https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments...
Given the first Geneva article placing private targets within international convention if they are of military interest (including media and broadcast services), and SONY's cooperation with the State Department in producing "The Interview", might SONY then qualify under international law?
Per your own link, broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance.
> What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence.
100% agree. It is very different and establishing boundaries here is an important keystone to US cyberwarfare norm efforts. Unlike other posters I would separate sabotage from 'corporate doxxing' - Stuxnet then is very different.
> broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance
Which depends on the perspective - as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" and the US is well known for international propaganda, I could well understand if another nation state considered the private company partners to be an extension of fundamental military importance (and certainly the US considers it a keystone of international efforts and calls it "Psychological Warfare").
This ended so well last time we did it.