<p>Sony and the theater owners caved pretty quickly. </p>
<p>Maybe they could have united and taken a more courageous stand: announce that they were pooling funds to provide physical security (armed guards, bomb sweeps, bag searches) at every theater complex showing the picture. Sure it cuts into profits, but they would have been able to say we’re taking a stand on principle. Maybe there wasn’t enough time to prepare for that before a Christmas release date. </p>
<p>The other question would be if they had done that would moviegoers have been reassured and taken their families to the the theater complex if The Interview was also playing there?</p>
<p>The bigger issue for theater owners and film companies besides Sony wasn’t just liability if something did happen, it was the potential loss of millions or billions if people stayed away from all movies over the holiday break. </p>
<p>Obama should hold a screening of The Interview at the White House. Invite the stars. Invite other high profile people. Get maximum publicity. Easier than some sort of cyber-warfare retaliation on North Korea. It would be a big in-your-face to Kim showing that Americans will not be bullied by cyber crimes.</p>
<p>I’d be in favor of that…as long as the Chinese ambassador attends. It’s nearly impossible to effectively retaliate against NK without having China on board. </p>
<p>“Obama should hold a screening of The Interview at the White House. Invite the stars. Invite other high profile people. Get maximum publicity. Easier than some sort of cyber-warfare retaliation on North Korea. It would be a big in-your-face to Kim showing that Americans will not be bullied by cyber crimes.”</p>
<p>Tatin, that is an excellent idea. You should email the White House your suggestion. I am being serious. </p>
<p>With this kind of gloating, though, maybe Sony should spit in their eye and do what you suggest: release the movie to anyone who wants to see it.</p>
<p>Tatin, why don’t you email Jerry Brown - you are in CA, correct? I am sure he would jump at the chance to do a screening - especially since the entertaiment business is a significant part of the CA economy. </p>
<p>Well, if our leaders are going to have to rely on an email suggestion box to combat cyber-terrorism then Tatin is probably right. We are in big trouble. Here’s a statement from the MPAA - </p>
<p>I just read that now they say it’s OK to release the movie if the scene where dear leader is assassinated is removed. It’s comical at this point.</p>
<p>There isn’t any response that I think our government should take because of this, except with regard to the threat of attacks at movie theaters. The leaked emails and movies are, IMO, Sony’s problem, and would be Sony’s problem if they made the movie in Japan or New Zealand or anywhere else. </p>
<p>We should respond as a nation…Congress and the POTUS agreeing on steps to take to bolster cyber security and provide the funding if necessary for it. </p>
<p>It’s fun to speculate on sticking it to KJU with an official WH screening but IRL I think potential consequences have to be considered. If even one terrorist bomb goes off in a D.C. subway and the “Guardians of Peace” say it was retaliation for the screening…you can imagine the howls about the administration’s cluelessness, immaturity, incompetence etc. Or if, God forbid, the nutso leader over there decides to lob a missile at SK and American military bases in response for what they would see as an official insult.</p>
<p>The only way I can see the WH taking such a step is if the Chinese ambassador attends, sending the signal publicly and through private channels that China will not allow NK to escalate retaliation militarily or otherwise. </p>
<p>And while it was clearly state-sponsored cyber warfare, it has been reported that NK actually lacks the capacity to infiltrate Sony’s computers on its own. The attack was routed through servers in Singapore, Thailand, and Bolivia. Can those servers be punished? I don’t know.</p>
<p>It’s also chilling to think that there were Sony insiders that may have assisted the attack.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think taxpayer money should go to individual corporations to bolster their security per se…and I have’nt read up on what needs to be done. First and foremost, I’m thinking of whatever funding is necessary to prevent cyber attacks on public infrastructure and institutions and perhaps a publicly funded effort to train the number of cyber security personnel that private companies might need to hire to boost their security. </p>