Drama behind the "Jobs" film:
http://defamer.gawker.com/leaked-the-nightmare-email-drama-behind-sonys-steve-jo-1668882936
http://mashable.com/2014/12/11/steve-jobs-sony-email-hack/?curator=MediaREDEF

Sone awful PowerPoints:
http://gawker.com/sonys-embarrassing-powerpoints-are-even-worst-than-thei-1666403941

"Here's what they think about you": liberals Scott Rudin (producer) & Amy Pascal (co-chairman of Sony Pictures) cracking bad racial jokes about what movies the President likes on the way to an Obama fund raiser:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/business/media/scott-rudin-and-amy-pascal-of-sony-apologize-for-racially-tinged-comments-on-obama.html?_r=0

Shonda is pissed!
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/shonda-rhimes-al-sharpton-blast-racist-sony-emails-1201377491/

What should happen next?
http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/what-sony-pictures-chief-amy-pascal-should-do-if-she-sincerely-wants-to-make-amends-20141212

cmon. you cant even joke in an email

yesterday it was the fappening, today it's sony, tomorrow it could be me or you. i'm not sure private comments should be judged publicly (also see: racist old man donald sterling). sorry to be a spoilsport.

That's a huge surprise given the history of Hollywood they've been such an inclusive group.

It is true that if you don't want it read don't write it down, but at the same time I think folks should be allowed to have some kind space where they can be themselves. Even if they are filthy rich dirt bags, because it really could be us regular people next. Also don't get distracted by the racial politics, I be a lot of those emails have much more serious content.

http://gawker.com/leaked-email-alleges-racism-and-sexual-harassment-horro-1670318085/+laceydonohue

Man is that something you would name your half Jewish (in ancestry at least) kid? Stranger than fiction.

40,000+ social security numbers were leaked, as well as a lot of sensitive budgeting and financial info (and they're still parsing through everything; it's 10 TB of data that was stolen)

Four unreleased upcoming films and one in current release were leaked o the web in DVD quality screener formats.

but the corporate emails (which, though never intended to be shared publicly, were from the corporate Outlook accounts, not their personals) do offer some insight into how the execs do business...which is apparently not that well.

i learned just this year that citizens have "rights" to see the emails to and from accounts at their local public universities for instance (i should have known this already because of what happened with sarah palin and the alaskan government emails). although legal, it feels like an overreach, but it's good to know at least. i'm not familiar with the legality of shareholders' rights to see corporate account emails. a lot of what i've heard so far about the sony leaks is juicy, but it feels like i'm reaping bad karma by exploring it.

these are ppl's private thoughts.

it feels gross to dig through them - especially to find info we already knew.

>yesterday it was the fappening, today it's sony, tomorrow it
>could be me or you.


This is a major reason I'm not too keen on social media. I like my relative sense of privacy and anonymity too much to actively use the popular social media websites and tools. Among all things, it's truly bugged out to me that twitter is archived in the Library on Congress.

i mean they were racial and in bad taste, but i think to say they are racist is a bit much.

me and my coworkers joke about similar shit all the fucking time.

And furthermore, is it a stretch to consider that execs who make these sorts of jokes apply the serious side of that mentality when it's time to, say, cast the lead in an action picture or consider producing a "black movie" that lacks pratfalls, song sequences, or Christian morals?

but i think its a bit much to say its racist.

it just seemed to me they had a corporate culture where they email each other a lot of silly shit.

tokp

>i mean they were racial and in bad taste, but i think to say
>they are racist is a bit much.
>
>me and my coworkers joke about similar shit all the fucking
>time.


You joke about Blacks only going to see black movies, at work with friends ?

we say shit like yellow fever (my coworker who likes asian girls) and persian mafia. we use the term FOB a lot. ive said "cracker" around them a few times too.

And blk stars like Kevin hard not racist, that's the definition of racist, making character judgements based on racism

All blks like basketball, all blks say motherfucker, all blks like twelve years a slave and django unchained. Those are racist comments

Racist doesn't have to be kill his nigger ass

>And blk stars like Kevin hard not racist, that's the
>definition of racist, making character judgements based on
>racism
>
>All blks like basketball, all blks say motherfucker, all blks
>like twelve years a slave and django unchained. Those are
>racist comments
>
>Racist doesn't have to be kill his nigger ass



^^^^^^^

the last one was think like a man, which wasnt a slave movie.

i took that as a joke about a black president liking black movies, not slave movies.

cause you know THEY wasn't about to watch them movies.

suggesting the POTUS must only like Black movies cause he's Black is not racist to someone is astounding.
I bet none of the recent police brutality is not about race then either. BYE.

i just draw a distinction btwn racial humor and racist humor.

to say they think blacks are inferior because of those stupid racial jokes is a stretch.

and unarmed black men being murdered by racist cops aint even in the same stratosphere imo.

and this is why I refused to see The Butler or 12 years.

