PC World is reporting that families of Sony employees are now being threatened, or at least being subjected to implied threats.
Hackers said to threaten Sony employees
The hack against Sony Pictures appeared to enter new territory on Friday when employees reportedly received messages threatening them and their families.
The message, reported by Variety, warned that “not only you but your family will be in danger.”
Sony’s computer system was attacked in late November and gigabytes of data, including unreleased movies, were stolen and leaked online. Embarrassing hacks have hit other companies in recent years, but threatening employees is highly unusual and will put extra pressure on law enforcement to find those responsible.
The message purports to be from the Guardians of Peace, the group that has claimed responsibility for the Sony hack. It’s written in patchy English and opens with further threats against Sony.
“Removing Sony Pictures on earth is a very tiny work for our group which is a worldwide organization. And what we have done so far is only a small part of our further plan,” the message reads in part, according to Variety, which says it obtained a copy.
It then turns to Sony employees.
“Many things beyond imagination will happen at many places of the world. ... Please sign your name to object the false [sic] of the company at the email address below if you dont want to suffer damage. If you dont, not only you but your family will be in danger,” the message reads.
This incident is precisely why I am so worked up about trustworthy computing and leery of having others aggregating personal information on me. Its not that I am trying to hide anything I am doing, but leaving all my personal information laying around is just an invite for someone to come in and make a mess in my life.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dlb on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:28AM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:50AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We are seeing the development of a new and very interesting form of resistance. At this point it is too early to say whether it is going to assume violent or non-violent form. Either way, it may end up being very effective.
Here we have a public enemy who is well protected from the law. Many such enemies exist. The most dangerous ones are non-democratic governments and police. The idea is to hurt them from within by either scaring or hurting individual members, however complicit they are. This may not be the best way to deal with a government, since it may well make the situation worse for the public. But it looks like it will be quite effective against corporations. A maker of consumer products will fail if people are too afraid to be employed by it. People sometimes put their life at risk for things they believe in deeply, as well as for large cash rewards. But very few will endanger themselves and their families for an opportunity to work for an unethical company when alternatives are plentiful.
Threats may be empty, but violence may also be produced. It may come from the same group that was threatening at first, or it may arise spontaneously from the sea of Anonymous. For example, there may be an anonymous or pseudonymous online campaign to hurt employees of MPAA. Once it gets enough traction, completely independent agents who find themselves in the vicinity of a MPAA employee may decide to make good on the threats made by others.
Also, if a pseudonymous group creates enough reputation for producing violent outcomes, it may be able to effect change with threats alone.
Many very nasty companies may be scared enough to become dysfunctional. Fossil fuel producers (planet smokers), the likes of MPAA and RIAA, pharmaceutical cartels and the likes of Monsanto (gene thieves), communication providers who spy on their users, and non-free software producers and distributors.
~Anonymous 0x29B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUg6OsAAoJEJky/icpsdljJY0QALaElKuvwMw3mMh2r+Lvw3MX
YMgmCETQ4CwrPQPbzvRGgxmSjO1maeBnNXzI+jpZN6v1fv5dibe+mF4fzzuGgM+X
diym/6hZcXqf13w/RXMuWT08Qy7dLcKz2oZpAbo1HlJ7jtJp3k4Pjvo2w4M3s/W2
18+qkg5l4t7an5abPDNlMv5WqOpjc9KKdq8PMbkEpvotDhMWs+FW4EK466ZTTZVF
EGuhqGF4rc8fgyJEQcZ1Eg23kHqBh89+k+tQX/Ty7WCMrSdguJxiKjutP9r9B4hM
B4Kbo1YXdGZx0jXcdDSSJTDjJGFluNBB6VSVXb/hurDtmwoXeXN1M0aAw/T14Xy9
XxgaH9+1FRhAKKUOcAAkvHKcy9emnF0tKw2ge2pbakBJugIkSLnAstYvAjj+t1q/
INHTDfjRliVjdLLswBYAC3pVmcVKcMCPPlJzcS8Bk2r8XJMiMzc82ZsEWaWy/cdt
rUdnuW+R+egnrpsroXpujRchxp8BCmyhPS81phOAULi9mCXNXWg9sL08wZWSojxB
JhZbaU0ixbzLlPvTnYvF8gLFSc3bjuelp5FNf09PRqg+kCcvw4apXFUxVZnQvoT/
NjjKtLbFyqUrFMm4FB9GlWXLoXaJF9rmoyKkQC0EqRGndQAeBj4HJZ06yQiBTAX+
iV6BbJQsGAt2G06/3rkV
=I9om
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:00AM
You are aware that a PGP signature is worthless if you cannot get the PGP public key which was used to sign it? And that as soon as you make that available, you're no longer anonymous, but at best pseudonymous, since the key provides an identity (and this is indeed the very purpose of the public key)?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:09AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You should be able to locate my key on a public key server. I understand I am not literally anonymous but rather pseudonymous, and that's the way I prefer it.
