Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The Ethics behind the SonyLeaks (and SPECTRE-Leaks)
I think there should really be a separate topic in which we discuss the ethical and moral implications of the latest hacks on servers owned by Sony Pictures. Because it can really create financial havoc and destruction.
Reputations of employees are almost irreversibly damaged. Famous CEO's like Sony's Amy Pascal probably need to resign completely if #GOP's "Christmas Present" arrives ( http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ ). And as the art of doing business depends on secrecy on many aspects (competition analysis, to name an aspect), it can have implications on the state of an entire company...or perhaps even on the state of a nation's economy.
On top of that, hacking, or actually the art of "cyber warfare" which we are now talking about, really has the possibility to affect freedom and democratic values. Hackers indirectly succeed in censoring entire movies, which has basically happened with Seth Rogen's "The Interview". The release from the movie in various Asian countries has been cancelled. And on top of that Sony Pictures requested several scene edits and other cuts or changes, so the controversial content becomes less controversial (Making North-Korea ridiculous in a funny way). Although I don't believe Sony is censoring movies in a similar way as certain dictatorships are doing, the actual damage has already been done to the film. "Guardians Of Peace" got what they want: Compromising and affecting the possible success of a movie and indirectly applying censorship to them.
The hackers call themselves "Guardians Of Peace" (and are linked to other hacker syndicate "God’sApslts"). Recent research showed that the hackers are most likely linked to North Korean hackers based in China and Thailand. But also North Korea’s sophisticated "Unit 121" cyber division is suspected in constructing and initializing the leaks (make no mistake, The North Korean cyber weapons unit was created in 1998 and has steadily grown in size and capability. It has conducted more attacks on US military systems than any other country, including Russia and China. North Korea also has an agreement with Iran for cyber warfare activities. And Kim Jong-Un has called the 2013 cyber attacks on South-Korea a “magic weapon” for “ruthless strikes”.)
So why do journalists (or web editors) post all the contents of these hacks without too much reflection? Weren't they the guys who used to do extensive research journalism, so that an entire Watergate Scandal could be smoked out completely? Weren't they the guys who were the first gatekeeper of our democracy and interpreted the source material into enlightened and opiniated articles?
Or has the profession of journalism changed into nothing more than a basic intermediary role, or "service-hatch" to the people? Posting the damn stuff and then it's up to you what you want to do with it?
I think before we start topics about the contents of these leaks, before we start drawing conclusions and stating assumptions -critical, less critical, negative or positive- about the contents, we first need to do some re-assessment about the moral and ethical implications of what we are actually doing here. In my opinion I don't really care about Bond fans in here and if they are interpreting all these leaks within exciting new topics.
But I do think we need to ask ourselves what damage we can cause to our society if we solely focus on a limitless and unconfined freedom, instead of a freedom that first reflects back on our own rational thinking, our own ethical and moral compass. Because these so called "Guardians Of Peace" are affecting slowly but consistently the health of our personal lives, our privacy and our enlightened way of thinking. And make no mistake, it also inflicts long-term damage on the well-being of our economies and democracies.
So I do agree we need to strike back more fiercefully. We need to smoke these hackers out. And perhaps we need to adopt more fierce "counter-hacking measures" ( http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/08/tech/hackers-infosec/ ). But moreover, I really think we need to understand what long-term implications our posts and topics can have if we accept that using the contents about these leaks as source material should be possible without any reflection or thinking.
Perhaps I am writing too much in here, so down below you can find some interesting links about this matter:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/complicated-sony-ethics
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/aaron-sorkin-journalists-shouldnt-help-the-sony-hackers.html
http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/variety-cnn-examine-journalistic-issues-with-sony-hack/
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/12/12/should-journalists-publish-stolen-info.cnn&video_referrer=
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/08/tech/hackers-infosec/
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/
Reputations of employees are almost irreversibly damaged. Famous CEO's like Sony's Amy Pascal probably need to resign completely if #GOP's "Christmas Present" arrives ( http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/ ). And as the art of doing business depends on secrecy on many aspects (competition analysis, to name an aspect), it can have implications on the state of an entire company...or perhaps even on the state of a nation's economy.
