Hacker News Reader

Comment by anfedorov | Hacker News Reader

The US gains literally nothing pointing the finger at North Korea.

It also loses nothing, which might be the case if Russia or China were behind the attacks.

It conditions the population against North Korea. Not saying that that's what's happening right now, but it's kind of our MO. We target a specific place for ulterior motives, generate public animosity among our population of morons who couldn't find X country on a map if their lives depended on it, then we put on the squeeze in order to illicit a reaction, and then when a certain action happens we can manufacture into an excuse for military action, we take military action. And then we proclaim how innocent and unwillingly we were dragged into something we had been gunning for even before the last war we were engaged in was over.

What would the ulterior motive be for taking on the cost of a war against NK? They have little to no oil or other super-valuable commodities as far as I know, so there's little financial motive. They're a risk to their neighbors but are not a credible global threat, and they're less likely to attack the U.S. than more dangerous and ideologically fervent enemies like ISIS.

They're more of an annoyance than anything else. The strategy so far seems to have been to wait it out and hope their crazy cult-regime finally collapses. I don't see any reason anyone would want to expedite this unless they thought there was a clear and present danger of NK escalating in both belligerence and power in the near future. I can imagine the former, but not the latter.

Punishing defiance can be an ulterior motive. When the mafia send someone in to break the shopkeepers fingers they often risk their guy getting arrested, etc. losing more than the shopkeeper is worth. They still go through with it because that shop isn't the only thing in the balance, it's about keeping all the other shops scared and maintaining "credibility." You can hear war mongering politicians talk about "credibility" and "credible threat of force" all the time.

The value of NK isn't anything internally intrinsic; the main reason it has "survived" with its current and past leadership is that it is a buffer between the "West" and China. And previously it was seen as a buffer between Japan (and also the US) and Russia; Stalin was the one who authorised the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in the very last days of WWII. Russia's leadership at the time remembered Russia loss of face (and territory) to Japan in 1905; remind you of current day invasions and annexations with ruminations of nationalism?

The Korean War was in many ways similar to a "more power" version of Ukraine today.

Why was North Korea included in Bush's famous Axis of Evil speech?

I'm fairly certain it was for nuclear proliferation.

Drug running, counterfeit currency production, kidnapping foreign citizens, nuclear testing and producing nuclear capable missiles and testing them in provocative ways.

Plus their prison camp system, internal mass famines, brutal authoritarian dictatorship.

NK may be a sideshow as far as a lot of interested parties are concerned. The benefit (if you can call it that) is that the presently-tapering security contractor gravy train gets a new shot in the arm, the Feds have a chance to set up "partnership" agreements with any number of tech firms that they just alienated during the NSA fiasco, and a much higher level of generalized network surveillance becomes a thing that plenty of companies start thinking they want.

I obviously don't know the story behind this. The point is, there are plenty of opportunistic and self-serving domestic interests who probably don't either but can nevertheless turn this hack into a very beneficial event, regardless of who did it. From their perspective, NK being the source is actually the best-case scenario.

It would drain China's resources and focus, Russia's for that matter too. But, again, I said that I don't think that's what's happening with NK. NK is even too much of a pandora's box of crazy that I think will only be set off as a last ditch effort against, mainly, China. I see it as kind of a bomb that is surgically attached to China, which we can somewhat easily figure out how to set off if we so desire.

If they are wrong, then they take a hit to their credibility. The Republican Party would pounce on this and never let up. It would not look good in the public eye if the government's cybersecurity apparatus – which the president just spent the past year and a half defending – fingered the wrong country behind an attack.

Not true. Can you imagine the economic impact if this stands as a case study on how lax security standards could be at large, trusted private institutions? That all it takes is one pissed-off employee with a cursory background in computer security to cause billions of dollars in damages and rampant fear?

It's much easier to address public fears with an easy scapegoat than to owe up to the overall frailty of network-driven industry. Could you imagine the cost of creating "the TSA of networks belonging to important private entities?"

Part of me does wonder whether we're headed in that direction. See: Rainbow's End, by Vernor Vinge.

What is the equilibrium in a world where state funded actors can anonymously attack major companies / infrastructure components? I am not convinced that is possible for a Sony to secure itself to such a level that it will not be vulnerable to attacks by state actors.

Not without actually - ya know - trying.

> Could you imagine the cost of creating "the TSA of networks belonging to important private entities?"

Sounds like a huge bounty for whoever gets the contract.

That's exactly the issue. There are lots of people who can imagine that. They can also imagine corporate boards having a much harder time saying no to them in an environment that the Feds have described as dangerous. If nothing else, not (literally) buying into the scare opens companies to even more expensive liability.

oh if it were Russia I am quite sure the current Administration would waste no time exposing them. The level of disrespect shown towards with both official and unofficial comments borders on undiplomatic by most counts.

It matters little because the big issue here is that a group of cyber terrorists have effectively shut down a major corporation and most western countries are just standing by. if that is not green lighting future copy catting nothing I don't know what is.

The President should screen the film at the White House and allow it to be distributed to the armed forces

Reply on news.ycombinator.com