revealed Angelina Jolie to be mental and all the other highlights of the leaked emails, but he's saved you from two tedious hours. Rejoice and move on.

Ah, so it's okay for things to be censored out of fear if they're not good (which is, of course, subjective). Got it.

-Mir

blueflyer · Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:47 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 52):
Because it may offend? We need to get away from this PC crap. It is probably the biggest threat to free expression than any government could ever be. If something offends, then it offends. If it's in bad taste, then it is in bad taste.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. In my opinion, being offensive isn't necessarily condemnable, it depends on the intentions. When the New York Times is accused of being offensive by publishing details of the wealth accumulated by the Chinese leadership, it is peripheral to their greater goal, that of informing the public, and in my opinion perfectly defensible.

This movie, on the other hand, has no redeeming value. It is offensive for the sake of entertaining a few with cheap humor and making a buck or two, at least it was hoped. It is offensive for no other reason than to be offensive. It is crass, immature and unnecessary. Unless the pursuit of profit justifies it all.

If this proves to be a very costly mistake for Sony, I won't shed a tear. I happen to think that being offensive just to make a buck is beneath us.

BMI727 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:33 am

Quoting skyservice_330 (Reply 41):
I am not related to Seth Rogen and find him very funny.

People liking Seth Rogen is baffling. However, it is not quite as baffling as people admitting that they like Seth Rogen. The man is an overgrown frat boy making the same penis jokes I heard in middle school.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
I'm pretty sure that on 9-10-2001 there was a preponderance of people in the US that would have said "Al-Queda are capable of what?".

Only people who were paying no attention at all. North Korea has not spent the last decade or so bombing the World Trade Center, bombing the Khobar Towers, bombing US embassies and bombing US Navy ships.

Pellegrine · Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:50 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 32):
You do realize that all humor is offensive to someone, right? Jokes are made at someone's expense.

To not make a movie because someone would be offended is freaking ridiculous. Is that the yard stick we should use? Will this offend? I suspect that many movies are made because they will offend. Movies like that tend to make us think.

It used to be common in Hollywood action thrillers to feature Middle Eastern terrorists. Guess what? Some of that changed after backlash from groups because it was too stereotypical and offensive.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 36):
I don't really blame Sony for this. I think they're hands were somewhat forced by the large cinema chains. When some of the biggest chains decide not to show the film, Sony risk losing a lot of money still showing it.

Opening weekends are important, and when an opening weekend has a hugely reduced number of outlets, that will hurt them. Sure, the cinemas that would show the film would probably see higher attendance, simply due to this publicity, the loss of the other chains would hurt more.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 37):
It is a sad but necessary decision. Sony or any other US or international company cannot afford any more attacks on their computer systems, or end up in lawsuits if there were cyber or terror attacks on movie theaters

Thanks. This is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. It is an issue of a multinational corporation deciding that they would capitulate under duress, with fear of further confidential releases and computer hacks. They decided their profits, secrets, and future are not worth the potential income from this movie. Corporations don't give a shit about free speech, they care about profits for their shareholders.

Likewise, Paramount was smart to pull screenings of "Team America". I'm sure that was a quick decision for their board.

Yet, Americans will whinge about their supposed "free speech".

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:46 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
The man is an overgrown frat boy making the same penis jokes I heard in middle school.

A lot of comedians fit that description, no?

I think you're just not liking the fact an overweight Canadian beat you to 8-digit net worth doing little more than being himself.

Mir · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:53 am

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 69):
Thanks. This is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. It is an issue of a multinational corporation deciding that they would capitulate under duress, with fear of further confidential releases and computer hacks. They decided their profits, secrets, and future are not worth the potential income from this movie. Corporations don't give a shit about free speech, they care about profits for their shareholders.

You are correct that it isn't really a 1st Amendment issue. What it really is is a blackmail issue, and the issue that by letting whoever made the threats know that they work, Sony has not only embarrassed themselves and the country, they've turned a whole lot of other companies into potential targets for the same sort of thing.

-Mir

Francoflier · Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:26 am

You're an entity / non-aligned country / group with an axe to grind and would rather these infidels / agitators / anarchists didn't publish that movie / book / album / game? You know what to do!