On top of that, hacking, or actually the art of "cyber warfare" which we are now talking about, really has the possibility to affect freedom and democratic values. Hackers indirectly succeed in censoring entire movies, which has basically happened with Seth Rogen's "The Interview". The release from the movie in various Asian countries has been cancelled. And on top of that Sony Pictures requested several scene edits and other cuts or changes, so the controversial content becomes less controversial (Making North-Korea ridiculous in a funny way). Although I don't believe Sony is censoring movies in a similar way as certain dictatorships are doing, the actual damage has already been done to the film. "Guardians Of Peace" got what they want: Compromising and affecting the possible success of a movie and indirectly applying censorship to them.
The hackers call themselves "Guardians Of Peace" (and are linked to other hacker syndicate "God’sApslts"). Recent research showed that the hackers are most likely linked to North Korean hackers based in China and Thailand. But also North Korea’s sophisticated "Unit 121" cyber division is suspected in constructing and initializing the leaks (make no mistake, The North Korean cyber weapons unit was created in 1998 and has steadily grown in size and capability. It has conducted more attacks on US military systems than any other country, including Russia and China. North Korea also has an agreement with Iran for cyber warfare activities. And Kim Jong-Un has called the 2013 cyber attacks on South-Korea a “magic weapon” for “ruthless strikes”.)
So why do journalists (or web editors) post all the contents of these hacks without too much reflection? Weren't they the guys who used to do extensive research journalism, so that an entire Watergate Scandal could be smoked out completely? Weren't they the guys who were the first gatekeeper of our democracy and interpreted the source material into enlightened and opiniated articles?
Or has the profession of journalism changed into nothing more than a basic intermediary role, or "service-hatch" to the people? Posting the damn stuff and then it's up to you what you want to do with it?
I think before we start topics about the contents of these leaks, before we start drawing conclusions and stating assumptions -critical, less critical, negative or positive- about the contents, we first need to do some re-assessment about the moral and ethical implications of what we are actually doing here. In my opinion I don't really care about Bond fans in here and if they are interpreting all these leaks within exciting new topics.
But I do think we need to ask ourselves what damage we can cause to our society if we solely focus on a limitless and unconfined freedom, instead of a freedom that first reflects back on our own rational thinking, our own ethical and moral compass. Because these so called "Guardians Of Peace" are affecting slowly but consistently the health of our personal lives, our privacy and our enlightened way of thinking. And make no mistake, it also inflicts long-term damage on the well-being of our economies and democracies.
So I do agree we need to strike back more fiercefully. We need to smoke these hackers out. And perhaps we need to adopt more fierce "counter-hacking measures" ( http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/08/tech/hackers-infosec/ ). But moreover, I really think we need to understand what long-term implications our posts and topics can have if we accept that using the contents about these leaks as source material should be possible without any reflection or thinking.
Perhaps I am writing too much in here, so down below you can find some interesting links about this matter:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/complicated-sony-ethics
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/aaron-sorkin-journalists-shouldnt-help-the-sony-hackers.html
http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/variety-cnn-examine-journalistic-issues-with-sony-hack/
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/12/12/should-journalists-publish-stolen-info.cnn&video_referrer=
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/08/tech/hackers-infosec/
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
At the end of the day, this is a multi-$million $ picture, and studios (commercial entities) with highly paid executives, lawyers and computer programmers as well as risk management personnel. If a leak occurs, then it's their problem first and foremost. They have to accept it, and they should deal with it and ensure it does not happen again. If certain members of the above cabal need to be dismissed for not being up to the job, then so be it. These people are part of the overpaid 1% and need to do their jobs better.
Of course, this leak raises many questions, and brings a lot into the public eye. Primarily what needs to be considered as a result of this leak is the following:
1. Should EON (a company that goes to such length to protect its primary asset) revisit its policy around who sees the script and how it's distributed, particularly to Sony or other distribution companies that they cannot control? No doubt.
