So you're going with "no evidence" to support your conclusions over "some evidence". Yep, that's some sound reasoning there. Look, I have my doubts about the Norks' ability to pull this off on their own, but then again, that is a part of the world where governments (not beholden to Wall Street and priorities that rarely stretch beyond the current fiscal year) are willing to play long-ball. They may well have been auditioning players and laying plans for a long time, or they may have outsourced the work. In any case, we have some evidence implicating the Norks in an action that is entirely in keeping with their global "character". Guilty until proven otherwise.

This. Perimeter defenses are necessary, of course, but they don't do a damn thing when some exec gets his machine owned by clicking that spear phishing link. So you'd better have something that alerts you when that happens.

Any connection? Really? Granted, not allowing outbound connections to the Internet is a pretty good way to tighten up security, but it also an unrealistic approach in many cases. To suggest that nobody on Sony's Internal network had any reason to connect to the Internet is absurd. Again, it seems clear that they were doing a poor job of securing things, but suggesting a "no Internet" policy is just too simplistic to be considered seriously here.

That might be said in this case, but GP is not to blame for the fact that there was no policy spelling on the proper way to do things. If such a policy had been in place, users would not have been able to "solve problems" by creating file shares on their own PC's. His predecessors neglected their responsibility and allowed a mess to be made. GP came in, found the mess, cleaned it up, and provided a useful alternative to the insane "solution" the users were allowed to create.

Hence the desire to honor true skepticism. Science deniers are nothing of the sort. No, they are not.

You are deliberately missing the point or you didn't even read TFS. Then again, this is /., so both are possibilities. Here, let me spell it out for you, again. Apple didn't commit the labor offenses, but they did promise to not do business with companies who do commit those offenses. Now it is clear that they are breaking those promises because it's still profitable to do so, because for Apple fan-boys, cool requires sacrifice. And conscience is an easy thing to offer up.

...to bloated and ineffective government bureaucracies, the private sector. Everyone knows that the private sector is more efficient than any government operation, right? And corruption surrounding fat government contracts granted to political cronies is hardly ever a problem, right?

[citation needed]

So, in your mind, that single stupid act equates to "...has been, for quite some time now, nothing but a group lobbying for its self-interest..."
OK, then. Riiiiiiight.

Really? What interest is that? Please be specific. You really need to stop parroting Fox news talking points and thinking for yourself. While this stunt is nothing, if not stupid, Greenpeace's stated mission can hardly be described as "self interest".

And with good fucking reason.

Best, most insightful comment in the whole 600+ pile. Well done sir/ma'm

You mean like the private insurance industry has already been doing for years? My insurance carrier is dictating my care to my physician now. I want the power to decide what's best for me place back into her hands. That will never, ever, happen as long as the private insurance industry remains in the position it's in.

Privacy and and security seem to be an afterthought, at best, in these plans and associated documents. Given the fact that attacks on health care data are already growing at an alarming rate (as predicted by many analysts) and that the health care industry is 10-20 years behind financial services when it comes to security and fraud prevention, this plan seems premature. At the very least, it's stated goals need to place privacy and security at the forefront, for until that gap is closed, any effort to expand the footprint of such sensitive information is, to say the least, misguided.

Yes, but that does not prevent assholes from bringing worthless lawsuits. It might discourage even marginally circumspect lawyers from doing so, but the burden to challenge the merit of an action, once initiated, rests with the respondent.