Remember, kids: Blackmail works.

BubbleFrog · Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:43 am

I need to find the link again, but read this morning that "Team America", which was to be the replacement in some cinemas has been pulled, too.

If that's true, it's getting really beyond ridiculous.

BubbleFrog · Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:47 am

Here we go: https://deadline.com/2014/12/paramount-cancel-team-america-1201329597/

EA CO AS · Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:52 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
People liking Seth Rogen is baffling.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who finds his popularity confusing! He flat-out sucks as an actor and really isn't funny at all.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 69):
This is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. It is an issue of a multinational corporation deciding that they would capitulate under duress, with fear of further confidential releases and computer hacks. They decided their profits, secrets, and future are not worth the potential income from this movie. Corporations don't give a shit about free speech, they care about profits for their shareholders.

I was having this very discussion with some friends and pointed out that a corporation - with shareholders to answer to - will and should act differently than a sovereign state would when threatened with this sort of blackmail. It comes down to a simple question of doing a cost-benefit analysis and making a decision based on that.

Which is precisely what Sony did, in the end.

Mir · Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:57 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 75):
I was having this very discussion with some friends and pointed out that a corporation - with shareholders to answer to - will and should act differently than a sovereign state would when threatened with this sort of blackmail.

Why? Sovereign states don't ignore blackmail for the fun of it - they do so because they don't want to send the message that it works. Corporations are perfectly capable of doing the same thing, and would have the same rationale for doing so. They may come out ahead in the short term (as would a sovereign nation that caved to blackmail), but the decision by Sony has significant ramifications in the long-term for their entire industry, and for other industries as well.

-Mir

tailskid · Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:29 pm

Some in the media are trying to propel this story beyond reality.

Today Reuters ran a story with the headline "U.S. considers 'proportional' response to Sony hacking attack"

But when we search their story all we find to support that headline is the White house spokesman hypothesizing that If there were a response it would be well thought out.
Earnest said U.S. national security leaders "would be mindful of the fact that we need a proportional response."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...y-northkorea-idUSKBN0JW24Z20141219

Voice of America ran with a headline: "US: Sony Cyberattack is ‘Serious’ National Security Matter" but when you search the story there is nothing to support that extreme assertion.
http://www.voanews.com/content/presi...pictures-very-serious/2563923.html

Tis the season for hyperbole!

WestJet747 · Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:24 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
People liking Seth Rogen is baffling. However, it is not quite as baffling as people admitting that they like Seth Rogen. The man is an overgrown frat boy making the same penis jokes I heard in middle school.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 75):
Glad to know I'm not the only one who finds his popularity confusing! He flat-out sucks as an actor and really isn't funny at all.

But wait...could it be that people have different tastes in humour?! SOMEBODY ALERT THE PRESS!!!

[Edited 2014-12-19 10:25:01]

AIRWALK · Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:46 pm

I don't think it was a simple case of giving in to blackmail. The fact that they were hacked and information was leaked was probably a threat. The hackers might have gained access to something a lot more important than what they leaked. Possibly used this as a threat against Sony releasing the picture. Something big enough to make Sony pull it.

Anyway personally and selfishly I am happy it was pulled. I have a few friends that were excited to see this movie. My plan was to avoid them for 3-4 weeks or go overseas after they watch it so I don't have to be a part of their conversation about it.

EA CO AS · Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:13 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 76):
Why? Sovereign states don't ignore blackmail for the fun of it - they do so because they don't want to send the message that it works. Corporations are perfectly capable of doing the same thing, and would have the same rationale for doing so.

Apples and oranges. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to protect their investment, and that's far less complex than the moral and ethical responsibilities sovereign states face with regard to blackmail or coercion from another sovereign state.

And again, if we're talking about sovereign state to sovereign state, that sort of capitulation happens all the time; one nation suggests withholding financial aid from another for example, and suddenly things change. Totally different than a sovereign state reacting to a non-state sponsored terrorist group.

