So . . . You’re probably aware that Sony was hacked,
possibly by contractors working for North Korea. Or, according to others,
people at Sony in a far-reaching publicity stunt. And that the hackers issued
threats should Sony release The Interview,
which is apparently about NK. And as a result of said threats, first, theater
owners declined to show the movie. Then Sony decided to simply not distribute
the movie in any manner. And then some theaters decided they would show Team
America: World Police in defiance of the cyber-terroristic threats. And then
Paramount said “No, you cannot show Team America instead”.
It’s all pretty jacked up really.
So first, the hacked emails. People have compared the reporting
on the release of these emails to the doxxing (release of personal information)
of individuals, such as has happened in the GamerGate fiasco. And to some degree,
they are correct, since it seems some of the released material was, in effect,
doxxing of some employees. Personal information about real people being let
loose in the wild. However, at the same time, emails concerning business
decisions and general strategies aren’t the same as doxxing a particular
person.
If you are even vaguely familiar with me, you’re going to be
able to successfully predict that I don’t’ have much sympathy for Sony overall
in this situation. So yes, it sucks that personal information was released. But
emails revealing that the people in charge are dipshits? I’m not sweating that.
But I also am a believer that if you don’t want information out in the wild,
you should probably use written communication and then go all Mission
Impossible on that shit. Because if it’s electronic, it’s not safe. But as The Daily Show has demonstrated countless
times, people are just never going to understand that.
Frankly, this hack should have people at Sony soiling
themselves. But instead of simply owning up to the BS, they are, predictably,
threatening lawsuits against those who release the hacked information.
Whatever. That’s pretty SOP, even if a punk ass move. It’s also a move mostly
designed to threaten with a fear of legal fees and crushing litigation with
little hope of actually winning. News orgs aren’t liable for publishing info
stolen or acquired by a third party.
So hopefully, everyone learns a valuable lesson about
e-security from this.
The more interesting result of all of this is the cancelled
distribution of The Interview. Now,
personally, I think we will see it distributed in some form in the nearish
future. But that’s not here, there, or anywhere else. No, I think it’s
interesting because on social media and in internet news articles, you’re
seeing people from all walks of life blasting Sony for “letting the terrorists
win”. They are calling this movie “corporate
cowardice”, capitulation, and all sorts of other things. They are saying
similar things about the theaters that refused to show the film (before Sony
decided to cancel distribution). But what a lot of people seem to be ignoring
about that aspect is that it’s as much a fear of the American legal system as
it is of potential terrorist attacks.
How so you ask?
Well, if you’ll recall, in 2012, there was a mass shooting
incident in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado during a late-night showing of The Dark Knight Rises. It was pretty
fucked up (and an aside, cops managed to arrest this guy instead of shooting
him dead). But that’s not the thrust of this paragraph. No, in August (I think
it was), a District Court judge ruled that the cinema in question could have
predicted the attack. Now, in my 100% layman’s opinion, that is laughable and
the judge should lay off the pharmaceuticals. But I acknowledge there may be
legal nuances in play that I am simply unaware of. But it comes down to this:
A cinema may be held responsible for an attack on the
patrons of the cinema because vaguely similar attacks have happened elsewhere.
Now, Aurora was a case where there were no big public
threats of a potential attack. Imagine then that you are the owner of a theater
post-this decision, and damn, suddenly there are big public threats of
potential attacks if you show a movie. So now, however unlikely such an attack,
you are at risk of both a genuine tragedy, and potentially bankrupting lawsuits
from patron families should something happen.
I’d probably decline to show the movie as well.
Does all of this set a poor precedent? Absolutely. Does it
suck that these corporations and theater owners capitulated to terroristic
threats? Yes. If you look at everything involved, however, while not
commendable, it is perhaps understandable. And I’m pretty annoyed about even
kinda sorta defending a corporation here, but come on. There’s more than
cowardice at play here; there’s money. And that’s what is important to Sony.
That said, while I can understand their position, I’m still
going to ensure that I don’t support Sony financially because they kinda suck.