They are laughing at us for giving them our money to see that shit.

Nah. They're laughing at you, but not for that. Support black art.

Cecil Gaines' family were early 20th century sharecroppers - a lot of bullshit still carried over from slavery, yes (the term "slavery by another name" has been used), but not quite the same thing.

the generation of black folks raised in the 1920s who worked in subservience (even though they weren't docile about it) to white folks, and their children who came of age during the Civil Rights Movement who saw their parents as Uncle Toms.

It does this, however, by boiling it all down to the conflict between a White House butler and his Black Panther son, the latter of whom just happens to be present for literally every major civil rights event from 1960 forward. Comes off very contrived rather than profound as a result, though - since it's Lee Daniels - the violence of racism is shown in florid, almost lavish detail that most similar films shy away from.

fight the powerrrrrrrrrr!!!

with big help from Brad Pitt.

It didn't originate within the studio system.


The Butler is mediocre & doesn't deserve a strong defending, so have at that.

i would also love this LONG list of slave movies

a few weeks ago i heard pretenders singer chrissie hynde use the term "slavewave" to describe a trend in recent cinema, which i found hilariously and charmingly un-PC but in truth could only think of two movies. there have been quite a few dealing with black american slavery but only a couple recent high profile ones as far as i know. people like to exaggerate.

but seriously, no matter who will benefit from the support
I'm not watching them either...

it's kinda depressing to see how little power AA have

Hollywood makes a picture about killing Kim Jong Un = hacked

meanwhile, I think their were 6 minorities nominated in recent award shows...

compared to +60 for yt = business as usual

RACISM IN HOLLYWOOD UNTIL I SEE HARD EVIDENCE!


yup, hear that all the time.



lol indeed

50 years later

ain't shit changed.

so who cares?

we already knew the ppl who run and/or work @ Sony are assholes and now there's proof they're also racists.

big whoop.

.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

wonder if it was damage control?

And that don't mean shit: Amy Pascal has had Sony out more "black movies" than any of the other five majors over the last few years.

I wonder how much of the outrage is genuine and how much is manufactured to have some kind of leverage to bring the shamed folks at Sony down a peg or two in terms of business negotiations.

Scott Rudin wasn't particularly well-liked, but Amy Pascal was decently respected. Except by Nikki Finke (a story also covered in the emails, but outside of them as well).

This sort of backbiting (especially the Hart-related stuff, considering Kevin Hart is actually getting people to go see Screen Gems movies, and the Obama stuff, considering Pascal was on her way to an Obama fundraiser) is uncalled for in business emails, however. This is what telephone calls work better for.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhubp0NtCr4

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that the execs at Paramount, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, Disney, and Universal/Comcast would never say such racist, politically incorrect things...

on company accts about it

considering its supposed "liberal/hollywood left" is dissapointing tho

kinda like when oscar voters said they voted for 12 yrs a slave for best picture, but couldnt be bothered to actually watch it

>www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhubp0NtCr4
>
>I am going to go out on a limb and assume that the execs at
>Paramount, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, Disney, and
>Universal/Comcast would never say such racist, politically
>incorrect things...

Folks generally agreed that partaking in pictures from the fappening was morally wrong. How is this different though?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

It's hacking, dumping data, and sorting through the stolen documents for the most alluring/scandalous stuff within.

It's just easier for people to ignore that because producers and execs are generally bad people who have said lots of terrible things over the years. It's harder to think of assholes as "victims." But they are here.

>It's hacking, dumping data, and sorting through the stolen
>documents for the most alluring/scandalous stuff within.
>
>It's just easier for people to ignore that because producers
>and execs are generally bad people who have said lots of
>terrible things over the years. It's harder to think of
>assholes as "victims." But they are here.

>Folks generally agreed that partaking in pictures from the
>fappening was morally wrong. How is this different though?
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com

The Fappening came from personnel computers and phones, this comes from work accounts.

Sony has a right to look at those work emails, but not the general public.

>Sony has a right to look at those work emails, but not the
>general public.


You don't get privacy at work.

For giving birth to you.