~Anonymous 0x29B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=sRUh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:38AM
I understand I am not literally anonymous but rather pseudonymous, and that's the way I prefer it.
Well, the way that I prefer that you communicate in a pseudonymous fashion is by creating an account and posting messages using that account. It has an [almost*] identical effect, plus the twin benefits of:
[By "almost identical effect", there does exist the possibility that some malevolent SoylentNews administrator might access your account and post as you. Also that your password might be cracked remotely. Your digital signature will not be as strong. Otherwise, the resultant outcome of posting as an A.C. with a PGP signature and simply posting using an account is identical - unless you happen to have something earth-shattering to convey.]
PGP is very cool, just not here. So; please; just create an account. It is just as pseudonymous and far less annoying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:56PM
"So; please; just create an account"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 07 2014, @10:33PM
So you think the NSA could trace back to you an account with an arbitrary nickname and a throwaway email address you've opened at a web mailer under an equally invented name, while at the same time not being able to trace back your direct interaction with this site? That doesn't sound very likely to me.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:28AM
Since we can read the message without decrypting it I'm pretty sure the PGP keys are moot.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday December 07 2014, @01:37AM
It's a signed message, not encrypted. Please learn the difference.
(to prevent forgery)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:54AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:15AM
Signed message, to prevent forgery? Now I am confident that this message came from some pseudonymous person, and not from a different one. That makes me fell so much better! In fact, I feel so much better, I will post this as AC! Not just any AC, mind you, but a Soylent News AC, with the chops to prove it!
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:33AM
There is some value to signing messages. You know it came from the same guy, which might not be much worth, but someone less aware who stumbles onto this giant block of seemingly meaningless characters might actually try to figure out what it is and better come one step closer to understanding what should be fundamental knowledge. I'm trying to be optimistic, but I'm looking at it as a social statement, not as anything of particular use in an otherwise mundane statement.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:14AM
He means this [wikipedia.org] Anonymous whose only relation to actual anonymity (and really, their only common trait) is that people who associate themselves with the movement identify themselves as part of the said group.
- AC
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:01AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:56AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
It works here when I just copy and paste the text from the Web browser into a gpg agent. You are right about a possibility of a false negative though, depending on the Web client.
~Anonymous 0x29B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=VoOO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @03:29PM
Really? Nobody's posted the obligatory XKCD yet? Or have we decided XKCD is too Slashdot for Soylent?
http://xkcd.com/1181/ [xkcd.com]
I mean come on, that's EXACTLY what's going on here ;)
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:09AM
I have no sympathy for Sony even though this is going after Sony henchmen... because they are henchmen. Do enough evil in the world and evil will find you.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @03:56AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:10AM
Even by their own admissions Anonymous are not playing the moral high ground game. This is very much a case of the janitor being executed for the crimes of the dictator as a matter of proximity. Did you read that manifesto above? Obviously some people got convinced that voting and talking wasn't going to change the 1%. What's so funny about it, is that this is not too long after some billionaire made a fool of himself by warning the other billionaires that the downtrodden were getting ready to get serious. Well, this is serious. If Anonymous wrote the manifesto, they just fully committed to operating as a terrorist group by using fear of real dangers to a family beyond words-from-the-Internet.
I have no love for Sony (mathematically insignificant values for all things branded Sony including subsidiaries), but I don't want to see families terrorized. Nazi's did that shit, and I remember a documentary where an old soldier talked about a frightened Nazi officer begging his Allied captors to not kill his family. He told them, "Of course not. We're not Nazis".
You attack the little children of the executives (or at least make veiled threats) and you make it almost impossible for any reasonable person to condone your actions or your cause. Stuff like this honestly worries me, in the sense that it's a kind of barometer for stress. This isn't just vigilantism now, but is going farther. Look how many people won't even take Sony's side for a second (not limited to or about this community specifically either)? The US vs THEM mentality has never been stronger in this country and it seems that Anonymous is run by people convinced (as I am as well) that representative democracy is dead, and that violent actions are now acceptable (I do not).
