I was certain that the story of NK being the actor here was just publicity, paid for by Sony to promote the film and capitalize on their hacking disaster. The release cancellation nixed the idea that Sony was behind the threats, but it still didn't point to NK's culpability. Any lunatic could have bombed any theater in the country next week and Sony would have been liable.

With these administration comments, is it more likely that NK was actually responsible? It's still possible that this will turn out to be the overblown suspicions of somebody unfamiliar with how digital attacks work, published too quickly because they fit the narrative. We've seen the state of journalistic fact checking lately, and even if this is the NYT, 'senior administration officials' isn't a bulletproof source. But it's also possible that we now live in an era where nations wage proxy digital war against corporations not just for theft but for ideology.

This would be a strange new state of affairs. I wonder how long before corporations are fighting back? If, say, Samsung's expected value for government reconstruction contracts following NK's fall was in the tens of billions, how difficult would it be for them to cause a couple military installations, power plants, or leaders' flights to explode and make regime change more likely?