Update from the
Heartland
No.679
15.12.14 – 21.12.14
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
On Monday, 24.November.2014, a
cyber-terrorist group calling itself Guardians of Peace (GOP) [Interesting
choice of words for their moniker] released a passel of private eMails stolen
from Sony Pictures Entertainment.
The group sought to damage and intimidate Sony and demanded the release
cancellation of the Sony movie “The Interview” – a rather silly,
satirical, cinematic offering scheduled for theatrical release on Christmas
Day, Thursday, 25.December.2014.
Of course, the salacious eMails caught the attention of the media and
the cybersphere went all-a-twitter with gossip and giggles. With information now in the public
domain, it is believed the GOP are actually agents of Bureau 121 under the
direction of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), who apparently
hacked Sony, stole the password of a systems administrator within the Sony
network, and then using the wide-open root access, the GOP rummaged through
Sony Pictures’ digital media for roughly two months (by one estimate) to find
the material they thought would be most damaging. I have a hard time accepting this cyber-attack as solely
within the capacity of the DPRK in any form; I suspect the GOP agents had
direct (or indirect) support from the PRC, which in fact does have the
capability for such attacks. The
attack reportedly cost or will cost Sony Pictures in excess of US$100M in damages;
yet, the implications of this attack go far beyond the financial loss(es) of an
entertainment corporation.
Acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin
offered his opinion of the cyber-attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment.
“The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press – Aaron Sorkin: The
Press Shouldn’t Help the Sony Hackers”
by Aaron Sorkin – Op-Ed Contributor
New York Times
Published: DEC. 14, 2014
Sorkin wrote, “Do the emails contain any information about
Sony breaking the law? No. Misleading the public? No. Acting in direct harm to
customers, the way the tobacco companies or Enron did? No. Is there even one
sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of
any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?” He concluded: “If you close your eyes
you can imagine the hackers sitting in a room, combing through the documents to
find the ones that will draw the most blood. And in a room next door are
American journalists doing the same thing. As demented and criminal as it is,
at least the hackers are doing it for a cause. The press is doing it for a
nickel.” Perhaps Sorkin stopped
short. If no one bought, or read,
or showed any interest in the drivel the Press pawns off as newsworthy, the
Press would not succumb to this form of voyeurism or Peeping Tom syndrome. This is contemporary eavesdropping, no
different from that articulated in 1769 by Sir William Blackstone [4-13-169]. It was wrong then, and it is still
wrong today . . . even if the First Amendment offers legal protection for those
professional eavesdroppers in the Press.
Just because they can, does not mean they should. In this instance, the Press aided and
abetted the Guardians of Peace [AKA DPRK Bureau 121]; yet, are not We, the
People, ultimately culpable for consuming the drivel the Press passes on
regardless of the label – newsworthy or not?
I do not usually
watch NBC’s Today Show; Jeanne does.
On Tuesday, I took a break from the final editing of my next To So Few
series novel and happened to come upstairs for a fresh cuppa tea as Savannah
Guthrie was interviewing acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin [The West Wing, The Newsroom] about the continuing cyber-attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment. I heard enough of the interview to peak
my interest, and as is so often the case with Sorkin’s words, a few of his phrases
struck resonance with me. Sorkin
said, “Something does not have to be illegal to be wrong. [Stealing the Sony material] is plainly
wrong, and we all know it.” He
concluded, “[T]he thing we should be taking seriously first and foremost is
privacy and dignity. The fact that
once again, hackers who have threatened violence because [Sony Entertainment]
just wants to exercise the same First Amendment right everybody else does . . . the
studio just wants to release a movie. [The hackers] have stolen this material and now the Press is
selling it out of the back of a truck.”
Spot on, brother!
