Hacked Sony E-mails

The other thing is that in neither The Good German and Leatherheads did he do absolutely everything! Sodebergh directed and others wrote etc.

MM was all his and Grant's.....

The self-doubt and human frailty in him is telling in this email - and possibly a little throwback from a Catholic upbringing thrown in. All totally understandable - and not at all egocentric.

Endearing

George is a pleaser. He wants everyone to be happy. He wanted this film to do well not just for him but for everyone involved from the investors to the actors. I'm sure he just felt terrible letting people down who supported him in the effort to get MM made. But like was said earlier the movie did make a profit and enough critics gave it respectable reviews. Not so bad. And a private showing at the White House. But I'm sure he wanted this movie to be so much more. Hopefully in hindsight he feels less disappointed about his work. I'm sure his friends and fellow actors in this film have been there to support him and have the utmost respect for all the blood, sweat and tears he put into this project.

Personally, I just don't think MM was that compelling of a story to begin with. It brought insight into a little known chapter of WWII history never really told before. But so little real action and the characters brought to life just didn't have the passion that would have made the story intriguing. But I still liked it. Just not a favorite of mine.

When George wrote that Email(Jan. 29th) he was literally at Tomorrowland set in Vancouver or Valencia maybe? 
Because he just did the Reddit interview one day before.

Monuments Men would have been tough for anybody. I think focusing on one of the men and telling the hardship and sacrifice story against the larger backdrop of the mission and war would have been a better take. But once you decide to do an epic-type tale, you're all in, and you know the risk is higher. George took the risk, and though he didn't lose, he didn't win as big as he thought he should have. It's a blow to the heart to see something you ushered to fruition not get the reception you think it deserved, or to realize you probably made some wrong choices in getting it there.

George is a big boy. He hired writers for Hack Attack and Our Brand... and chose not to direct Our Brand, so I think he's kind of taking a breather and recharging creatively. And I think that's wise. He'll be back, better than ever.

BTW, I read the Good Night, and Good Luck screenplay at least twice a year. It's one of my favorites. It struck just the right tone, the pacing is perfect for the story, and the characters are revealed through their actions -- no hitting over the head with preachy narrative. I think George and Grant caught lightning in a bottle with that one. And maybe George has been trying to hit that note ever since.

Good Night and Good Luck is one of my favorite movie, it's and amazing film with a great, great screenplay. 
I think George and Grant do their best with political movie, such as Good Night and The Ides of March. They are amazing writers, when they choose the right story.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Monuments Men would have been tough for anybody. I think focusing on one of the men and telling the hardship and sacrifice story against the larger backdrop of the mission and war would have been a better take. But once you decide to do an epic-type tale, you're all in, and you know the risk is higher. George took the risk, and though he didn't lose, he didn't win as big as he thought he should have. It's a blow to the heart to see something you ushered to fruition not get the reception you think it deserved, or to realize you probably made some wrong choices in getting it there.

George is a big boy. He hired writers for Hack Attack and Our Brand... and chose not to direct Our Brand, so I think he's kind of taking a breather and recharging creatively. And I think that's wise. He'll be back, better than ever.

BTW, I read the Good Night, and Good Luck screenplay at least twice a year. It's one of my favorites. It struck just the right tone, the pacing is perfect for the story, and the characters are revealed through their actions -- no hitting over the head with preachy narrative. I think George and Grant caught lightning in a bottle with that one. And maybe George has been trying to hit that note ever since

I agree GNGL was his best work so far.  Not sure what went wrong with MM, but I don't blame the story as it is one I have been interested in for decades (since being a grad student in art history in the 1980s).  It needed to be approached in an entirely different way (don't know what that was though!)--probably with the realization that it would be sort of a niche film like GNGL or Mr. Turner or and not something that would please a large swathe of the audience. 

I think the poster who said George is a people pleaser is correct. Unfortunately, that might not be the best goal when trying to create what is basically a work of art.

I have the same feeling about GNGL that has been posted here. One of my fav movies. Just watched again about a month ago. Really a great piece of storytelling. When my daughter was in high school she was editor of the school paper. In jounalism class they watched this movie. A good piece of history that was told in a very factual way but yet very entertaining.

I will say I have always respected George as basically a really good human being. That is one of the main reasons I defend him so much and really care about him. But after realizing what he went through with MM that respect has quadrupled. His handling of a bad situation in such a mature and honest way and taking responsibility for what he saw as his failure just endeared me to him more.

Paris Match agrees with you...........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What was it you were saying, Way2?

I dunno... but it wasn't in French. :-)

On another point, does anyone else feel guilty about reading these e-mails and following the story?

They are, after all, private conversations that were stolen and exposed.. I don't watch bootleg movies or any pirated material, so by extrapolation I should intentionally avoid this, too. Yet here I am.

I know things about people that I shouldn't know, and it's because a crime was committed. So why am I still reading these e-mails?

It's a bit like watching a couple fight in public. You know you shouldn't listen and make judgments about their private business, but they're out there for all to see, so you do.

That's a rationalization, though. I'm a hypocrite.

Body of article - Googled

Not a day goes by without new revelations about the secrets of the studio Sony, updated by mysterious Peacekeepers related to North Korea. Not only entire movies were hacked but embarrassing emails now appear on the web and can cause a tsunami in Hollywood.