2. Should cybersecurity be taken more seriously? Absolutely. When I see some Governments encourage their citizens to file their tax returns only electronically I laugh out loud. Really?! Are you serious?! When people make a big deal and get excited about "Apple pay" I laugh even harder. Wait until that is hacked.
3. Should Scott Rubin have that much power? - what he said is very unprofessional and I personally think his conduct and statements in a work setting are disgraceful. If he's been shown up, good for him. His interest in wanting yet another Steve Jobs film made rather than focusing on something else, like the gestating 'Girl Who Played With Fire', which should star Craig/Mara and be directed by Fincher, is even more telling of what a joke he is.
4. Regarding your point about journalistic integrity. That went out the window years ago imo, and is less prevalent now in the world of the ubiquitous internet. It's all about who has the information first. It's about shoot first and ask questions later. I'm not judging it. It's just the way it is. Hoping to have some self-enforcing ethical standards for the internet is asking too much.
5. re: the malicious nature of the leak. You have a point, but in my estimation it's moot. Craig and co. were filming in London yesterday. I don't think they put a big sign up saying 'please come and take photos and post all of the internet and discuss'. They had no choice because this was a 'on location' shoot. Should we ask the press not to go there.......not to film it......? Of course not. It is what it is. EON is not bothered by it and neither should we be. A leak is a leak. A spoiler is a spolier. How it gets there is not relevant imo.
6. The only thing I'm concerned about is spoiling it for other fans who don't want to know about the leaks. I don't want to do that. That is why I agree with dedicated threads with spoiler tags to discuss the matter. It's the best way to localize the energy and allow it to dissipate.
A leak is a 'cost of doing business'. If they are so concerned about leaks, then make sure the information is not leaked.
It's quite telling that EON has only put one brief statement out about this whole affair, as they should have, as a large corporation protected by lawyers. They don't seem that concerned about it. They're going about their business and producing what I'm sure will be an amazing, brilliant Bond film for the ages.
The film will do the talking..
Everything has to be available now. In large amounts, and at the press of a button. There is no more mystery to storytelling - the charm of waiting for a new movie, album or book is gone. Nobody has the discipline to wait for anything anymore.
In the meantime, the bottom of the hierarchy are the ones who have had the most damage done. Their personal data has been leaked. And you want us to cry about the leak of professional mail from the top executives ? Even people who have left Sony for a few months have problems now, and they will have zero help from Sony no matter what. I know directly or indirectly people who are in this situation, even for them the leak of their boss' mailbox is the "fun" part of the story. Actually, this situation is quite under control : the data about how to waste many people's live is not so easy to find. The scripts are easy to find : people feel it's not as dangerous as toying with personal data. There are more ethics in how this leak is being used than you think.
Gee, amongst many other things, this leak has revealed that at Sony there was huge gender gaps. For the same work, a woman can be paid $1m less than a man. Even Jennifer Lawrence is paid less than her male co-stars. For the Hustler, there was Lawrence and Amy Adams, two women in one category, who earned the less, and the 4 guys who earned more. Yeah, people went to see the Hustler because of Jeremy Renner, sure !
So, do you consider people should ignore such informations just because it was revealed thanks to a crime ?
And about "financial destruction and havoc", I will post again something I've already posted. If you think "ethics" are part of Hollywood, think twice.
Oh, and do some research about "Hollywood accounting".
That was the sound of @AceHole hitting the nail on the head.
There will be lots of people vehemently disagreeing, and arguinging, justifiably, that this is too difficult to enforce in 2014, but it doesn't mean it isn't utterly depressing. I hate that everything in this day and age is up for grabs and utterly disposable.
The irony is in this case that reading the script (and I mean, the script, not some outline), is IMO the best way to be spoiled. At least you got once some story as the writers intended it to be told. Now the usual fun spoiling Internet pests who invade forums a few weeks before a movie's release will have less impact for me. Remember a few weeks before Skyfall, some accounts, who have since disappeared, telling that "M dies" in non-spoiler threads ? Well, I'd have prefered to read it by reading Skyfall's script in order...