But that has nothing to do with the general public reading those emails.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

stupid at work they should expect the general public to see it.

>stupid at work they should expect the general public to see
>it.

Not legally either.

Everything they do is the property of the corporation, not public domain. It's a stain on the company itself

It doesn't have to be legal.

>stupid at work they should expect the general public to see
>it.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

The idea that you have privacy at a company with the number of people that Sony has on the payroll, does not make sense. I would have no problem with this standard, since it's not hard to avoid sending e-mail with racist jokes.

..with anything?

the idea that the public has some kind of right to a company's internal correspondence, or that its employees should *expect* their private emails to be on display to the general public is beyond ridiculous.

Spread beyond the company.


>..with anything?
>
>the idea that the public has some kind of right to a company's
>internal correspondence, or that its employees should *expect*
>their private emails to be on display to the general public is
>beyond ridiculous.
>


I never said anything about company rights. What's beyond ridiculous is people who buy into the idea that racist email at work is private because only people at work can see it, It's almost like they are not reading this message board or social media.

>What's beyond
>ridiculous is people who buy into the idea that racist email
>at work is private because only people at work can see it

what?

,
>It's almost like they are not reading this message board or
>social media.

huh?

Don't think you have privacy at work.

Buddy's question in reply 29 ?

when you send an email at work you shouldn't expect privacy from your employer but you can absolutely reasonably expect your emails to not get be leaked to the general public. for some reason, you can't understand that simple point.

we're seeing these jokes as a result of a hack by a hostile foreign government. the idea that this is some kind of normal thing that should be expected when you make an offensive joke is asinine, dude.

Web sites exist that are dedicated to posting insider info from companies. Have you ever read this message board ? People pass time on here by talking about what is going on at the job. Social media like Facebook, Twitter, and IG are full of pics and comments from people at work.

Your email can be leaked by anyone at anytime. I worked for Fortune 500 company and I received email that was suppose to go to someone else with the same name. Where is this fantasy utopia where you can do anything at work and feel safe? This was not the first time Sony was hacked.

What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong for spreading my racist work emails ?

>when you send an email at work you shouldn't expect privacy
>from your employer but you can absolutely reasonably expect
>your emails to not get be leaked to the general public. for
>some reason, you can't understand that simple point.
>
>we're seeing these jokes as a result of a hack by a hostile
>foreign government. the idea that this is some kind of normal
>thing that should be expected when you make an offensive joke
>is asinine, dude.

>Web sites exist that are dedicated to posting insider info
>from companies.

most of which doesn't come from hacked emails. because there's a possibility doesn't mean it should be expected. yes, shit can, and does happen. doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of most people's work emails aren't released to the public.

Have you ever read this message board ?
>People pass time on here by talking about what is going on at
>the job. Social media like Facebook, Twitter, and IG are full
>of pics and comments from people at work.

correspondence between two people via their company email is nowhere near the same as posting on social media, or a message board. what are you even talking about?

>Your email can be leaked by anyone at anytime. I worked for
>Fortune 500 company and I received email that was suppose to
>go to someone else with the same name. Where is this fantasy
>utopia where you can do anything at work and feel safe? This
>was not the first time Sony was hacked

"can be" =/= you should expect it.
I can get murdered on the way to the laundromat today, or for being a dick to someone in traffic. shit like this happens every day. it's absolutely possible. it doesn't mean i should expect it.


>What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong for
>spreading my racist work emails ?

Lol so the hackers are heroes now? because they outed a couple of people's lame diet racist jokes, along with other people's social security numbers, payroll info, medical recrods, etc...?

>>Web sites exist that are dedicated to posting insider info
>>from companies.
>
>most of which doesn't come from hacked emails. because there's
>a possibility doesn't mean it should be expected. yes, shit
>can, and does happen. doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of
>most people's work emails aren't released to the public.


One time is all takes however it comes out.

> Have you ever read this message board ?
>>People pass time on here by talking about what is going on
>at
>>the job. Social media like Facebook, Twitter, and IG are
>full
>>of pics and comments from people at work.
>
>correspondence between two people via their company email is
>nowhere near the same as posting on social media, or a message
>board. what are you even talking about?
>

Anything on a computer at work is not safe.

>>Your email can be leaked by anyone at anytime. I worked for
>>Fortune 500 company and I received email that was suppose to
>>go to someone else with the same name. Where is this fantasy
>>utopia where you can do anything at work and feel safe? This
>>was not the first time Sony was hacked
>
>"can be" =/= you should expect it.
>I can get murdered on the way to the laundromat today, or for
>being a dick to someone in traffic. shit like this happens
>every day. it's absolutely possible. it doesn't mean i should
>expect it.
>

You should expect it if you are the VP of a corp that was already hacked.