 
  
  
 
Hollywood, this ruthless world. Since piracy of Sony Studio database by Peacekeepers, hackers who claim North Korea, scheduled virus attack in response to the release of "The interview that kills!" Evan Goldberg comedy mocks Kim Jong-un, the current master of Pyongyang, the movie tremble - many documents being brought to light. This Sunday, the main victims of this little killing game is George Clooney, collateral victim of the great unpacking, and producers of James Bond, whose real budget is much higher than announced ...

When George Clooney apologizes for the mediocrity of his film

Released in February, "The Monuments Men 'latest film George Clooney, was hardly packed criticism. "Film without real scenario or guidelines, which constantly oscillates between comedy and drama but failed to find the right tone," The Monuments Men "is a real disappointment, proof by contradiction in the movies, hell is paved with good intentions "are we wrote then. A divided opinion ... George Clooney himself. In correspondence with the producer Sony Amy Pascal, one learns that the handsome George could no longer sleep after rain bad reviews ... and above was conscious of having missed his film. "I love you Amy. You are literally the only person at the studio who loves cinema. I am devastated to have left you with this film. It was not my intention. I apologize. I just lost the feeling ... Who knew? Sorry. This will not happen again. "A confession that contrasts with the crises of ego Hollywood stars but may also affect his filmmaking career ... especially that it evokes in very crude terms other studios.

After "The Monuments Men" George Clooney was addressing "Hack Attack," an adaptation of journalist Nick Davies Book on wiretapping conducted in England by the tabloids of Rupert Murdoch. Cheerful, he compares his new project "Citizen Kane" by Orson Welles and Rupert Murdoch wants to speed itself from lawsuits. "I am the son of an investigative journalist. Everything will be dual sourced ... so we expect their lawyers motherfuckers.

James Bond is $ 300 million

The great project of Sony for 2015 is "SPECTRUM", the 24th episode of the James Bond saga. And of course many things have leaked on the net. We'll spare you the details of the story - the role of Léa Seydoux is much more important than that of Monica Bellucci ... - but we smile when reading the actual budget announced by studio executives 300 million. Involved? A third act that satisfies no one, constantly being rewritten, including weak dramatic issues is offset by expensive chases, especially with trains. Barbara Broccoli, the original producer, guardian of the James Bond of time which is very wasteful when it comes to her baby secret agent, is particularly interested in this detail. In short, the MGM and its president Jonathan Glickman seems desperate to cut costs: signing a deal with Heineken, filming in Mexico one day to get money from the Mexican authorities, limit the number of cars and even shoot a scene Action in daylight rather than in the rain ...

Thanks Mel. It automatically translated into English from French for me. Didn't know it wouldn't do the same if I posted it. Techie-useless!

Interesting point Way2 about reading the emails.

But even more so, one has to wonder how much other studio heads are quaking in their boots (or deleting data from their servers) in the wake of the Sony hack.  

Who's to say more studios wouldn't be targeted?

Anyone want to take odds that someone's already working on a screenplay about this? I can't imagine we won't be seeing "Sony Exposed" on the screen in the near future.

What Would He Say wrote:Nice words way2....he was in the eye of a self imposed storm...just couldn't see the wood for the trees....we have all been there. The more passion you put in, the more personal persecution you get to flog yourself with.

I saw it in his face at MM premier, I said over and over....nobody heard me.
He was troubled....I saw it, and could do nothing.....

That's gone now.  Time to....

In the words of a movie...."pick yourself up, dust yourself off and start all over again" Just Like the rest of us do.  

If he wants to direct/do it all again, the only person to stop him ....will be him.

Posters at same event said he looked ok, in great mood. So only you saw he was troubled.
Did you post that, and why no one else realised COH posters did not say same?

I too think that the "real George" comes through
in his words in the email.
I'm personally impressed with his attitude.

Just a minor detail....the new Bond film
is called SPECTRE.

LizzyNY wrote:Anyone want to take odds that someone's already working on a screenplay about this? I can't imagine we won't be seeing "Sony Exposed" on the screen in the near future.

Already a lot of snide remarks circulating that this would make a better comedy than Sony has made in years.

On another note, how sad is it that a filmmaker has to apologize for bringing in a movie on time, under budget, and in the black? Not everything anyone makes will be an art masterpiece or a blockbuster, but if it performs well and makes money, there's a lot to be said for counting it as a win.

Summary from Variety; points we've already discussed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Sony Under Siege: Cyber Crisis Leaves Hollywood Reeling

• [email=?subject=Sony Under Siege: Cyber Crisis Leaves Hollywood Reeling&body=Check%20out%20this%20article%20from%20Variety%3A%20http%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2014%2Ffilm%2Fnews%2Fcyber-crisis-at-sony-leaves-hollywood-reeling-1201374505%2F]Email[/email][url=javascript:window.print()]Print[/url]
  
• 5Talk
  
  
  
  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Nathan St. John for Variety
December 9, 2014 | 10:00AM PT

Brent Lang

Senior Film and Media Reporter@BrentALang


Hollywood is reeling from the entertainment industry equivalent of WikiLeaks — leaving the entire town on high alert.
SEE MORE: From the December 09, 2014 issue of Variety
For the past two weeks, Sony Pictures Entertainment has been battered by a treacherous cyber-attack that has exposed the studio’s and its workforce’s most closely guarded secrets.
Top executive and star salaries, production costs, current and former employee Social Security numbers and home addresses, as well as other confidential documents have been laid bare, fueling a public relations nightmare that continues to metastasize as daily revelations leak.

