I'm having this strange feeling of déjàvu....
"NK which wants to be included in the investigation"
It is incredible that people are actually falling for this. North Korea said "let us in on the investigation or we will attack you". Who is going to say yes to this, even if one were so naive as to think the request were truthful (which it most certainly is not). It amazingly achieved its goal, however.
I mean, Obama has straight up said that he plans to attack NK. At least to me that seems a very reasonable interpretation of the fuzzy political language of: "we'll have a response at a time, place and method of our choosing".
I don't dispute that NK comes off loopy. Or that a joint investigation seems unlikely. That doesn't automatically follow that the FBI report is faultless though.
He said absolutely no such thing, and it is rather incredible if people think this. The US has warned that they will respond, which will end up being a complaint in the UN.
Just to be clear, North Korea regularly warns the US of nuclear annihilation, imminent attacks, and so on...and people think the thing that will put the US over the top is a minor Sony hack?
I didn't mean to imply that there'd be a body count attached to the "response" BTW. That's (hopefully) far-fetched. But an attack in the same way that hacking some computers and releasing some embarrassing information is an "attack"? Absolutely.
Isn't that the entire point of the quote? (And yes, I reproduced Obama's words pretty faithfully I believe. They were playing on repeat on the radio.)
I mean, if you don't think "response" means "attack" in a gimmicky "cyber-warfare" way, what does it mean? A strongly worded letter?
If I run over my neighbor's cat, and he says to me: "I'll respond all right. At a time, place and method of my choosing." Any rational person would have to interpret that as an explicit threat of an impending attack.
Just because politically it may be weaseled out of does not mean it's in any way ambiguous in delivery or intended reception to Joe the Plumber.
If anything this is a reason for the US to increase spending by the NSA and make a nation wide firewall. takes off tinfoil hat
It's going to suck if the internet becomes a state sponsored battleground. gods know we fight enough on the grounds of personal preference and loose affiliation.
NK hacks Sony. US uses technique x to attribute the attack to NK. In the course of a shared investigation NK learns what technique x is. NK changes their future operations to counter technique x. The US loses the ability to use technique x to attribute attacks.
I wish I knew too, and Im not trying to convince you to blindly trust them (because I don't either), but you have to at least acknowledge the fact that they may very well have "something to lose".
My wife was in the Navy for six years and had a relatively high security clearance for an enlisted member. More than once she knew far more about a situation than was being reported on the news.
Let's assume that the Fed is telling the truth and that they do in fact have hard evidence. As they have not presented this evidence, we have to conclude that it is classified. So, they cannot present the raw intel, but they also cannot step back and do nothing as this is a hot, national issue which is now about more than a security breach at a movie company.
So, they come forward with the accusation and assure the public that a "proportional and appropriate" response will be dealt.
Of course, this scenario paints the best possible picture of the Fed. It may or may not be the case. However, short of evidence which in no way compromises a classified source, it would be their only option.
I just don't see the motive behind framing NK for this. Given, I/we don't typically have a clue about what actually goes on at this level of international relations, but there is no obvious motive at present time.
And to be clear, I don't think they've sunk so low that "the FBI is framing NK" is anything but a garden variety conspiracy theory at this point, but "the FBI is rushing a very complex analysis under heavy political pressure" is plausible to me, as is "the FBI has strong evidence that they are not willing to show us".
Ultimately, assuming they do have classified evidence, there's also a cost-benefit consideration to be made - it doesn't have to be a given that they can't release it. I don't think this describes the present situation, but depending on the scale of the response a situation calls for, compromising one or two classified methods or sources in order to get public support for the appropriate action may be the lesser of two evils.