Even though people seem to be willfully blind to the values of privacy and anonymity, they do see the immediate negative of "doxxing" somebody. Cognitive dissonance indeed....
P.S - Of course the whole thing could just be blown out of proportion and entirely sustained by some whacked out attempts at marketing or butthurt North Koreans making waves about a certain movie.......... which I will go to theaters and see, and be completely under the delusions of the Western Puppet Democracies that want to make Dear Leader cry tears that stop the production of the little workers..... T_T
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:48AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
It is an odd thing to say that "Anonymous is run by people". It is not clear yet to what extent Anonymous is organized, or indeed in what sense. Also, it is not clear how many people think that "representative democracy is dead". This new, and frankly *terrorizing* tactic may end up being viewed as a kind of good by a "reasonable person". It is like a wolf among the buffalo. It is bloodthirsty, but if in the end we get a healthier democracy, then enough people may be convinced to condone it. Certainly plenty of people have gone all the way implementing it by now.
~Anonymous 0x29B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=mXXL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday December 07 2014, @04:42PM
>people convinced (as I am as well) that representative democracy is dead, and that violent actions are now acceptable (I do not).
So out of curiosity, if you are convinced that representative democracy is dead, what would you consider the correct response to reinstate it? Throughout history I'm aware of vanishingly few instances where democracy was established without violence (or at least the threat thereof). Or are you suggesting that we simply meekly accept our return to serfhood?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:00PM
Correct move? I'm not really sure there is one, as stating something to be correct means I know the perfect society that will work for everyone with data to prove it. Honestly, I think we are just winging it sometimes and just making shit up along as we go.
If you're curious, why not...
To reinstate representative democracy the apparent solution is to just physically remove those in power that do not serve us. If it was possible, in a highly organized and peaceful fashion, we should just take every single 1% and march them to the borders for deportation (you can go anywhere, you just cant stay here). Those who elect to stay (put up to much of a fight) can be moved on to some sort of reservation to prevent their toxic behaviors from hurting us. That's going to get real exciting real fast in a French kind of way with 1%'ers complaining about unfair judgments. How do we know the people truly responsible for putting stuff in motion, and the people who are highly skilled and just happen to be well paid? Being rich is not a crime, or an ethical breach in of itself. The crime is in how the rich person regards and treats society, and operates with their associated financial influence. We need to get rid of the sociopaths very selectively, while also maintaining the citizenship and more than the livelihood of worthy talent. It's a crazy situation to even attempt to remove these people from society, since we can't select them in a truly fair and impartial manner and it's ludicrous to decide what to take away from them for redistribution. What's even crazier is that it could all just stop by cutting off their air supply instead of forced redistribution of wealth.
Removing the influence of the 1% is absolutely critical to our success. They cannot be allowed to remain in force, or with any influence left whatsoever. It's simply too dangerous for an advanced society to allow. The battle is squarely with them, as they completely and utterly own politics, and by extension, the entire government. Proponents will point out that it's not that bad, and I am merely spewing hyberbole, but the idea that politics are so strongly in tune with monied interests is not novel or original. Either through fear being introduced to the senators that they will lose power, or fear being introduced into the 1% that they will lose money, is how change is accomplished. Fear is the currency and language of the 1%, speak anything else and they don't listen to you.
It comes down to a choice of a passive solution where we all act maturely, cooperate, and intelligently change things in a more forceful manner (bloodless coup) with mass (millions per protest per site in multiples) unrest greatly affecting routine economic activities until every single Senator, councilman, and official even remotely suspected of malfeasance is unseated and barred from ever acting as a politician again. Even to the point I would threaten them with deportation if I caught them talking to either each other again, or any other representative of a corporation. Literally just take these people and put them in the same situations as young hackers prevented from touching a computer for 20 years.
Protests alone are completely, and hilariously, meaningless. It assumes the sociopaths are not sociopaths, as sociopaths will just get warm and fuzzy in the face of suffering. As if a suffering pathetic Jewish person could make Hitler's heart grow three sizes in one day. Protests only work when there is associated economic costs, which means it really comes down to how much we can hurt ourselves temporarily to get notice. The rape victim in prison threatening suicide if Bubba doesn't stop, if you will. Why do we even have to protest? Ostensibly, all of our highest politicians are well educated lawyers and "Constitutional scholars". On national levels in media we discuss ethics to death, yet ethics are not anywhere to be found in government. A protest is entirely unnecessary if the politicians are decent people. So will be protesting to people that really aren't all that affected on a mental or emotional level to our plight in the first place. Instead of protesting, just stop consuming and accomplish the economic incentives without ruining your day with a lot of screaming and tear gas. Really, all they wanted to hear was the opinion of the wallets and purses.