See More:‘The Interview’s’ Christmas Release Date May be a Casualty of Cyberwar

The situation escalated significantly Dec. 5 from an embarrassing misfortune to a dangerous act of personal terrorism after employees at the Japanese-owned studio were sent an email by a group calling itself the Guardians of Peace that threatened staff and their families. Three days later, another missive came from the GOP that denied having sent the first email and demanded that Sony “Stop immediately showing the movie of terrorism which can break the regional peace and cause the War!”
The movie is almost certainly Sony’s upcoming comedy “The Interview,” about two tabloid TV journalists recruited to assassinate North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. The nation’s officials have sharply criticized the movie, and the Dec. 8 email from the GOP said that it had demanded Sony spike the film from the start, an ultimatum studio insiders deny having received.
Insiders say the studio might alter the film’s release plan if the company determines that the threats are credible or people are in danger.

See More:‘Why Us’ Feeling, Resilient Spirit Pervades Sony Amid Hack Attack

The sophistication and depth of the assault has sent waves of panic across every sector of an industry that prides itself on Kremlin-like control of its internal information. These digital attackers have transformed an iron curtain into one made of gossamer, leaving all of Hollywood’s top brass as well as rank-and-file feeling angry, fearful and vulnerable.
“It’s an aggressive attack — as aggressive as any I’ve ever seen, short of a bombing,” says veteran producer Doug Wick. “If show business is high school with money, then this is the ultimate Facebook thing of someone trying to malign and destroy.”
The culprit behind this wave of hack attacks has yet to be unmasked, and though North Korea has denied involvement, there is speculation the attack could be linked to supporters of that government — or even that it could yet be an inside job by a disgruntled Sony employee, though that prospect seems to be getting more distant by the day.
Tom Kellerman, chief cybersecurity officer for Trend Micro, says he’ll wait for the results of an FBI investigation, but argues that many elements of the attack suggest North Korea is involved in some capacity. “This adversary had been hunting them for a while,” he says.
On Dec. 7, Bloomberg reported that the attacks were launched in Thailand from the St. Regis Bangkok hotel and from a Thai university and are connected to a hacking group called DarkSeoul with suspected links to North Korea.
No matter the source, the GOP has released information on the compensation packages of Sony’s senior management team, including Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton and Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chairman Amy Pascal.
They’ve revealed the line-by-line cost of “The Interview” along with the salaries of its stars, Seth Rogen and James Franco. And they’ve disseminated pirated copies online of five studio films: “Annie,” “Still Alice,” “To Write Love on Her Arms” and “Mr. Turner,” which have yet to be released, and “Fury,” which is in the market.
Preventing any future security breach is of paramount importance to Sony and its rivals. The amount of personal data being shared and stored by entertainment companies continues to increase, putting not only employees at risk, but also the actors, directors and production teams with whom they do business.
“There are no quick fixes,” notes Ron Gula, CEO of cybersecurity firm Tenable Network Security. “There’s no self-destruct button for the data that’s leaked out.”
“The price of technology and the development of technological magic is that we don’t often think of all the downsides,” says Sidney Sheinberg, former president of MCA/Universal. “I don’t get the feeling that there’s any protective methodology being developed just around the corner.”
The attack will end up costing Sony tens of millions to shore up security, pay for identity protection and legally pursue the culprits. In the wake of the attack, Sony hired security consulting firm Mandiant, and began working closely with the FBI. The studio did have insurance, which will help pay for some of the cleanup, according to an individual close to Sony, but the forensic investigation into who is behind the attack could take six months or longer to complete, experts say.
“You basically have to perform a crime scene investigation on every single device at the studio,” explains Joe Loomis, CEO of online security firm CyberSponse.
Loomis adds that not only will Sony have to rebuild and strengthen its security system — something that could take months — it also will need to educate its employees to be more attuned to phishing and other threats. “One employee making one mistake can take down an entire company,” he cautions.
Joseph Menn, an investigative reporter for the Financial Times and author of the book “Fatal System Error: The Hunt for the New Crime Lords Who Are Bringing Down the Internet,” tells Variety that Sony should have gone to greater lengths to encrypt its most sensitive information.