Furthermore, a lot of changes have happened (and not only in the third act), so there are surprises ahead for everyone. I feel like I read "SPECTRE - the novel", and I wait for the adaptation, with major changes (for instance : such scene totally disappears because the cost is too huge, how will they deal with it ?)
And, well, it's not as if the recent Bond movies relied heavily on their scripts, don't they ? In SPECTRE, there was even a flaw large enough in the structure of the story that that site who summarized the script totally missed one major point ;)
Precisely. I agree completely. That was my feeling, and I've only seen the outlines. Whets my appetite to see the 'realization' on screen with nuances and everything in 11 months time.
http://deadline.com/2014/12/george-clooney-sony-hollywood-cowardice-north-korea-cyberattack-petition-1201329988/
Clooney specifically talks about what implications this could have on critical filmmakers and movies with critical themes. Make no mistake, I think recent Bond films, especially "Skyfall", had that critical underlying theme (Just re-watch 'M's Tennyson speech). And for God sake, even Bond films should not bow down for such North-Korean psychopaths.
On the other hand, you still have to mention anyone of them in all your texts, who seem to focus only on a few millionnaires who HAVE a responsability in what happened, even if you don't want to talk about it - for instance, they simply did not warn their employees about early hacking attacks on their network, and did not make it more secure after that. And that's why nobody here agrees with you it seems.
Oh, and I live 1 km away from a movie theather who was burnt to pieces because of a terrorist attack caused by the theme of a movie.
You use a hyperbole here, saying that Clooney totally disagrees with me. You tend to forget it's an interview, not just one article with one truth. Clooney sheds his light on many aspects of the hack. And on average he does agree with me:
--> the big picture: we do not talk about how a foreign nation, North Korea, is able to censor American movie business, and with it it's freedom and democracy.
--> that Sony is not the one who should receive the Blair over the actual contents over the leak, but that the North Korean Guardians Of Peace must receive the Blair for what they are able to do: Attacking democratic values.
--> that the western media gets lost in trivialities, gossip and banter instead of the real content; that they forget mentioning what's at stake here from a long-term perspective.
Dear Mr Parachute. I sometimes don't get your comments. Why....can YOU not discuss about what this topic is about? That is "The ethics behind all this"? Why are you basically always slamming down everything I say, then rewriting your own twist to it and then in your closing statement we actually have something in common: Seriously condemning terrorism? Is it because.....you are irritated by my very existence in this forum :-)?
I will explain once again why no one here follows you it seems :
The ethics behind all this is that as I've written numerous time, people are making the difference between harming people (the leak of personal data of Sony employees) and having fun (discussing the gossip and leaked scripts).
It may shatter your black-and-white world, but I know from first hand testimony that victims of these leaks are having a little fun in discussing the gossips from their boss' leaked mailbox.. while fearing their own mailbox will leak too later on.
And while you keep on denying it : the boss have their responsability : they didn't tell their employees about early hacking attacks. Class actions will be made against Sony's bosses from that. There are former Sony employees in the lot who have nothing to loose. Obviously it's first the fault of the ones who steal, but you should stop defending millionnaires who decided to let the network as it was when they were told it wasn't safe. Go and tell explain the employees who will sue Sony that they're wrong. It's not your personal data that was considered as not important...
On the long term perspective, what is at stake is that personal data from companies' employees will never be considered worthy to be protected. It costs a lot. IT crew cost a lot (Sony fired its IT crew about 2 years ago). You can have poor network that fulfill the daily needs but is open to any piracy (the hack of Sony is NOT considered to be super elaborate by many, it's really the Sony network that was full of holes, and the executives knew about it). Many companies will prefer to live with that. And in the meantime, the company will continue to ask their employees for many private data, or investigate them without telling them.
