SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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, 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.