See More:Hackers Demanded Monetary Compensation from Sony Before Cyber Attack

That said, Sony’s not alone. Every other studio has begun to assess its own digital networks and to tap outside consultants, sources tell Variety.
Phoenix Pictures chief Mike Medavoy, who formerly ran Sony’s TriStar Pictures, says the hacking at Sony is a wake-up call in that it underlines how vulnerable studios, government installations such as the Pentagon and other companies are to losing control of their internal information.
“Welcome to the brave new world,” he says. “It’s pretty evident that all information is open to everybody.”
Another negative impact on Sony from the hack attack is the loss of competitive advantage incurred by having its otherwise confidential budgets, salaries and other information known by rival studios and TV networks, talent representatives, lawyers and executives. One former Sony executive told Variety that he was mortified when a news outlet divulged how much money he was making.
The leaks come as Sony had just been starting to recover from a bruising fight with activist shareholder Daniel Loeb, who flambeed the studio for its film flops. As a result, Sony underwent months of layoffs, and had just begun to get its confidence back, aligning itself with top talent such as former Warner Bros. film chief Jeff Robinov and former 20th Century Fox film topper Tom Rothman, when the attacks hit. The exposure of salaries and thousands of dollars in perks to stars like Rogen and Franco arrived as Sony had pledged to tighten its belt and keep stricter control of costs.
The information also has inspired articles and think pieces about the disparity in pay among men and women, and the lack of racial diversity in the executive suite, at Sony and across the industry.
“It’s an embarrassment for a studio under pressure, and it’s going to put a lot of executives on the defensive,” says industry biz consultant Seth Willenson.
There is a sense that no matter the hacker, the control that studios, movie stars and their scores of handlers once exerted may no longer be possible in an age of malware and phishing assaults.
“The Internet is fantastic in many ways, but this is the dark side of it,” suggests former Hollywood executive Joe Pichirallo, now chair of NYU’s undergraduate film and television program. “That level of privacy invasion is abhorrent.”
Dave McNary contributed to this report.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:

LizzyNY wrote:Anyone want to take odds that someone's already working on a screenplay about this? I can't imagine we won't be seeing "Sony Exposed" on the screen in the near future.

Already a lot of snide remarks circulating that this would make a better comedy than Sony has made in years.

On another note, how sad is it that a filmmaker has to apologize for bringing in a movie on time, under budget, and in the black? Not everything anyone makes will be an art masterpiece or a blockbuster, but if it performs well and makes money, there's a lot to be said for counting it as a win.

Way2Old - Amen! I watch a lot of "classic films from the 1930s and '40s. Many off them weren't hits when they were released, but now they're iconic. I wonder how many of them could get made today, with the push to have everything palatable for a worldwide audience.

AS far as the hacking problem goes, smail-mail and landlines anyone?

George is a pleaser.

Um. Okay. I won't.

A friend tells me that Sony is basically on electronic lockdown. No unfamiliar numbers can get through the phone system. No one logs into the old e-mail, and only a few have access to the new one. No personal devices are permitted in the office until further notice. No intellectual property attached to office communications.

That's secondhand, of course, but it makes sense. Must be hard to conduct business, though... not that anybody is talking to them these days.

Another take on it. Sorry, I'm on a tablet in a waiting area with crappy reception, and can't get the article to copy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



No Gray Area: It’s Definitely Not OK to Publish Emails From the Sony Hack


A look at the media's strategy of relying on criminals to do their reporting for them.