Representative democracy didn't die because they took it from us, it died because we let them do it. There is simply not enough brain cells in the voting pool that operate with enough intelligence to work the system, and when there is no accountability in our government officials, this results in a system in which the politicians have hijacked the entire process from start to finish. So why would anyone with above average intelligence participate in a vote in a flawed system? I'm avidly opposed to voting only because there is never a choice worth making (they're all corrupt pieces of crap) and once voted in all I accomplished was giving some asshole (or bitch) a defacto tenured position. We recognize the problems in education with tenure, I don't understand why we don't recognize it in politics. Perhaps I would vote, if a vote was a negative. I would be downvoting every politician all day long as the downvote would be a meaningful accomplishment. I would long for the day when I met a politician that I might upvote instead. We have a lot of downvoting to do though first.
As a process representative democracy is DOA when the people can only vote politicians into office, and then drop the ball completely on accountability for what they do while there. Making it worse, is that organizations tend to embrace and support those who strongly promulgate their views. Do we really expect a champion for the downtrodden minority workers to make it the boardroom of the Death Star with Vader? That champion is far less likely to make it, and it's more likely that the anti-Union business representative is there willing to talk about dirty deeds to get Death Star II under way. The hijacking of the process is a very real thing where the people have been greatly handicapped in how they can get a non-sociopathic person into office in the first place, much less actually fight the incumbents and their current activities. The toxicity in government is so deep that it literally requires a complete and deep blood transfusion if we want any hope of a new start. A single Senator is worthless. Replace all 100 at the same time, and now we might be cooking with gas. It's NOT a coincidence that we can't remove all of our senators at the same time. THEY say it's to keep stability in government, which is just another way of saying that a sweep-clean-vote might destabilize political parties, and that would be bad for partisan politics.
To answer your question, I guess just a meek return to serfhood, although the meek part will be for you guys. I've already ditched my cellphone, and basically started my "great unparticipation" in the whole experiment. So by meek, I mean that I provide them absolutely jack as a resource unit. I'm determined to find a crack in society and just fall into it to disappear. They will need to come and drag to me a reeducation camp, and even then, they can just drop me in the oven. I'm a pacifist, but boy howdy, am I stubborn donkey too. Perhaps the best way to say it, is that I'm the Buddhist Monk capable of self-immolation and truly not caring at all while I do it. The caring is for the rest of you guys and the children, not for myself. I'm not going to kill or be violent over it, which is the only solution that will achieve any meaningful results. Only way that would happen is if I believed in the rest of you. So representative democracy is dead in me because I've lost all faith in my fellow Americans that they even truly want it anymore. If I believed that, I would be out there protesting at least. For that matter, why protest at all when it's just for some thug teenager who doesn't deserve it? Give me MLK back, or a MLK shot, and you might just see me out there. Not punk kids destined for prison.
I want to believe in America and that we can pull out of this, I just don't. I lost my faith in my country by losing all faith in the people, and I'm just trying to survive inside it not willing to kill or hurt anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07 2014, @10:21PM
I just wanted to say this seems to me to be a new take on the Internet Tough Guy keyboard warrior shtick. I have no doubt you are a legend in your own mind. Keep fighting the good fight! Rah, rah! Whatever.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday December 08 2014, @02:54AM
LOL. Whatever.
There is no ego here. I am a pacifist, but I will not bend. I will never pick up the chains again with the illusion that I could make my life better, or improve anyone else's life either, with the chains on me. That's the crack I will fall into, and one that is not unique by any stretch. I'm talking about the true dropouts of society that live in the fringe in a more less subsistence based way. To say it's an egotistical aggression to put myself outside of society is quite humorous to me.
Also important to note, I was *asked* the question. I need not be a "legend in my own mind". It's more a quiet dignified resolve to no longer play the games that the establishment plays. Yes, this does mean suffering. So if that means I'm tough, then fine. Not the point though.