Dreadnought · Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:50 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 77):
Voice of America ran with a headline: "US: Sony Cyberattack is ‘Serious’ National Security Matter" but when you search the story there is nothing to support that extreme assertion.

Really? Here is a hypothetical:

NK goes through with it's threat since 1953, and invades South Korea. The US moves to assist its ally (this assumes Obama is not in power, but that's beside the point). NK responds by hacking into major US corporations, and simply starts erasing data, broadcasting it, or otherwise screwing things up. Payroll records get fouled up, nobody gets paid. Investment files get scrambled - nobody knows who owns what. The dangers to our power grid from cyberattack has been publicized for the last 10! years, and again very recently. Theoretically, a mass cyberattack can shut down the US economy. It could make Black Tuesday in 1929 look like a small speedbump.

People have been pointing out the potential dangers for decades about the potential dangers of putting all our data into computers hooked up to the internet. Now we have a state, as feared, who appears to be willing to use this as a weapon. It's all been theoretical so far, but now, at least on a small scale, it becoming real.

lewis · Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:12 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 69):
Thanks. This is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. It is an issue of a multinational corporation deciding that they would capitulate under duress, with fear of further confidential releases and computer hacks. They decided their profits, secrets, and future are not worth the potential income from this movie. Corporations don't give a shit about free speech, they care about profits for their shareholders.

Likewise, Paramount was smart to pull screenings of "Team America". I'm sure that was a quick decision for their board.

Yet, Americans will whinge about their supposed "free speech".

Then give yourself a pat for living in the land of the free and the home of the brave, both are starting to sound too silly lately.

Tugger · Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:36 pm

You know, this could just be the greatest marketing campaign ever by a film studio....

I am betting that ultimately Sony will release the movie (this year) and it will become every patriotic American's duty to go see it! Honestly, if Sony does release The Interview to theaters it will probably make a ridiculous amount on it's opening weekend! At this point everybody has heard of it and is at least a little curious to see it.

And I don't hold any fear that anything bad will happen.

This weekend I'll be watching Team America!

Tugg

Tugger · Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:49 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 69):
Thanks. This is NOT a 1st Amendment issue. It is an issue of a multinational corporation deciding that they would capitulate under duress, with fear of further confidential releases and computer hacks. They decided their profits, secrets, and future are not worth the potential income from this movie. Corporations don't give a shit about free speech, they care about profits for their shareholders.

Yet there is no reason to believe the perpetrators will not still release anything and everything they want no matter what Sony does or doesn't do. It simply doesn't matter what Sony does, if they release the movie or not.

You simply cannot trust any entity that would do this because they already demonstrate that they can't be trusted and that they will do as they please and damage you. Or are you implying that you can trust criminals that have proven they will hurt you?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 81):
Theoretically, a mass cyberattack can shut down the US economy.

Yeah, sure..... Theoretically a lot of crap can happen. But you know what? It doesn't. And it won't. No one is going to
shut down the US economy. Boy, I am disgusted with the ridiculous fear spouting I see going on. The stupid fear you are living under is insane. What if our founding fathers had thought as you do? "Oh no! Eek! England might do something bad to us if we declare independence! We'd better not do that...."

Stand up, do what is right and needs to be done. If someone decides to punch you in the mouth for doing that then fight back you wimps.

Tugg

[Edited 2014-12-19 15:00:54]

Braybuddy · Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:40 pm

Dreadnought · Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:55 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 84):
Yeah, sure..... Theoretically a lot of crap can happen. But you know what? It doesn't. And it won't. No one is going to
shut down the US economy. Boy, I am disgusted with the ridiculous fear spouting I see going on. The stupid fear you are living under is insane. What if our founding fathers had thought as you do? "Oh no! Eek! England might do something bad to us if we declare independence! We'd better not do that...."

Stand up, do what is right and needs to be done. If someone decides to punch you in the mouth for doing that then fight back you wimps.

Wow, talking about getting the point all wrong...