>>What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
>for
>>spreading my racist work emails ?
>
>Lol so the hackers are heroes now? because they outed a couple
>of people's lame diet racist jokes, along with other people's
>social security numbers, payroll info, medical recrods,
>etc...?
>

Where did I say anything about heroes ? I tried to give you another chance to address the question in reply 29 so you wouldn't move the goalpost and respond to things I didn't say like " company rights" and now questions about "hacker heroes"

"if someone does something stupid at work, they should expect the public to see it"

to:

"One time is all takes however it comes out"

yes, this is true all the time for the .0001% of people this happens to. so yes. 100% of people should absolutely expect something to happen to them based on it happening to the .0001%

>Anything on a computer at work is not safe.

you compared work emails between two people to posting on social media, and message boards. you do understand there's a difference, right?

>You should expect it if you are the VP of a corp that was
>already hacked.

that's a far cry from saying anything dumb anyone does at work should be expected to become public knowledge.

>Where did I say anything about heroes ?

"What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
for spreading my racist work emails ?"

The hackers aren't wrong? The hackers are less wrong because they found some racism? Yes, the heroes comment was tongue and cheek, but really, what are you saying?
It's not like they hacked into Sony in search of exposing racist jokes of a couple of their employees. Even if they did, they'd still be much more in the wrong than a couple assholes telling bad jokes.

I tried to give you
>another chance to address the question in reply 29 so you
>wouldn't move the goalpost and respond to things I didn't say
>like " company rights" and now questions about "hacker
>heroes"

LOL. i came in here in response to your "if someone does something stupid at work, they should expect the public to see it" comment. That's where i chimed in. I'm not sure why you keep pointing to a post i never replied to like i'm avoiding it.

But, sure, i'll play. as far as Buddy G's post, while there are some differences, it's still wrong of us to look through all this shit. but human nature's a bitch. It's out there, and i'm gonna look at it. Same thing i did with the fappening.

>"if someone does something stupid at work, they should expect
>the public to see it"
>
>to:
>
>"One time is all takes however it comes out"
>
>yes, this is true all the time for the .0001% of people this
>happens to. so yes. 100% of people should absolutely expect
>something to happen to them based on it happening to the
>.0001%
>


How many times does it have to happen before you are cautious ? Btw Sony was hacked before, but you stay with the 99.9 that you can prove because these corps always report when they are hacked.

>>Anything on a computer at work is not safe.
>
>you compared work emails between two people to posting on
>social media, and message boards. you do understand there's a
>difference, right?
>

No I explained since the public can get info from people who work at the company and discuss what is going on by posting to message boards and social media, nobody should think they have privacy at work. Your talking like its one way and one reason for this stuff to come out.

>>You should expect it if you are the VP of a corp that was
>>already hacked.
>
>that's a far cry from saying anything dumb anyone does at work
>should be expected to become public knowledge.
>

These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general public working for them.

>>Where did I say anything about heroes ?
>
>"What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
>for spreading my racist work emails ?"
>
>The hackers aren't wrong? The hackers are less wrong because
>they found some racism? Yes, the heroes comment was tongue and
>cheek, but really, what are you saying?
>It's not like they hacked into Sony in search of exposing
>racist jokes of a couple of their employees. Even if they did,
>they'd still be much more in the wrong than a couple assholes
>telling bad jokes.

Less wrong ? I guess it's my turn to say huh and what. I never said anything about the hacker searching to expose employees. Are you having a conversation with somebody else ? Anyway going back to the question in 29 the difference between this and the fappening is the fact that these "personal correspondences" took place at work, and the nake pics were on personal phones and computers.

>I tried to give you
>>another chance to address the question in reply 29 so you
>>wouldn't move the goalpost and respond to things I didn't
>say
>>like " company rights" and now questions about "hacker
>>heroes"
>
>LOL. i came in here in response to your "if someone does
>something stupid at work, they should expect the public to see
>it" comment. That's where i chimed in. I'm not sure why you
>keep pointing to a post i never replied to like i'm avoiding
>it.


I was responding to that post so it's silly for you to address my comments without considering that. My argument was the difference that Buddy asked about.

>But, sure, i'll play. as far as Buddy G's post, while there
>are some differences, it's still wrong of us to look through
>all this shit. but human nature's a bitch. It's out there, and
>i'm gonna look at it. Same thing i did with the fappening.