Finally, I don't give a flying fuck. I was really asked if I felt that hopeless and just willing to give up. I gave my answer. I have no hope for anyone else or society at large, but that does mean I will that I will accept the life of the slave. Tough guy? Maybe so, but nobody is ever calling me Toby again and expecting me to belief their delusions. I would rather die, and that's a very true and honest answer you're getting.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 07 2014, @07:18AM
You know, that is exactly what the guards at the Nazi death camps said! Just doing our jobs, got to put food on our families.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @12:46PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday December 07 2014, @08:19PM
Nothing to do with it, other than working for an ethically challenged organization. I agree that such personal attacks are wrong, going after stockholders would make much more sense, but on the other hand, as a wiser person than I said: "You don't want to be a janitor on the Death Star."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:42PM
Nothing to do with it, other than working for an ethically challenged organization.
Bullshit. Look, I get the whole "Sony's evil" thing. Frankly I've been beating that drum even before the internet became ubiquitous. The problem is the actual documents and threats are all about the VFX workers, they're the ones most directly impacted. Want to point and laugh at Sony about it? Go right ahead. But right now, mainly through ignorance, you've got your barrels aimed at people who are completely uninvolved... and for some reason called them Nazis. It would not have been heroic of the Rebels to assassinate all of the individual janitors on the Death Star just so that Darth Vader would have to sit on a dirty toilet.
Metaphors enabling apathy. Cute.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:58PM
The 'henchmen', as you are calling them, are VFX artists working a gig to keep a roof over their heads. No matter how you wordsmith it, they're in no way involved in the root kit or PS3 Linux scandals.
it doesnt matter what your job is or if what you did was benign because ultimately you are supporting/enabling people who do evil. for the same reason, it's illegal to give money to terrorist organizations.
btw, VFX are always outsourced unless you are someone like pixar.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:29PM
it doesnt matter what your job is or if what you did was benign because ultimately you are supporting/enabling people who do evil.
By that definition you equally immoral because you have seen several movies worked on by this entity. Lucky for you I don't subscribe to it and think you're a 'nazi guard'.
btw, VFX are always outsourced unless you are someone like pixar.
Nearly all of the 12,000+ people whose personal information was leaked to the internet and have been threatened are Los Angeles-based VFX artist and related jobs. You have an opinion on something you demonstrably don't know a whole lot about.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Sunday December 07 2014, @05:12PM
Agreed. A lot of people say, "Well, I know my employer is evil but there's nothing I can do about it because ${REASON}" which only serves to enable greater evil in the world. Stand by idly while it goes on and you only allow it to flourish.
Same thing goes for people using Windows. "Well, I know that Microsoft is evil, but it's the only thing that works and I don't want to fight"
You're only allowing Microsoft to get away with all the evil that they have and continue to propagate because of your own laziness. I can't bring myself to feel the least bit sad or sympathetic when it comes back to bite you.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 07 2014, @09:49PM
Stand by idly while it goes on and you only allow it to flourish.
Nobody affected by this hack was involved in the rootkit.
Same thing goes for people using Windows. "Well, I know that Microsoft is evil, but it's the only thing that works and I don't want to fight"
Justification of ignorance.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by typhoon on Monday December 08 2014, @12:08AM
So performing an evil act in response to an evil act is OK? I strongly disagree and think the situation requires deeper and more thoughtful analysis, particularly from the wider community who shouldn't be encouraging this type of reaction as it may well be them someday being targeted. Selfish survival instinct should put yourself in their shoes.
- Sony exists to make money, and almost everyone is part of the same economic system, so are you too enabling Sony through your participation. If it was ok to target these people, then target yourself first. See how silly that is?
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday December 08 2014, @02:18AM
So performing an evil act in response to an evil act is OK?
nobody said that. what i said was that i have no sympathy for them.
Sony exists to make money, and almost everyone is part of the same economic system, so are you too enabling Sony through your participation.
which is why i dont buy things from Sony or other criminal corporations.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @03:26PM
Let's be a bit realistic though...I suspect far fewer people would be voicing support for this if we actually expected they might carry out these threats. But they can't even speak English, so how likely is it that they're ready to carry out a massive terrorist attack on US soil?
Seems all but certain that it's North Korea who's behind this. Are they really going to send a bunch of agents over here and commit acts of war over a freakin' movie? Highly doubtful.
So in reality what's the worst that will happen? Sony might start having some recruitment trouble or have to spend some minuscule portion of their obscene profits to beef up their security theater. People are just happy that it makes Sony look bad and brings some more attention to their past evils. And gives us an excuse to remind people of those again. And if that's the end result, the world will be a marginally better place for it.
Of course, the REAL danger here is not to Sony or its employees -- the real danger is the potential reaction of an overzealous security state. Take some joy in it while you can; might not last very long...