Hollywood may create a super-safe network to trade scripts secrets, who knows (a bit like the super-safe networks of the financial trading world), but the low-paid employee certainly will still have all his data available to any hacker. Ethics ? Bah, money talks. Yeah, blame the hackers and avoid discussing that there are different classes of citizens in western companies : IMO such behaviour explains why no one in the multimillionnaire world of Hollywood signed Clooney's text. The movie industry is one of the less ethical in the world.
What are you after here. That there's a difference between using the word "Sony Pictures" and "Sony's employees"? That "Sony" does not cover all of Sony's employees? What kind of nonsense is that really. It's an evasive remark from your side that actually makes your remark sound black-and-white really. You can't say that there's a black-and-white difference between the word "Sony" that is basically covering everything, including employees, and the words "Sony's employees", which you are aiming at.
Moreover, you are actually wrong here, because Clooney, like me, extends his message in a bigger picture, which I was also mentioning: "This is not just an attack on Sony. It involves every studio, every network, every business and every individual in this country."
And again, you are missing the point completely here. You say, and I quote: "The ethics behind all this is people are making the difference between harming people (the leak of personal data of Sony employees) and having fun (discussing the gossip and leaked scripts)". That's not the bigger picture I and Clooney are aiming it. It's an irrelevant piece of information that sidesteps the real ethical problem.
Which is: That we, you, me and journalists, are actually forgetting to mention the real harm these hacks mean for our democratic society. That it becomes increasingly difficult within our own businesses to distribute uncensored critical movies, that were made in full freedom and with help of our democratic values. THAT is the real ethical "big picture" problem and you never address that.
You keep mentioning I am a black-and-white person. Perhaps on the big picture I am. But then again, you are good at derailing discussions and actually reacting in black-and-white fashion about non-issues.
I never denied it, because I never mentioned it. I was focusing on the big picture, while you are completely blinded about organizational charts and how the Sony organization should and must work. Well, I am not. I am focusing on the long-term implications of these atrocious, criminals from North Korea.
You "think" that I am solely defending millionaires, but like Clooney I can safely speak for myself and say that I "am" really defending democratic values here, like freedom of expression, nuanced (NOT black-and-white) journalism and the abolishment of censorship on movie content.
You: "Sony fired its IT crew about 2 years ago". What kind of nonsense is this really. It is simply not true. I worked in IT myself, and you can be sure that Sony has a hugeeee IT department.
I'd say that this is a good lesson really for a more larger IT-security approach within Sony and many other companies. Contradictory of what you are saying, I think it'll actually help investments in "counter-hacking" measures, which more and more IT-departments of big governmental institutions and blue-chip companies now have.
But, you succeed in derailing the discussion once again. Like Clooney said in his interview, this is about: That it becomes increasingly difficult within our own businesses to distribute uncensored critical movies, that were made in full freedom and with help of our democratic values. THAT is the real ethical "big picture" problem and you never address that. Moreover, you might want to address this question as a follow-up: Should movie companies stop producing critical movies like "Team America", "South Park" and.....indeed...."The Interview" then?? What do you have to say to that! Because that question is what's at stake here. And this also goes for the more recent Bond films that have been increasingly critical towards geopolitical developments!
*Sigh*, read above. I think people like you, who are constantly downplaying the big picture of it all, are not addressing the core problem. The movie industry is perhaps "un-ethical", but with it are your boss and my boss as well then. You're actually writing this in a very black-and-white-esque way. I'm not saying that the entire West is "ethical". That's bullocks, and we all know that. But we CAN make society, and conduct of business, more ethical no? If we don't try it with one tiny bit of motivation, then we end up as cynical as you are. And then people walk all over us eventually. Just like they did in 1940-1945...or like what is happening in today's society in a much sneakier and slower rate (Russia's investments in far-right-wing parties in the European Union, North-Korean hacks into western companies)
I refuse to be as cynical as you are. And this is my last elaborate reaction on your post. It's really tiresome and exhausting. I try to be nice to you, but I just do not understand why you always try to widen the disagreements between us pro-actively, instead of finding at least ONE tiny sentence on which we can agree. Stick your head in the sand for a while now.