If
you did not hear the whole Sorkin interview, I would encourage everyone to take
five minutes and watch the video clip of the entire interview. URL:
I
did not ever see the subject movie as one I would pay to watch – not interesting
to me. The trailers just seemed
too silly, ridiculous and unworthy of my time, set aside our money. There is little doubt in my little
pea-brain who is behind the attack on Sony Entertainment. The Press gave the criminal actions a
loud, global voice, all in the name of profit. Sorkin was precisely and incisively correct. The public release of internal Sony
communications is just plain wrong on a myriad of levels. By doing so, the Press stoked the fires
of public fear and created a highly combustible atmosphere; in short, the Press
helped the GOP (AKA DPRK) win this battle handily. I hope the Press editors and decision-makers are happy with
their performance. I am not!
President Obama signed into law the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 [PL 113-235; H.R. 83; Senate: 56-40-0-0(4); House: 219-206-0-10(0);
128 Stat. xxxx], funding the federal government
through FY2015 – so, no political shutdown this time. For political junkies, I suppose the need to pass a couple
of one-day laws [PL 113-202 & PL 113-203] to extend the deadline, allowing
the Senate a few more days time to pass the funding bill, could be seen as
entertaining and rather humorous.
Well, at least we have a crisis averted. Yet, as perhaps an even more humorous footnote to the end of
the 113th Congress, before he departed with his family for their
Christmas holiday ‘vaca’ and after Congress adjourned for their extended break
before reconvening next month as the 114th Congress, the President
signed into law 20 of 32 bills that simply named post offices and a few other
federal buildings – seems like such a waste of time and money – but hey, that
is the Congress we have these days.
Included in the remainder was: the World War I American Veterans Centennial Commemorative Coin
Act [PL 113-212], to commemorate
the 100th anniversary of the entry of the United States to the
Allied effort in the War to End All Wars – not for veterans, as they are all
deceased– but for sale, a most important endeavor; and a law Conferring
honorary citizenship of the United States on Bernardo de Galvez y Madrid, Viscount
of Galveston and Count of Galvez [PL 113-229]. OK, maybe the last one has redeeming
value as I learned some history. I
did not know Bernardo de Galvez y Madrid (1746-1786) contributed to the defeat
of the British in the Revolution.
It just goes to show you, we learn something every day. We can feel assured for the holiday
season, at least we have a functioning federal government, however tenuous it
might be.
President Barack Obama announced the beginning
of the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and
Cuba, ending 55 years of estrangement in the wake of the success of Fidel
Castro, who led the 26th of July Movement to defeat the forces of President
Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar [1.January.1959]. In his public statement, the President said, “These 50 years
have shown that isolation has not worked.
It's time for a new approach.”
The President was spot on correct.
Continuing to do what we have always done and expecting a different
result is one definition of insanity.
Now, if the President can just find the courage to end the even more
foolish, so-called war on drugs.
There is always hope.
On Wednesday, Sony Pictures Entertainment
cancelled the Christmas Day release of its new movie “The Interview,” after a
number of major theater chains rejected their showing of the movie. The theater owners were apparently
fearful enough of the threats broadcast by the cyber-terrorist group GOP that
they saw their liability exposure as greater than their profit calculation not
just for their showing of the movie but for the complexes they owned. The threats were made against theaters
that showed the movie, not citizens who wanted to see the movie. I do not know what percentage of
screens scheduled to show that movie withdrew their agreement. The Press reported a handful of large
chains in the northeast had withdrawn.
I doubt it was more than a small percentage of the total screens scheduled
to show the movie and a long way from their break-even threshold for their
profit calculation. Despite the
obvious, Sony Pictures Entertainment Chief Executive Officer Michael Mark
Lynton declared publicly, “We did not capitulate.” Well, Mike, I do not know how you define the word
‘capitulate,’ or what you call your decision, but it sure as hell smells like
capitulation to me. I can
certainly understand the perceived liability of theater owners, especially in
the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado, mass attack at another movie showing [554/55; 20.7.2012]; however, I cannot
understand the Sony decision. This
episode is all too similar to other clashes between our constitutional rights
and intolerant repressive regimes.