You state that that large scale cyberterrorism/cyberattacks are impossible. I could do it myself. From my computer, at home, I could shut down a significant portion of communications, both phone and internet. I can do that as part of my job and I have the codes and know-how - and I am by no means a computer expert. I could erase my companies payroll and tax files. And my company has been under continuous hack attacks for years. True story - last year we put in place a sophisticated little bit of custom software that would detect hack attempts - so that we could block IPs etc before we had a confirmed break-in. We turned it on (I was in the room) and immediately all the alarms started going off. It appears that hacks were attempted, several times per second, 24 hours per day. They are using random number/character generators to continuously try to find username/passwords/backdoor codes etc. The IPs keep changing, using anonymous servers all over the world.

Ask any expert on the matter, cyberwarfare is real, and one day someone is going to pull the trigger in a big way. Your burying your head in the sand and putting your fingers in your ears will not stop it. You sound like one of those people who could not believe that people would suicide-dive multiple airliners into the WTC.

If I were CinC, i would be instructing my military and technical services to come up with a way to strike back electronicaly. Our own cyberwarfare battleplan. If a nation such as NK attacks us, the next day none of their computers work, their worldwide bank accounts (including the ruling families) find their foreign accounts vanished without a trace, and so forth. Just like any other method of war, you have to able to hurt them worse than they hurt you.

Silver1SWA · Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:08 am

There's one detail thats being overlooked here. Theaters are refusing to show the film! Why is Sony taking all the heat for this decision? How do they release the film if theres no one willing to show it? People say they could show it for free on TV or stream it on the web. First of all, they still can. Second, this film is now poison. No company, no network wants any part of this. So what is Sony supposed to do?!

alberchico · Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:29 am

Here's a short clip that shows how the dictator dies in the end ( spoiler alert)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bQj_rPfbtI

flyingturtle · Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:49 pm

Quoting alberchico (Reply 88):

Awww, really?

Then the computer-generated images are way better than those in "Die Another Day"...

David

Pyrex · Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:32 pm

This whole thing is ridiculous. I read a comparison that was very apt the other day - can you imagine United Artists pulling "The Great Dictator" because Hitler would have objected?

Hywel · Sun Dec 21, 2014 9:53 am

There's still no evidence that North Korea was behind the hack on Sony. Just saying.

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/evidence-of-north-korea-hack-is-thin/

tailskid · Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:24 pm

Quoting Hywel (Reply 91):
There's still no evidence that North Korea was behind the hack on Sony. Just saying.

The link you provided is four days old and it doesn't say that there is no evidence, it just says that the evidence was "Flimsy" which in fact indicates that there was some kind of evidence on the 17th.

So the link was misrepresented.

But the misrepresentation doesn't end there. Within the Wired story there is a topic headline: "Sony and FBI Deny Connection to North Korea." But neither Sony or the FBI actually said that; what they said was that "they’ve found no evidence so far to tie North Korea to the attack." which is not an assertion that there is none.

So here we need to factor in that neither Sony or the FBI are the best equipped or best trained organizations to be tracking this kind of international hack to it's source anyway.

So this turns out to a non story to the nth degree.

Forgive me for jumping on this, nothing personal here; but I've just had the same kind of illogic foisted off on me in another topic I've been following recently. So this grabbed my attention tight away.

LittleFokker · Tue Dec 23, 2014 10:38 pm

And in the least surprising move of the century (so far), "The Interview" will be released to the public anyways:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...w-sony-release-20141223-story.html

As if anyone legitimately thought this movie would sit on the shelf forever.....

EA CO AS · Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:11 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 92):
The link you provided is four days old and it doesn't say that there is no evidence, it just says that the evidence was "Flimsy" which in fact indicates that there was some kind of evidence on the 17th.

So the link was misrepresented.

But the misrepresentation doesn't end there. Within the Wired story there is a topic headline: "Sony and FBI Deny Connection to North Korea." But neither Sony or the FBI actually said that; what they said was that "they’ve found no evidence so far to tie North Korea to the attack." which is not an assertion that there is none.

Then why did North Korea say there was more to come if they had no hand in the initial hack?

Moose135 · Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:24 am

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 93):
And in the least surprising move of the century (so far), "The Interview" will be released to the public anyways:

Would I be considered cynical if I thought this was all an elaborate plan on Sony's part? No, they would never try something like that...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net