[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]At first, I thought the media response to the celebrity hacking scandal was sanctimonious. Now I realize it was rank hypocrisy. Just shameless, awful hypocrisy from a group hardly better than the criminals they enable.
Because after every outlet, from Perez Hilton to Jezebel, called the hack, leak and publishing of nude photos of celebrities, including Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence, a crime, none of them seem to have any problem publishing the spoils of the Sony hack, particularly the many private conversations of its co-chairman Amy Pascal.
As Marc Andreessen put it on Twitter last week: “Hackers steal a company’s email files. No bad acts by company revealed. Press prints emails. Journalism, or federal crime?”
That’s exactly right. It’s the question we should be asking here.
How on earth do all these outlets—including The New York Times no less—justify printing or covering the contents of private emails obtained through clearly criminal acts? And not only that, but many in the media consider it real journalism and, in one case, criticize Sony for “choosing to stay silent” for months before telling anyone they’d been a victim?
“There’s really no other way to explain the horrifying lack of empathy so many of them show, time and time again, when women of all levels of fame are treated like they exist to be bullied and mocked.”
Well put, Jezebel. It makes it extra ironic that your boss, Nick Denton actually wrote a memo to Gawker’s staff in which he lauded the publishing of the Sony emails and said “that’s how good our editorial can be every day.” Really? That’s how good? Not: That’s how low we’re willing to stoop. This is the same guy who spoke last year about wanting to have a company people were proud to work at. These are the same people who criticized the supposed bullying tactics of #GamerGate, even though what they do is just as bad.
When News of The World in the U.K. hacked the private phone conversations of celebrities, politicians and everyday people it was supposedly “a journalistic travesty” (Huff Post) and “flagrant criminal activity” (Salon). Would the same outlets have published leaked audio from this despicable act?
It’s a rather self-serving distinction to suggest that when individuals have their information leaked it amounts to an invasion of privacy but that when it happens to a company it is simply a matter of security or secrecy. Just because you think the sole mission of corporations is to try to screw over consumers does not empower the mainstream media (also made up of massive multi-national corporations, by the way), or give it the right to screw other corporations over.
In 2008, when I worked at American Apparel, a former IT employee leaked my email to numerous media outlets. Information from benign, personal emails between the CFO and myself were printed in outlets like Gawker, CNBC, The New York Post and others, and spun by reporters to create what looked like a bankruptcy crisis, damaging the company’s reputation and stock price. It was the night of Christmas Eve and I was just 21 years old. It did more than just ruin some time with family. I was convinced in that moment that my career was going to end.
For what? So Hamilton Nolan could get 30,000 extra pageviews? Behind every online bully is an impotent fool, who justifies their dubious decisions behind the veil of “free speech.”
A police investigation later caught the culprit responsible and connected it to a series of lawsuits that had been filed against the company. The cyberteam caught the leaker by pretending to be a reporter who wanted access to the emails and tracked their IP. In other words, the criminal saw the media as allies in their attempt to exert undue leverage—and the media saw no issue establishing an alliance with someone like this. (In fact, those reporters still have jobs.)
I cannot express the violation of privacy I felt. I remember calling American Apparel founder Dov Charney that night to apologize. He said to me: “Look, we all say things in email that we wouldn’t want other people to see or hear. Particularly your generation—you use email instead of the phone. I’m not going to fault you for anything that’s in there.” I’m very grateful for that understanding—my entire life might have turned out differently without it. If I am being perfectly honest, if I had been in his position I might not have extended the same generosity.
For all the people who said it wasn’t O.K. to judge Jennifer Lawrence for taking naked selfies, I don’t think you have any right to judge Amy Pascal or Scott Rudin. What they said might be offensive but here’s the thing—you have absolutely no right to know that they said it.
I won’t get into the contents too much, but I think that their [url=http://defamer.gawker.com/sony-leak-studio-exec-calls-kevin-hart-a-greedy-lady of negotiable affection-1669403407]argument about Kevin Hart[/url] and whether the $3 million they paid him entitles them to social media support is not something Kevin Hart ought to respond to. What matters is what they ultimately did—did they treat him well or not? Same goes for the remarks about Obama—the reality is that with their money and time these two individuals supported his campaign. Some inside jokes? They stayed inside … that is, until the media, conspiring with a group of criminals, took it outside.
Readers, writers, the subjects of these stories have no right to outrage. These are stolen goods.
Mr. Rudin is absolutely right when he says: “This is not about salacious emails being batted around by Gawker and Defamer. It’s about a criminal act, and the people behind it should be treated as nothing more nor less than criminals.”
As far as I’m concerned, he shouldn’t need to apologize for his remarks—because we weren’t a party to them.
It is not 2003 where even the half-baked excuse that “they shouldn’t have put this stuff in writing” might fly. Email is now the dominant communication medium. These are casual, private conversations between colleagues and friends. They are entitled to some modicum of privacy. Just as it would be obscene if someone had drilled into the wall and surreptitiously recorded meetings and leaked it, the same goes for the emails.
In fact, when a pervert spied on sports reporter Erin Andrews in her hotel room, the media agreed generally not to traffic in the footage. Imagine, a group of professionals got together and drew a line about what they will and won’t do. How human. (Or was it just the fact that she was one of their own?)
But I think the statement ESPN sent out at the time to the few publications that ran photos and videos of her personal violation adds perspective to the current situation:

“These pictures were obviously taken through a peephole or otherwise in a fashion constituting a trespass/assault on the rights of the woman involved.
Your continued posting of these pictures are highly likely to render you an accessory after the fact to a criminal act. We hereby demand that you (i) immediately remove these pictures from your site and (ii) disclose to us the source of the pictures. We intend to hold you fully responsible for further display of material that so obviously violates the law.”

How is this different? Spying on a woman while she’s naked is different only in degree to spying on a different powerful woman when she communicates with her employees, clients and partners. Especially when the people who did the hacking don’t even have the courage to reveal their identities.
I wonder how much the media’s reliance on these criminal groups for these scoops has to do with the fact that its reporters are utterly incapable of producing legitimate stories on their own. I wonder how much time these reporters even spent verifying the actual emails they did run.
When I wrote Trust Me, I’m Lying, I suggested that publishers over a certain size be required to post a bond to compensate the victims of their recklessness. It’s an old idea, which originates from the British Empire, when owners of printing presses were required to set aside money for the inevitable damage they would inflict with their newspapers.
Today, we clearly live in a world where there is zero circumspection when it comes to hitting the publishing button. In Mr. Denton’s memo (the same one where he lauds the Sony leak) he brags that Gawker has grown to $60 million in annual revenue. It’s clear to me that we’ve reached a point where a reserve fund is necessary once again.
If there is to be no consideration pre-publication, then there must be consequences after the fact.
The law of disruption states that technological advancements run in advance of our cultural attitudes, practices and laws. Only in retrospect can we see the holes that need to be patched and create new guidelines—explicit and implicit—to create a society that is decent and functioning.
To me, this means that readers must do their part to limit the market for these stories. After all, the real reason that outlets generally didn’t run the celebrity leaks was only that the violation was so repugnant that they were reluctant to be associated with it. And finally, I think it’s high time we create some explicit legal measures to deal with these hypocrites and criminals.
The media I mean.