The decision by Sony or Sony Entertainment to cave into the intimidation
and coercion of the regime in the DPRK suggests Mike Lynton might want to go
back to school and learn a little more about the First Amendment to the Constitution. From the very first pitch of the
movie’s premise, even a casual observer could see the controversy, and that was
the time for a go/no-go decision regarding antagonism of the Dear Leader
Umpa-Lumpa, not at the premier when the final stakes were so much greater.
Postscript:
When Kevin Ready and I were constructing our argument for writing “TWA
800 – Accident or Incident?”, we spent more than a little time
discussing the potential impact of our conclusion and the risk we would be
taking. After all, we were
accusing the tyrannical, theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran of
capital murder and an outright act of war against the United States of
America. The memory of the novel “Satanic
Verses” [1988] by Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie, Kt, was all too fresh in
our minds at the time. At the end
of the day, as the song verse goes, “You’ve got to stand for something, or
you’ll fall for anything.” Full
stop!
News from the economic front:
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve indicated they would remain patient
about raising short-term interest rates in the coming year, as it grapples with
an admixture of conflicting metrics about the U.S. economy. The message is the Fed will effectively
hold its plan to start raising short-term interest rates in 2015.
-- The National Bank of Switzerland announced it will
introduce negative interest rates, to reduce demand for Swiss francs. The Swiss central bank will charge
banks 0.25% to deposit overnight funds with it. The range for three-month Swiss franc Libor, will be widened to -0.75% to 0.25%, from 0.0% to
0.25%.
-- In the interesting twist category, we learn that a
Justice Department lawyer with the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento, California,
discovered a J.P. Morgan memorandum among tens of millions of related documents,
in which an employee warned her bosses they were putting bad loans into
securities being created for sale before the financial collapse of 2008. The
memorandum helped the Justice Department gain nearly US$37B billion in
settlements from J.P. Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup – but no
prosecutions or incarcerations for the decision-makers, as yet.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.678:
“Well done my friend. Excellent reporting of both sides. We have both been water
boarded, as were many of our fellow Marines and sailors. I didn't die or have long-term
damage, but it scared me at the time, as did some of the other techniques that
made you realize you had NO control on what was happening. It made me never
want to be captured or subjected to those techniques again. That wasn't
torture, it was an effective way to take away my "person" and any
control for a period of time - with uncertain duration.
“As I recall we were briefed that some permanent injuries had been
sustained by some trainees. Those incidents were the result of over zealous
trainers who were dismissed from their jobs. That tells me there is a very fine
line between "enhanced techniques" and physical/ psychological
damage. Very hard to judge the real facts in hindsight through reports.”
My reply:
You
got that right. We were trained to
endure true torture, even by my definition. The primary lesson I learned from that training was to avoid
that situation . . . don’t get captured.
Yes,
there is a very fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. As the Senate committee noted, the CIA
interrogators lacked training, especially with harsh techniques. There is no doubt that serious mistakes
were made, but at the bottom line, EITs were and should be necessary as tools
when the circumstances warrant. I
am also convinced EITs must remain in the professional interrogator’s tool kit;
however, a lot of changes need to be implemented for that to happen.
The
Senate report was terribly disappointing – an opportunity lost.
Comment to the Blog:
“I will avoid commenting directly on the Rolling Stone story. You give a good background to the more general
issue. The human factors in these cases are endless, and I see no clear way to
resolve them in many cases.
“The ‘institutional betrayal’ is clear in the report on torture.
The CIA, repeatedly, willfully, and knowingly betrayed the trust placed in it
by Congress. The fact that Dick Chaney and others are upset about the facts
coming out only reinforces the necessity of bringing this to the attention of
the public. Dick Chaney is a war criminal as indicted by an international
court.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
date rape. You got that right;
human factors in these cases are endless.
