About The Mysterious Hack of Sony Pictures
Sony Pictures is recovering from a massive hack, which pushed the company to turn off its computer system previous Monday. Now everybody, from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation to Sony to the international media, is attempting to find out who is behind the attack.
Following ideas that North Korea was included in the hack as part of revenge for a forthcoming (fictional) movie about two American journalists who try to assassinate Kim Jong-un, Re/code revealed Wednesday night that Sony pictures was set to confirm that accusation.
Reports of the Sony Pictures first hack appeared on Reddit when a past sony employee shared a picture taken by a present Sony worker. That employee said the picture was
…show more content…
It seems as if they utilized those records to gain access to sony Twitter accounts.
It accuses Sony of being "criminals," with Sony's logo Photoshopped onto a gravestone, and a picture of Sony Entertainment Inc. CEO Michael Lynton has been changed to make him appear like Dracula. GOP seem to be declaring that Sony is hurting the entertainment industry and that its company practises are "criminal."
The pictures uploaded by Guardians of Peace suggest a identical motivation to the anti-capitalist ethos of groups like LulzSec and Anonymous. LulzSec popularly hacked into Sony Pictures in 2011, a retaliation attack for Sony's lawful action towards a man who hacked into and changed the PlayStation 3 video game system.
Another similarity between LulzSec and Guardians of Peace is that they both targeted the CEOs of the organizations they hacked. In 2011 LulzSec hacked into the site of the Sun newspaper, posting a fake news that said Rupert Murdoch, CEO of the organization that operates the Sun, had
…show more content…
But it is greatly reported as if our action is relevant to The Interview. This reveals how harmful film The Interview is. The Interview is risk enough to result in a massive hack attack. Sony Pictures created the film hurting the regional security and peace and violating individual rights for money.
The reports with The Interview completely acquaints us with the offenses of Sony Pictures. Similar to this, their action is contrary to our philosophy. We struggle to deal with such greed of Sony Pictures.
Speaking to The Verge, somebody declaring to represent Guardians of Peace shed some light on how the group have access to Sony's computer network: "Sony does not lock their doors, physically, so we worked with other staff members with relevant passions to get in. I am sorry I can't say more, protection for our group is crucial."
There are two concepts emerging about the Sony Pictures hack. The first is that Guardians of Peace gain access to Sony's web servers by a unhappy staff member. The group's open statements seem to cause to this
Friendly witnesses answered questions concerning themselves and others. They were then cleared from the blacklist and allowed to go back to work in Hollywood using their own names.... ... middle of paper ... ...
This report aims to make light of certain elements of documentary making that are perhaps more susceptible to influence on the director’s part, and once again explore the effect of these decisions on the audience’s reaction to the information presented.
The film discloses how the $27 million spent on addressing the issue only led to a higher rape count. On the other hand, the film may have appeared biased. Since, the filmmakers never contacted any of the accused. Many that will never face future consequences. Leaving the audience pondering over the thoughts of the offenders.
This documentary as nominated for the Best Feature Documentary Academy Award. It showed the world the actual crimes and events that were happening in society that otherwise would have been overlooked after the initial shock. The moral, values and importance of these events being spread by mass communication can lead to awareness and hopefully avoidance of familiar events in the
When interviewing subjects for the film, Moore is often mocking or heavily interrogation people, he is very forceful with his approach to reaching the truth. It’s this
Staff, A. (2011). Lulz? Sony hackers deny responsibility for misuse of leaked data. Retrieved 11 17, 2013, from arstechnic.com: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/lulz-sony-hackers-deny-responsibility-for-misuse-of-leaked-data/
There are certain groups of people that cause these events to happen. Because of them, there are people living in denial and people that are being ostracized every day. They do this because they are afraid that if they do not go along with what the majority does, their will be reprisal. Everyone wants to believe that people are basically good at nature. But with the events that occurred in the film, it is easy to see that people are easily influenced and would rather go along with the group than stand out and make a difference.