Great article. Nice to see that someone reports the otherside. I think he is right. And this part from the article was my favourite:

When News of The World in the U.K. hacked the private phone conversations of celebrities, politicians and everyday people it was supposedly “a journalistic travesty” (Huff Post) and “flagrant criminal activity” (Salon). Would the same outlets have published leaked audio from this despicable act?
It’s a rather self-serving distinction to suggest that when individuals have their information leaked it amounts to an invasion of privacy but that when it happens to a company it is simply a matter of security or secrecy. Just because you think the sole mission of corporations is to try to screw over consumers does not empower the mainstream media (also made up of massive multi-national corporations, by the way), or give it the right to screw other corporations over.

Well said, Nicki. And a certain barrister with specialised knowledge in leaks and privacy would support your statement!

Way2Old4Dis wrote:A friend tells me that Sony is basically on electronic lockdown. No unfamiliar numbers can get through the phone system. No one logs into the old e-mail, and only a few have access to the new one. No personal devices are permitted in the office until further notice. No intellectual property attached to office communications.

That's secondhand, of course, but it makes sense. Must be hard to conduct business, though... not that anybody is talking to them these days.

WOW that's strict. How do they comminicate? VIA Letter??? Seriously one day so much damage will be done by hacking that we are back writting letters

Wonder how sony wants to fix it. They can't do without electronical device for long. I'm sure they will invest lot's of money now in cyber protection....

I don't know if this is true because there's no way to verify it, but I was told that every connected device on the premises was individually surveyed, and only after it was cleared could it go back online. I imagine that would take a hell of a lot of time and personnel in order for them to keep functioning while it's done.

Maybe they suspect somebody from the inside involved. Maybe that's why they check everything...Just my guess of course....

Hey, Nicky, thanks for posting the article.

Nicky80 wrote:Maybe they suspect somebody from the inside involved. Maybe that's why they check everything...Just my guess of course....

I think that is an assumption that any security expert would want to rule out first thing.

Nicky - Great article! The writer hit the nail on the head. What was said in the hacked material doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that Sony was hacked in the first place. I read that it will cost them $100 Million to fix this mess. The danger goes way beyond embarrassing a few people. What will the next target be? A government? The banking system? A transportation network? A power grid?

 Many media outlets ran with the contents to make a profit. If there are no consequences for them it will only encourage hackers to keep going. The internet is already risky. This kind of thing could make it unsafe to use for anything other than inconsequential nonsense.

It was absolutely a crime and the people responsible should go to jail for a good long time.  

However.

How is it possible these people are given hundreds of millions of dollars to manage, when they can't successfully navigate basic interpersonal communication?  You never, never, NEVER put anything in writing you couldn't defend in person (three more nevers if we're talking about work). If you absolutely must make race-related jokes about the president, perhaps the work email isn't the best place to do that, hmmm? When I have something sensitive/colorful to tell a co-worker, my email says "Call me." Full stop. Dummies.

Also, I had no idea how much being a studio head resembles being a middle school guidance counselor. I COULD NOT with the drama.

Well, I've decided I'm done reading the e-mails. The press is dealing in stolen proprietary information, and profiting from it, and I'm abetting it. It's no different from knowingly fencing and receiving stolen goods, IMO. It's interesting and informative and entertaining, but I sure as fuck would be outraged if it happened to me. So I'm turning away.

I'm with you Way2 and thanks for leading the way.

Joanna, I'm no leader; I can't unring the bell of having participated already. And to be clear, I think the hacking itself and the media and corporate response to it are subjects of necessary discussion. I just won't be consuming and passing around the contents of the stolen material like I've done to this point.

I agree Way2 . Make that way3 .

I do not approve of someone leaking emails to get revenge, if that is the goal of this individual.  There are crazies and weirdos everywhere.  It's releasing social security information that rips it for me.  Now you're dealing with identity theft.  And that's a whole different kettle of fish.  Legal action should be swift to that regard.

PigPen - IMO, hacking someone else's account is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who does it or what their intentions are. Just because Robin Hood gave to the poor, didn't make him any less a thief.

It isn't just what was released that's important here. It's the fact that it happened at all. It's the fact that anyone with some  computer skills can do whatever they please with other people's lives and livelihood and not be afraid of repercussions. Legal action should be swift in any hacking case, and there should be penalties for anyone abetting the hackers by reproducing the stolen information.

I'm as nosy as the next guy, but this stuff is just plain wrong!

There is a huge lesson in all of this for Sony and any other business about not using emails to say whatever you damn well please. George was savvy enough to have learned early on not to reveal anything that could come back to kick you in the ass.

But what's really detrimental is the release of Sony's salaries, social security numbers and other personnel info. And from press reports it sounds like this GOP group is planning on releasing more emails just in time for Christmas. God only knows how much worse it will get.

I'm tired of hearing that the people at Sony should have known better - that they should have known that anything you post isn't private! If there is anyone on this earth who hasn't said something stupid or insensitive in an unguarded moment, whether in an e-mail or in person, I would like to meet them. We're human beings. We say stupid things and we do stupid things. No one can be on their guard every moment and we shouldn't have to be.

The bad guys here aren't the people at Sony, who were just doing what people do in the course of a day. The real bad guys are the hackers and the people making money off their crime.

Yeah, don't forget about the personal medical records that were in the stockpile.

No matter how Amy Pascal comes off in the e-mails, the point is that she is the head of a movie studio, and she has every right to discuss the products of that studio and the people who work for it -- and she should be able to do so without being taken to task by people who don't have shit to do with her business. Sony hasn't ripped anyone off, hasn't committed fraud, hasn't taken anyone's money or property.

Should they have known better? Yeah. Won't have to tell them that anymore. But they're the victim. And the next company that gets hacked is going to wish they'd stood up on Sony's behalf and that the media had done their jobs a whole fucking lot better than they have so far.

Hollywood Reporter


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Sony Hack: First Lawsuit Filed Against Company by Ex-Employees

The complaint filed in California says that Sony failed to secure its computer systems despite warnings of the threat

Sony Pictures Entertainment will now be forced to defend the security measures it took in advance of the hack thanks to a lawsuit that was filed in California federal court on Monday.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Michael Corona, who says he worked at the company from 2004 to 2007, and Christina Mathis, who says she worked at the company between 2000 and 2002. Both say they had information such as Social Security numbers leaked. Corona also alleges that his salary history and reason for resigning were breached. Both say they have spent money for identity theft protection in the wake of the hack and are suing on behalf of themselves and an estimated 15,000 individuals similarly situated.
"An epic nightmare, much better suited to a cinematic thriller than to real life, is unfolding in slow motion for Sony’s current and former employees," begins the complaint. "Their most sensitive data, including over 47,000 Social Security numbers, employment files including salaries, medical information, and anything else that their employer Sony touched, has been leaked to the public, and may even be in the hands of criminals."

The lawsuit pins blame on Sony for what happened.
"At its core, the story of 'what went wrong' at Sony boils down to two inexcusable problems," says the complaint. "(1) Sony failed to secure its computer systems, servers, and databases ('Network'), despite weaknesses that it has known about for years, because Sony made a 'business decision to accept the risk' of losses associated with being hacked; and (2) Sony subsequently failed to timely protect confidential information of its current and former employees from law-breaking hackers who (a) found these security weaknesses; (b) obtained confidential information of Sony's current and former employees stored on Sony's Network, (c) warned Sony that it would publicly disseminate this information, and (d) repeatedly followed through by publicly disseminating portions of the information that they claim to have obtained from Sony's Network through dumps of internal data from Sony's Network."
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at the law firm of Keller Rohrback who are demanding actual and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement for causes of action that include negligence, health privacy and a California statute requiring notifications of data breaches. They haven't estimated the value of the damages, but they are also demanding equitable relief including forcing Sony to provide credit monitoring for at least five years, identity theft insurance, credit restoration service and requiring Sony receive periodic compliance audits by a third party regarding the security of its computer systems.
The lawsuit is also unusual in nature as it references internal Sony documents exposed in the leak. The plaintiffs are attempting to show that Sony knew about security weaknesses and made a business decision to accept the risks despite previous data breaches. Some of the information from the leaked documents is sourced to news reports like one from Gizmodo said to be reporting that "just two months before the Data Breach became public, Sony released a scathing internal IT assessment. In the report Sony's IT personnel found basic security protocol went unheeded and what little IT security it did have was plagued with unmonitored devices, miscommunication, and a lack of accountability."
Sony general counsel Leah Weil's messages about email retention are quoted as well as those of outside security experts. The lawsuit also recaps past hacking events like the breach of Sony PlayStation user data and how the company reacted in the aftermath.
According to the complaint, "Sony has already acted to protect itself by using hacking methods of its own to combat illegal downloads of its movies that hackers publicly released after the Data Breach," but that Sony hasn't "similarly acted to protect its current and former employees," which the proposed class action says will lead to identity theft vulnerabilities and the possibility of such crimes as immigration crime, false driver's licenses and thieves obtaining government benefits and fraudulent tax refunds.

And here we got the first law suit.......Welcome to America....

your dog pees on the wrong tree you get your ass suit and others get rich. oh Boy...

Go to a German Court and sue somebody for $ 1000 the judge will tell you to fuck of.  (Little joke but kind of true) You can make so much money in American Courts with law suits....I live in the wrong Country....   Why do you have law suits anyway why not a normal criminal court? If a judge finds sony guilty they just pay an amount of money and then everyone goes home...right?....weird....

I think Sony should have known better. I'm not blaming them for what happened. A crime was committed against Sony. They have been victimized. But Sony execs should have used common sense.. It seems they were aware that their computer system was vulnerable. And had known for a while. But they let it slide for whatever reason. Knowing they were vulnerable they should have been far more careful about what they put in those emails. Just to protect themselves. Unfortunately as wrong as it was that their system was hacked it is becoming commonplace and will only continue to get worse until better protections can be implemented

Nicky8 wrote:

  Why do you have law suits anyway why not a normal criminal court? If a judge finds sony guilty they just pay an amount of money and then everyone goes home...right?....weird....

Nicky - Don't you have Civil Courts in Germany where people go to settle disputes? When someone does something that in some way harms you, but isn't criminal, how do you bring it to court? Don't you have to "sue"?

These people aren't claiming that Sony did anything criminal. They are saying that Sony was negligent in maintaining security and that negligence caused them harm which will be very expensive and time-consuming for them to fix. They want Sony to cover the cost of fixing the damage done to them. They will go to court and explain their case. The court will decide if Sony is responsible and, if so, how much money the plaintiffs should get.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Yeah, don't forget about the personal medical records that were in the stockpile.

No matter how Amy Pascal comes off in the e-mails, the point is that she is the head of a movie studio, and she has every right to discuss the products of that studio and the people who work for it -- and she should be able to do so without being taken to task by people who don't have shit to do with her business. Sony hasn't ripped anyone off, hasn't committed fraud, hasn't taken anyone's money or property.

Should they have known better? Yeah. Won't have to tell them that anymore. But they're the victim. And the next company that gets hacked is going to wish they'd stood up on Sony's behalf and that the media had done their jobs a whole fucking lot better than they have so far.

Hahaha W2, over the years Sony taken much money from me for crap movies and full waste of my time.

You know Hollywood W2, where do I write to Sony for my money back?

LizzyNY wrote:

Nicky8 wrote:

  Why do you have law suits anyway why not a normal criminal court? If a judge finds sony guilty they just pay an amount of money and then everyone goes home...right?....weird....

Nicky - Don't you have Civil Courts in Germany where people go to settle disputes? When someone does something that in some way harms you, but isn't criminal, how do you bring it to court? Don't you have to "sue"?

These people aren't claiming that Sony did anything criminal. They are saying that Sony was negligent in maintaining security and that negligence caused them harm which will be very expensive and time-consuming for them to fix. They want Sony to cover the cost of fixing the damage done to them. They will go to court and explain their case. The court will decide if Sony is responsible and, if so, how much money the plaintiffs should get.

Our civil court System is completely different from the US. It is not possible to sue the way you do in the US. It is much easier to sue in the US and to ask for big amounts of Money which is not realistic here. Our civil court is set up differently. Also the way US differentiate between criminal and civil Court is different here. Like an O J Simpson case would not be possible here.

Well those plaintiffs can ask for a large amount of money and that will make the headlines. However, they will have to prove what their actual damages are.  How much money did they actually lose because of this?  Sounds like zero to me so far.  A judge could award punitive damages against Sony, but I think the bar is pretty high to prove them--they will have to prove Sony was not only negligent, but wilful and reckless.  Maybe they were, but I have a suspicion that most large companies in the US are not doing what they could to prevent hacking--especially those who are not retailers and don't deal in large amounts of consumer information.

Right. Anybody can sue anybody, but a plaintiff has to be able to prove damages in order to win. As bad as it is for those people whose information was exposed, they may have a tough time with proving damages, even if Sony was lax.

Because here's the thing: if Sony was lax, they were being lax or maybe even so far as negligent with their own data. Those e-mails don't belong to the employees, they belong to Sony. So getting money out of someone because of what they did with their own property may be a non-starter. I'm no lawyer, of course, but I'd sure as hell float that argument if I had to defend Sony. Besides, it's been reported that the hack that took Sony's system down would have infiltrated just about any level of security. If that's true, then even the negligence claim is iffy.

Just found this article by Lainey.  Interesting theory....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George Clooney’s insecurity and the Most Fascinating Amal

December 15, 2014 Posted at 9:04 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Posted by Lainey

• eads
  

Photos:
AKM-GSI/ Splash
You want a conspiracy theory? Here’s a big one, courtesy, of course, of those hacked Sony emails.
On January 29, 2014, just before the release of George Clooney’s The Monuments Men, he sent an email to Sony’s Amy Pascal, reacting to the film’s sh-tty reviews. The title of the message was “it’s getting worse”. And then Clooney followed with:
“I need some protection from all the reviews. Let’s just make it a hit. I haven’t slept in 30 hours. And it’s 7 am.”
George was insecure. He was worried. He needed reassurance. Pascal gave it to him:
“we will protect you by making money… that’s the best revenge.”
Even the Chairman himself, George Clooney, can be shaken, see? Actors, ultimately, all need to be coddled. After Pascal’s comforting words, Clooney wrote back to her the next day:
“I adore you Amy. You are literally the only person running a studio that loves film. I fear I’ve let you all down. Not my intention. I apologize. I’ve just lost touch… Who knew? Sorry. I won’t do it again.”
I let you down. I lost touch.
That’s a crisis of confidence, non?
So that was late January. And then two weeks later, JUST TWO WEEKS LATER, we the world meet a woman called Amal. George Clooney takes Amal Alamuddin to the White House for a screening of The Monuments Men– click here for a refresher. A month after that, PEOPLE publishes exclusive photos of George and Amal on safari, confirming their relationship. Click here for a refresher. Two months after that, proposes.
Let’s break that down, just so we’re clear, OK? The charming, affable Chairman is anxious about his film. He’s stressed, professionally. He can’t sleep. He’s angst-ing about whether or not his movie sucks, whether or not it’s going to bomb. He’s so freaked out about it he emails the head of the studio, asking her to hold his hand.
And then…his personal life thrives, publicly.
Coincidence or conspiracy?
By the way, The Monuments Men went on to gross over $150 million worldwide on a $70 million production budget. George and Amal went on to get married. Amal went on to become Barbara Walters’ Most Fascinating Person of 2014.
Here she is, the Most Fascinating Amal, out for dinner with George last night in LA. They were also out the night before with Rande Gerber and Cindy Crawford.