1) "A lawsuit filed in a California federal court alleges that Sony fired employees in the unit responsible for data security two weeks before it suffered a massive cyber attack that compromised the personal information of up to 77 million consumers to its PlayStation Network and Qriocity network around April 19. ". And since then the Sony network was full of holes. There was other attacks before the one that is making the headlines, Sony knew about it, and hide the information from their employees. So...
2) "Two employees sued Sony in federal court on Monday, alleging the company failed to secure its computer systems despite "weaknesses that it has known about for years," and instead made a business decision to accept the risk." And since then, there are more. Former Sony employees can sue them, current employees are less free to do it, as you can guess.
In short : Sony are to blame too. Not taking this into account is really a wishful thinking to preserve a black-and-white view of the world.
And :
3) The important fact in the Clooney petition about Sony employees is that no one in Holllywood will sign it. It is further proof, IMO, is that the Hollywood world is not the place where one can call for ethics. LGBT ethics, yes. Feminism ethics, yes. Racism ethics, yes. Low paid people.. uh.. no. Actually, don't expect a gay black woman to be paid as much as a white hetero male I guess - but they'll make a movie about her, no problem :)
who are you referring to?
Now who said that in a Cairo speech in 2009?
Bill O'Reilly :))
http://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/
And, well, as other experts who speaks publicly about it, it seems he doesn't take the North Korea hypothesis at face value (the officials who blame North Korea have yet to release any evidence).
Remember Sony had fired their IT security teams... that left the company with a lot of knowledge about how to hack it... and who more than former employees want to cause chaos to a company just for the sake of it ? So some others who seem to know one thing or two about IT prefer the insider / former insider hypothesis at the moment.
I guess the e-mail addresses being public is the least of their problem as they can easily get new ones. And who would want to write unsolicited e-mails to Barbara Broccoli anyway other than a handful of Bond fans? :)
Knowing perfectly well that she'll never read them or reply to them so why bother?
1. The president of the United States came out and commented directly on the leaks
2. He signaled out North Korea as the perpetrator, based on FBI evidence
3. He signaled out Sony and blamed them for backing down
4. He said that people should not self censor the kind of movies that they make
What's surprising to me is the following:
-This man, more than any other, is known for his caution. Almost painful deliberation before speaking. And yesterday he comes out and blames Sony for not releasing the movie. Even though it's known that it's the theatres who said they would not show it. Even though he would most likely (given how deliberative he is) have thought through the consequences of some nut causing mayhem in any theatre on opening night, should the movie have been released. Hmmmm.......
-This deliberative man says that producers and directors should not engage in self censorship. Even though his statement, if taken literally, opens the floodgates to any kind of garbage to be produced.
Very interesting indeed. So he can confidently say these things in a press conference. If there was a threat to movie audiences this would be an idiotic thing to say, don't you think?
-If someone decided to make a movie deriding Israel or the Israeli leadership, would he be so quick to suggest not to self-censor?
-If someone made a movie on 911 or Benghazi, would he be so quick to say not to self censor?
-if someone made a movie about violence in black neighbourhoods in America, would he be so quick to say not to self censor?
My conclusion is we have a distraction here folks. 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.
There is definitely more to this story than we are being told.
That's why the world needs more James Bonds to investigate the crap being spewed out there.
Agreed. I want more of them all. Bauer, Hunt, Bond, & Bourne
I found this quite interesting, and IMO the guy seems to know about the subject : the first known source of the leak is a few blocks away from a backbone that feeds North Korea.
http://jeffreycarr.blogspot.fr/2014/12/sony-dprk-and-thailand-pyongyang.html
All of the expers I read so far downplay the alleged complexity of this hack, and say that what is unprecedented is how blind & deaf Sony was to the hacking while it occured...
Well, in all honesty @bondjames, the relevance of the Bond films, geopolitical-wise, hasn't been that big before. All of Craig's Bond film weird enough are inspired by real politics, and apparently the politics of today are frightfully connected to later real events ("Skyfall").