Ok so you agree and disagree at the same time.

>>you compared work emails between two people to posting on
>>social media, and message boards. you do understand there's
>a
>>difference, right?
>>
>
>No I explained since the public can get info from people who
>work at the company and discuss what is going on by posting to
>message boards and social media, nobody should think they have
>privacy at work. Your talking like its one way and one reason
>for this stuff to come out.

Yeah, and I don't even know where to start in what a ridiculous stretch that is in response to emails between two parties being leaked, but ok...


>These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general
>public working for them.

LOL c'mon.

>Less wrong ? I guess it's my turn to say huh and what. I
>never said anything about the hacker searching to expose
>employees. Are you having a conversation with somebody else ?

Seriously. do you not read the shit you type? I even quoted it, before i replied. Here, I'll quote what you said again:

"What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
for spreading my racist work emails ?"

What does this mean? Really, what are you asking/implying?


>>LOL. i came in here in response to your "if someone does
>>something stupid at work, they should expect the public to
>see
>>it" comment. That's where i chimed in. I'm not sure why you
>>keep pointing to a post i never replied to like i'm avoiding
>>it.
>
>
>I was responding to that post so it's silly for you to address
>my comments without considering that. My argument was the
>difference that Buddy asked about.

I know where the thread started. Just because you replied underneath it with a general statement, doesn't mean it doesn't look like you're making a general statement. If you're being specific to that situation, it's a pretty simple to say "if the Sony VP was hacked before, hey should expect this to happen" instead of something as all-inclusive as "if someone does something stupid at work, they should expect the public to see it" or "you don't have privacy at work" over and over.


>>i'm gonna look at it. Same thing i did with the fappening.
>
>Ok so you agree and disagree at the same time.

No, i don't "agree" with it. I acknowledge it's wrong, and that i'm partaking in it while still acknowledging it's wrong. I'm perfectly fine with admitting to being part of the problem.

And admit you wanted to make a goofy comment about "company rights"

>>>you compared work emails between two people to posting on
>>>social media, and message boards. you do understand there's
>>a
>>>difference, right?
>>>
>>
>>No I explained since the public can get info from people who
>>work at the company and discuss what is going on by posting
>to
>>message boards and social media, nobody should think they
>have
>>privacy at work. Your talking like its one way and one
>reason
>>for this stuff to come out.
>
>Yeah, and I don't even know where to start in what a
>ridiculous stretch that is in response to emails between two
>parties being leaked, but ok...

Go ahead and make something up that's what you've been doing so far. If you get called on it just pretend like you didn't say anything.

>
>>These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general
>>public working for them.
>
>LOL c'mon.

Nice dodge.

>>Less wrong ? I guess it's my turn to say huh and what. I
>>never said anything about the hacker searching to expose
>>employees. Are you having a conversation with somebody else
>?
>
>Seriously. do you not read the shit you type? I even quoted
>it, before i replied. Here, I'll quote what you said again:

You also said the hacker hero comment was tongue in cheek and then went on and on about the hackers.

>"What kind of moral argument says oh the hackers are wrong
>for spreading my racist work emails ?"
>
>What does this mean? Really, what are you asking/implying?
>

Once again the argument for the fappening is the hackers are wrong because the stole naked pictures and spread them around to the public. Buddy ask what was the difference between that and the Sony hack. I already explained the difference. What you said is the hackers in the Sony scandal are less wrong because they are heros searching for racist email, and tried to pretend like that's what I was implying. I am saying the moral argument for the fappening doesn't work for the Sony scandal because the VP was in wrong anyway.

>>>LOL. i came in here in response to your "if someone does
>>>something stupid at work, they should expect the public to
>>see
>>>it" comment. That's where i chimed in. I'm not sure why you
>>>keep pointing to a post i never replied to like i'm
>avoiding
>>>it.
>>
>>
>>I was responding to that post so it's silly for you to
>address
>>my comments without considering that. My argument was the
>>difference that Buddy asked about.
>
>I know where the thread started. Just because you replied
>underneath it with a general statement, doesn't mean it
>doesn't look like you're making a general statement. If you're
>being specific to that situation, it's a pretty simple to say
>"if the Sony VP was hacked before, hey should expect this to
>happen" instead of something as all-inclusive as "if someone
>does something stupid at work, they should expect the public
>to see it" or "you don't have privacy at work" over and over.
>

If you know where the thread started you know that it was 36 when I replied and you would use that instead skipping over it to take something out of context and start typing about " company rights" and "hackers searching" go read 36.

>
>>>i'm gonna look at it. Same thing i did with the fappening.
>>
>>Ok so you agree and disagree at the same time.
>
>No, i don't "agree" with it. I acknowledge it's wrong, and
>that i'm partaking in it while still acknowledging it's wrong.
>I'm perfectly fine with admitting to being part of the
>problem.
>

Ok so you admit you are a hypocrite.

and i never typed it once before now. it's hilarious.

>>Yeah, and I don't even know where to start in what a
>>ridiculous stretch that is in response to emails between two
>>parties being leaked, but ok...
>
>Go ahead and make something up that's what you've been doing
>so far. If you get called on it just pretend like you didn't
>say anything.

So.. people post on message boards and social media about shit that goes on at work, means people don't get privacy at work, but you're saying that has nothing to do with the fact that this was an email between two parties, but more to do with that you generally shouldn't expect privacy at work, and people should expect their shit to go public... which is a general statement, but out of context, because you're only talking about this specific situation.... but really, don't reply to this part. i stopped caring ten words ago..

>>>These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general
>>>public working for them.
>>
>>LOL c'mon.
>
>Nice dodge.

Dodging what, exactly? That the general public works for companies? That Sony employees are part of the general public too? What does that even mean, or have to do with anything? I don't even want to try and decipher what that means, since, you'll whine that i'm putting words in your mouth or some shit. You know what people mean when they're talking about the general public.

>Once again the argument for the fappening is the hackers are
>wrong because the stole naked pictures and spread them around
>to the public. Buddy ask what was the difference between that
>and the Sony hack. I already explained the difference. What
>you said is the hackers in the Sony scandal are less wrong
>because they are heros searching for racist email, and tried
>to pretend like that's what I was implying. I am saying the
>moral argument for the fappening doesn't work for the Sony
>scandal because the VP was in wrong anyway.

Ok, now this is a fair distinction. I think there's still a moral argument to be made, because it's still wrong to hack into their shit. If J-Law had some blackface pictures or Nazi gear, she would still be just as much of a victim. People would just feel less sorry for her.

>If you know where the thread started you know that it was 36
>when I replied and you would use that instead skipping over it
>to take something out of context and start typing about "
>company rights" and "hackers searching" go read 36.
so you agree and disagree at the same time.

make that the 4th time.

>>No, i don't "agree" with it. I acknowledge it's wrong, and
>>that i'm partaking in it while still acknowledging it's
>wrong.
>>I'm perfectly fine with admitting to being part of the
>>problem.
>>
>
>Ok so you admit you are a hypocrite.

Most of us are

>and i never typed it once before now. it's hilarious.

you said that was true since you admitted to being a hypocrite.

>
>>>Yeah, and I don't even know where to start in what a
>>>ridiculous stretch that is in response to emails between
>two
>>>parties being leaked, but ok...
>>
>>Go ahead and make something up that's what you've been doing
>>so far. If you get called on it just pretend like you didn't
>>say anything.
>
>So.. people post on message boards and social media about shit
>that goes on at work, means people don't get privacy at work,
>but you're saying that has nothing to do with the fact that
>this was an email between two parties, but more to do with
>that you generally shouldn't expect privacy at work, and
>people should expect their shit to go public... which is a
>general statement, but out of context, because you're only
>talking about this specific situation.... but really, don't
>reply to this part. i stopped caring ten words ago..
>

No,no people outside of the company do not exist and they are not connected to anyone. VP's of corps have nothing to worry about when writing racist email because Corps are never hacked. The chances of a corp getting hacked is equal to getting hit by a bus. When I used myself in examples and I typed about people on message boards and social media that was only a specific situation. I can tell how much you stopped caring by the the paragraph you typed to prove it.

>>>>These companies do not exist in a vacuum, it's the general
>>>>public working for them.
>>>
>>>LOL c'mon.
>>
>>Nice dodge.
>
>Dodging what, exactly? That the general public works for
>companies? That Sony employees are part of the general public
>too? What does that even mean, or have to do with anything? I
>don't even want to try and decipher what that means, since,
>you'll whine that i'm putting words in your mouth or some
>shit. You know what people mean when they're talking about the
>general public.
>

It means you are right, companies are full of people who are imported from another planet, they don't live in communities or neighborhoods and they have nothing to do with leaking anything because the only way racist email can get out is if North Koreans hackers do it. Yes I know the general public only means people who are not part of or connected to any company in any way.

>>Once again the argument for the fappening is the hackers are
>>wrong because the stole naked pictures and spread them
>around
>>to the public. Buddy ask what was the difference between
>that
>>and the Sony hack. I already explained the difference. What
>>you said is the hackers in the Sony scandal are less wrong
>>because they are heros searching for racist email, and tried
>>to pretend like that's what I was implying. I am saying the
>>moral argument for the fappening doesn't work for the Sony
>>scandal because the VP was in wrong anyway.
>
>Ok, now this is a fair distinction. I think there's still a
>moral argument to be made, because it's still wrong to hack
>into their shit. If J-Law had some blackface pictures or Nazi
>gear, she would still be just as much of a victim. People
>would just feel less sorry for her.

Wow it's fair that's good to hear although I guess the focus can finally shift to what I was talking about the whole time and explained three times. I know it's hard to believe but hacking is going to happen. Even if it slips past your work hack radar that counts the number of times a company is hacked. This is a crazy idea for the VP and people who don't fit the specific situation, don't have black face pictures and Nazi gear, then you will not be a victim. I know it's stretch for people to go to work and work but it's not impossible.


>>If you know where the thread started you know that it was 36
>>when I replied and you would use that instead skipping over
>it
>>to take something out of context and start typing about "
>>company rights" and "hackers searching" go read 36.
>so you agree and disagree at the same time.
>
>make that the 4th time.
>
>>>No, i don't "agree" with it. I acknowledge it's wrong, and
>>>that i'm partaking in it while still acknowledging it's
>>wrong.
>>>I'm perfectly fine with admitting to being part of the
>>>problem.
>>>
>>
>>Ok so you admit you are a hypocrite.
>
>Most of us are

Ok you speak for most. That's good to know.

most of your reply is gibberish, so i'll just jump to this part

>This is a crazy idea for the VP and people who don't
>fit the specific situation, don't have black face pictures and
>Nazi gear, then you will not be a victim. I know it's stretch
>for people to go to work and work but it's not impossible.

They shouldn't, but being an asshole, or a racist, or both doesn't make it any less wrong for people to hack into their shit. something like that should absolutely be subject to punishment by their employer, but that's on them. it really ain't none of our business. do i feel sorry for these people? not really. fuck 'em. but it doesn't make hackers airing out their shit any less despicable imo.

>most of your reply is gibberish, so i'll just jump to this
>part

Dodge
What no more tongue in cheek ?

>>This is a crazy idea for the VP and people who don't
>>fit the specific situation, don't have black face pictures
>and
>>Nazi gear, then you will not be a victim. I know it's
>stretch
>>for people to go to work and work but it's not impossible.
>
>They shouldn't, but being an asshole, or a racist, or both
>doesn't make it any less wrong for people to hack into their
>shit. something like that should absolutely be subject to
>punishment by their employer, but that's on them. it really
>ain't none of our business. do i feel sorry for these people?
>not really. fuck 'em. but it doesn't make hackers airing out
>their shit any less despicable imo.
>

You are complaining about the problem and part of it at the same time.
Give hackers ammunition and you get what you deserve.

holy shit

Holy shit is and you don't know what Dude means.

cheers

Cheers ? Dude ? and Holy shit ?

#2- that email transcript belongs to the company. anything youd rather not have a higher up or HR read back to u, or your bad joke fwded along to others and wind up who knows where, shouldnt be in a company email


#3- anything youd rather not see subpoenaed and read back at a trial, shouldnt be in company email



stolen sexts to your SO aint even the same league




>Folks generally agreed that partaking in pictures from the
>fappening was morally wrong. How is this different though?
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

>#2- that email transcript belongs to the company. anything
>youd rather not have a higher up or HR read back to u, or your
>bad joke fwded along to others and wind up who knows where,
>shouldnt be in a company email



We all agree its the company email and their employer is entitled to see these email. Also this is not a case where a person forwarded and email to the wrong person so none of this explains why it's okay for the public to read.

>
>
>#3- anything youd rather not see subpoenaed and read back at a
>trial, shouldnt be in company email
>

Even your personal emails can be subpoenaed so I don't see why anything subpoenaeable is the standard.

>
>
>stolen sexts to your SO aint even the same league


You are basically just saying it's different because it's different.

That's not much of an explanation.



Also let's not forget why this stuff was leaked. Because a hostile foreign government wanted to intimidate or punish a studio for making a movie that they did not like. Seems like they were effective.