...tween media analysts and former Fox employees, and excerpts from Fox News programming. It's possible that current anchors, and the film's biggest targets -- Bill O'Reilly, Carl Cameron, Brit Hume, Shawn Hannity -- were invited to participate but declined, or perhaps Fox got wind of the documentary and forbade its employees from participating. (2) Outfoxed rightly accuses the company of blurring objective news with editorial commentary, but in not identifying what's what (what's presented by Fox as news vs. that identified by them as commentary), the film only confuses the argument further.
They delve into modern day media to dissect the language and pictures used in an effort to protect viewers from unconsciously being swayed by the attitudes therein. They go on to discuss how language can be manipulated, however unconsciously, to show the speaker’s true feelings on the subject. Pictures can likewise be manipulated, if only because they show only a small part of the larger image. They start their show of suspicion by saying “The question then arises: what do viewers have to know about language and pictures in order to be properly armed to defend themselves against the seductions of eloquence (to use Bertrand Russell’s apt phrase)?” (par 1). The idea that one needs to defend themselves automatically brings up a defensive, suspicious attitude. This is further reinforced when the reader is warned that “It means that the viewer must never assume that the words spoken on a television news show are exactly what happened” (par 3). A suspicious attitude in an essay brings about a suspicious attitude in the reader. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, after all suspicious minds are the least likely to be overtaken by half-truths and empty
As a viewer, the documentary’s intention to inform is more completely fulfilled by research conducted beyond the scope of the camera lens. Had I never written this paper, for instance, the reason for all the violence embedded within the subject matter would remain as enigmatic as the documentary itself.
Chayes appeals to her readers by using the influence of Amendment authority Anthony Lewis, who is on the side of those who believe ‘Innocence of Muslims’ is deliberately made to incite uproar. Lewis states that “based on my understanding of the events”, the film meets the imminence standard, meaning that it was intended to cause violence. Chayes uses the appeal of Anthony Lewis in order to make her claim more credible and make her readers see her as trustworthy. Chayes has a bitter tone and uses negative connotation words on this section of the article to express her unhappiness with the release time frame of ‘Innocence of Muslims’. She uses words such as “deliberately publicized”, “sensitive, and “spark violence” in order to point out to her readers that ‘Innocence of Muslims’ was intentionally publicized near 9/11 as a way of demanding a response from Muslims, and perhaps Americans,
One of the integral things that must be addressed when making a film is the ethics involved. Ethics are a constant issue that have to be carefully considered when filmmaking. This difficult decision-making is highly prevalent in that of documentaries, because of the difficulties associated in filming ‘real people’ or “social actors, (Nichols, 2001).” More importantly, the issues faced by a filmmaker differ between each of the documentary modes. Each particular documentary mode poses different formal choices that must be made in order to operate in an ethical fashion. Two films that have been made both display examples of how ethics must be considered when embarking on a documentary are Etre at Avoir [To Be and to Have], (2001) and Capturing the Friedmans (2003). These films have been made in different documentary modes, highlighting that there is not one mode which is easier or has fewer ethical issues associated with it. Additionally, what must be considered is how these style choices in these different modes affect the power relationships between the filmmaker, the subject and its audience, (Nichols, 2001).
Although suffering from extremely long periods of shaky and obvious instances of camcording following the daily life of the main character which wasted a good number of important minutes to the film and a handful of underdeveloped characters which rendered them almost unimportant and insignificant to the plot, the film still achieved to pave its way in making everyone realize that the truth isn’t always pleasant and irrepressible, but the manner of accepting the truth is a matter of choice -- you rather stand up, take it down into your throat and move on or allow the truth permanently cripple and screw your entire lifetime of existence gradually and
The threats to security from the United States Department of Defense, the national power grid and the Chamber of Commerce are very real and omnipresent. The Defense Department made an admission of the first major cyber attack upon its systems in August 2010. It was revealed that the attack actually took place in 2008 and was accomplished by placing a malicious code into the flash drive of a U.S. military laptop. “The code spread undetected on both classified and unclassified systems, establishing what amounted to a digital breachhead.” (2) This quote, attributed to then Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, is just part of the shocking revelations that were disclosed in his speech made on July 14, 2011.