In 2014, Sony Pictures Entertainment faced a cyber attack from North Korea prior to the release of The Interview, a film that discusses the personality of North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un. In addition to the cyberattack that caused millions of losses for the company, Sony also faced a threat from the terrorists that several theaters that will show the film will be attacked. Sony’s response to the threats included canceling the film’s release and switching to video-on-demand outlets. Some suggested that canceling the film’s release creates a dangerous precedent of a large company submitting to terrorist orders. However, while the company’s solution partially allowed them to disobey the terrorists’ order, it also displayed how terrorists’ plans can be prevented through technological development.
In my opinion, Sony’s response was appropriate for the situation, as it could be acknowledged as the use of the opponent’s weapon against him. Therefore, while the terrorists used cyberattacks to steal the company’s information and destroy their equipment, Sony switched the release to on-demand platforms and streaming services, allowing a speedy and widespread release of the film. As on-demand videos are easier to pirate, the film’s pirate copies quickly spread across the internet, making film easier to access and more discussed across different countries and segments of the population. In addition, the film’s plot turned out to be more appealing to comedy than satire, influencing the public’s opinion about the earlier threats from North Korea. In my opinion, Sony’s response to the attack was appropriate for the situation and politicly addressed several concerns.
Furthermore, while the case is complicated by presenting a real terrorist threat to the population, there are certain things that Sony and the U.S. government could have done differently to discourage future such attacks on other U.S. organizations. Firstly, Sony never publicly acknowledged that The Interview is a satire that has no connection with reality and does not threaten North Korea’s political regime. Instead, it seemed that the company used unexpected publicity to market a relatively insignificant comedy film. Therefore, by initially canceling the film’s release date, the company set a negative precedent of a major company submitting to terrorist demands.
Next, considering the government’s role in Sony’s case, the issue should have raised attention to the cyber security problem in both governmental structures and large business corporations. Instead of acknowledging that the issue was Sony’s problem, analyzing the breach and constructing new cyber security policies for the governmental organizations could have helped prevent other attacks in the future. For example, it could have prevented the 2016 controversy with foreign interference in the presidential election (Stengel). Therefore, by focusing on Sony’s financial losses instead of similar potential threats in the future, the U.S. government exposed the cyber security issues that contributed to future cyberattacks.
In conclusion, the case of Sony’s response to the cyberattack demonstrates the importance of prompt identification of the issue and its consequences. The case also displays how a creative approach to a problem that simultaneously addresses several concerns is not always the right choice. Furthermore, preventing both real-world terrorist violence and cyberattacks requires a collective effort of the U.S. government and business organizations. The possible measures include regulation of governmental and private organizations’ cyber security to achieve higher data protection standards. Through collective efforts and sufficient budgeting, organizations can develop more advanced cyber security and supervision systems and implement them in a short period of time, preventing future real-world terrorist violence and cyberattacks.