Also let's not forget they also released social security, payroll, medical information. Can we agree all that stuff isn't fair game?

If the rule is hacking private documents is wrong then it's wrong in this instance as well.




>
>
>
>>Folks generally agreed that partaking in pictures from the
>>fappening was morally wrong. How is this different though?
>>
>>
>>**********
>>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>>
>>http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of sexting

Knowing your workplace email will be read by your employer is not nearly the same thing as expecting your workplace email to be hacked and read by the general public.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

There's the distinction of intent which I can more than accept. Snowden was acting on his own moral drive to do what he felt was right. As far as we know this was a hack that had no moral basis. They didn't know the contents of what they were going for and weren't releasing them to the public because of some moral obligation.

However, when we're talking about a company which I assume on paper has rules against using company time and tools to perpetuate to distribute racially charged material, were these emails to have been found by HR departments they should have been grounds for dismissal. If there has ever been one complaint about discriminatory practices from the higher ups, these would be valued evidence to support such a claim.

We all know how corporate institutions work however and it's likely that even if there was a case such an indepth investigation would likely never happen. And so while there's no moral ground for the action it still warrants proper review and action internally, and its perhaps only from something like this going public that such action could be taken.

Now flip that back on hackers, there's a off chance that whoever did this did in fact have some moral grounds for their actions (we'll probably never know). They may have a political position which is against the insular nature of corporations. And for them a means of exposing what they see as the problem though not knowing the specifics is to hang all of the laundry out to dry publicly. Do they have the same moral grounds to stand on as Snowden? That's debatable, but I think too often we're able to dismiss the motivations of some hackers (in the way Snowden is often grouped under the umbrella despite not being a hacker for the negative connotations associated with the word) while not taking into account that some of them are indeed acting from a position f political espionage in a very complex socio-political terrain.

Now hacking individual personal emails, IMO there's little moral ground for that for me. But anytime I see a corporate hack I have to put it into an ongoing war being waged against corporate America. Even the ones that affect us like banking institutions. Publicly we must begin recognizing this war for what it is and decide where our interests lie.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

In retaliation for that new movie making fun of them.

Whistlblowing is a good justification. I don't think this was the case.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

sell spider man back to marvel studios

https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/2014/12/a-breakdown-and-analysis-of-the-december-2014-sony-hack/

This leak of documents is exhaustive.
The documents consist of everything from syndication deals of Seinfeld re-runs that makes $5.85 million over three years to Dr. Oz season 5 strategies.
The depth and breadth of this leak is substantial and pretty much puts all their business on front street.

(Sony owns the copyright to the first film)

He wanted Drake and Kevin Hart to star.

The film sounds terrible.

No other emails followed.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/12/spike-lee-wanted-kevin-hart-and-drake-for-school-daze-sequel

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/12/shocking-new-reveals-from-sony-hack-j-law-pitt-clooney-and-comparing-fincher-to-hitler.html?via=twitter_page

http://defamer.gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885

http://defamer.gawker.com/channing-tatum-writes-emails-exactly-like-you-think-he-1670777558/+jordansargent

I was expecting a big blank gap and then another block of HAHAHAHAHAHA lol

.

Dudes love those movies

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

http://htl.li/2S4KBy

http://fusion.net/story/34344/sony-pictures-hackers-make-their-biggest-threat-yet-remember-the-11th-of-september-2001/

SONY PICTURES HACKERS MAKE THEIR BIGGEST THREAT YET: “REMEMBER THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER 2001″
BY KEVIN ROOSE

Over the past several weeks, a hacker group calling itself “GOP” or “Guardians of Peace” has been leaking devastating amounts of data about Hollywood mega-studio Sony Pictures onto the Internet, along with vague, threatening messages about further leaks to come.

On Tuesday, the group (or someone purporting to be the group) made its gravest threat yet, singling out Sony Pictures’ controversial North Korea comedy “The Interview” by name for the first time, and promising a “bitter fate” to “those who seek fun in terror.”

The new e-mail from GOP reads:

Warning

We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places “The Interview” be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to.

Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made.

The world will be full of fear.

Remember the 11th of September 2001.

We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time.
(If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)

Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

All the world will denounce the SONY.

The note, posted on Pastebin, was accompanied by links to torrent files, similar to the batches sent out on several prior occasions. The new files are labeled “Christmas gift: Michael Lynton.” (Lynton is Sony Pictures’ CEO.)
As of now, “The Interview” is set to be released on December 25th. A call to Sony Pictures was not answered.