Re:
CIA. I could not disagree with you
more. The CIA did everything they
could have and should have done in those early days. They sought legal counsel and supervisory authority to
proceed. They repeatedly sought
validations and received them. We
may not like what they did or how they did it, but they did what they believed
had to be done to protect We, the People, of this Grand Republic. I do not agree the CIA betrayed this
country; quite the contrary, actually.
Re:
Dick Cheney. We can disagree with
him in toto, but that does not make him a war criminal.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Have you read any of that report? That's not what anyone else
reads there.
“You're right that my opinion does not make Dick Chaney a war criminal. The opinion of a court does.”
“You're right that my opinion does not make Dick Chaney a war criminal. The opinion of a court does.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Yes,
I have read both the Committee Report and the Minority Views. When you compare the two at common points,
the product is my opinion of the whole effort.
Re:
Cheney. I cannot see that ever
happening.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
If we must talk in terms of moral outrage, I will first note that moral outrage often disguises a profit motive, a need for attention, or some attempt to control others. Sometimes all three.
That said, legitimate moral outrage does have its moments. If someone made a movie and publicized it widely, solely for profit, about killing me personally, I would have one of those moments. My initial reaction would be obvious and large, and I would spend a great deal of time and energy bringing the perpetrators their consequences. I would expect no less of any rational human being. While we may not see Kim Jong Un as rational, he has reacted in moral outrage to a movie specifically about killing him. Of course he has. Like it or not, he does not see himself as some sort of arch-villain. Nobody sees himself that way. Expecting him to act within the context of law or middle-class US morality contradicts his history. Being himself, if he has seen spy movies, his response probably makes perfect sense to him.
I easily disproved your statement that theaters did not refuse to show that movie Interview in large numbers. http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-top-five-movie-theater-chains-in-north-america-wont-screen-the-interview/ (Search terms: movie theater interview) The five largest movie theater chains in North America had withdrawn from showing it before Sony gave up. At least one more in the top ten had joined them. Let us remember that Sony is a Japanese corporation. It would be reasonable for them to withdraw as soon as the movie cost them money. Why would they spend money defending the US concept of freedom of speech? Defending US ideals is a job for the US government.
Mr Sorkin's denunciation of the media for reporting items that are not illegal or (according to the claim) immoral might ring true if he did not work for an industry that goes to great effort to court media attention. “The press” is a collection of corporations. They are in business to make money. If this one time the attention is unwelcome, so what?
Normalization of relations with Cuba will probably be President Obama's best achievement in the long view of history. For over 50 years, we have succeeded in damaging Cubans while failing to bend the Cuban government to our will. President Kennedy's mistake has cost us much material effort and international goodwill, and has cost the Cuban people a great deal more. Obama is finally changing that. While not on the scale of Nixon's outreach to China, he still makes a statement that making peace works better than causing conflict. If he could do something that sane in the Middle East, he would be a great man.
Economic reporting remains confusing as ever.
Calvin,
Re: moral outrage. Interesting perspective.
Re: Supreme Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa. You are a private citizen. Kim is the leader of the DPRK and has the instruments of State under his control. There is a monumental difference. As with all positions of power, they are no longer private citizens, they represent the organizations they lead. Plus, it’s a freakin’ comedic parody, not a special operations plan. If he wants to protest as a human being, then fine; do so . . . but he does not get to use the instruments of State to action his tantrums.
Re: disproved theaters. Wow, that is quite a stretch. Five theater chains hardly represent all theaters nationwide. I believe I did say a handful of theaters chains in the Northeast. Let us not forget, the cinematic showing is the very tail end of the complete creative process; thus, the vast majority of investment costs have been spent. Any income would be better than none.
Re: Sorkin. We are all entitled to our opinions. I think he is the perfect voice for this issue. To your point, that is precisely why I said Sorkin did not go far enough . . . as We, the People, read, listen to, and demand the drivel the Press feeds us.
Re: Cuba. You may well be correct on that one. Normalization with the PRC was one of President Nixon’s major achievements.
Re: Middle East. Indeed!
Re: economic reporting. Quite so! An imprecisely process!
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment