The
lack of facts, or at least believable facts seems to open the door
for some incredible reporting. I'm no longer certain what I can
believe.
Sony
Hack Reveals U.S. Can’t Protect Business From Attack
…
The spat showed that the U.S. government and businesses still can’t
collaborate effectively to deter cyber-attacks, defend against them
or respond to them. It added urgency to a debate over whether and
when the government should take responsibility for protecting private
companies from attacks and whether and when those companies can
strike back against foreign nations or groups.
Obama
promised to retaliate against North Korea for the Sony hack,
answering a largely unresolved legal and political question
surrounding cyber-warfare: The
U.S. government will act on behalf of a private company after an
attack. [We're
opening a huge can of worms here. Bob]
…
The administration gave a very limited answer because
of the classified nature of information about the attack. [Perhaps
they tapped some NSA resources, but there must be something
that's not “classified.” Bob] The White House also
didn’t want to set a precedent of answering requests on a
company-by-company basis -- and possibly appearing to favor one firm
over another -- said one of the officials.
…
For both practical and political reasons, it would be best for any
move to be international
and asymmetric, [International
is good, but unlikely as we can't seems to get anyone to agree what
cyberwar is. Asymetric because North Korea does not have any company
like Sony. (or any company worth targeting) Bob] in both
time and nature, according to two Obama administration officials
involved in discussions on how to respond. That would limit the
appearance that the U.S. was responding to the effort to suppress the
movie, rather than acting over the cyber-attack on Sony, they said.
It would also signal to the Chinese and other cyber-powers that
destructive hacks cross a line and that there’s international
support for drawing such a line.
…
Congress will probably take a close look at the rules governing how
companies can respond to cyber-attacks, House Homeland Security
Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said in an
interview with Bloomberg reporters and editors this month.
“I’m
going to study the legal implications of allowing companies to do it,
to do more to retaliate,” he said. [Cyber-vigilantiasm?
Bob]
(Related)
Obama:
North Korea's hack not war, but 'cybervandalism'
…
Obama said in a Friday news conference that Sony made "a
mistake," and that he wished the company had called him first.
That led Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton to tell CNN that Obama
and the public "are mistaken as to what actually happened."
He blamed movie theater companies that opted not to show the film,
saying they forced Sony's hand.
Obama
shot back, saying: "I was pretty sympathetic to the fact that
they have business considerations that they got to make. Had they
talked to me directly about this decision, I might have called the
movie theater chains and distributors and asked them what the story
was."
…
The non-profit Human Rights Foundation is pushing a campaign called
"#HackThemBack," inviting "those who support freedom
and democracy" to "help North Korean defectors amplify,
refine, and intensify efforts to break the monopoly of information"
that the regime imposes on its people.
The
group also plans to buy copies of "The Interview" and
include
them in balloon drops over North Korea, founder Thor Havorssen
said. [Now that's just
stupid. Do they imagine that the average North Korean has a DVD
player? Bob]
(Related)
Some humorous, some sad...
Hackers
Vs. Haters: How Twitter Reacted To Sony Pulling The Interview
To
say the Internet didn’t take kindly to Sony Pictures pulling The
Interview is putting it mildly. The majority of people think Sony
capitulated to an unsubstantiated threat far too easily.
We
kept a close eye on Twitter in the aftermath of the announcement, and
these are some of the best tweets about The Interview, and, in
particular, Sony pulling the film to appease unknown hackers.
Now
I have something to point to that confirms my suspicions. Why would
politicians claim safety benefits before the data is in? Because
they think it will win votes.
Tribune
study: Chicago red light cameras provide few safety benefits
Chicago's
red light cameras fail to deliver the dramatic safety benefits long
claimed by City Hall, according to a first-ever scientific study that
found the nation's largest camera program is responsible for
increasing some types of injury crashes while decreasing others.
The
state-of-the-art study commissioned by the Tribune concluded the
cameras do not reduce injury-related crashes overall — undercutting
Mayor Rahm Emanuel's primary defense of a program beset by
mismanagement, malfunction and a $2 million bribery scandal.
Emanuel
has credited the cameras for a 47 percent reduction in dangerous
right-angle, or "T-bone," crashes. But the Tribune study,
which accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well
as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle
crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent.
At
the same time, the study calculated a corresponding 22 percent
increase in rear-end crashes that caused injuries, illustrating a
trade-off between the cameras' costs and benefits.
The
researchers also determined there is no safety benefit from cameras
installed at intersections where there have been few crashes with
injuries. Such accidents actually increased at those intersections
after cameras went in, the study found, though the small number of
crashes makes it difficult to determine whether the cameras were to
blame.
…
Chicago Transportation Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld said the city
has never attempted a deep examination of the effectiveness of the
largest automated enforcement program in the country, which has grown
to more than 350 red light cameras and raised more than $500 million
in $100 tickets since 2002. She said the Emanuel administration, now
in its fourth year, is attempting to fix a long-standing lack of
oversight.
Never
discuss yourself with anyone who can spell “sarcasm.”
No comments:
Post a Comment