Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law

Posted by samzenpus on from the waking-up-in-crazy-town dept.

Ron2K writes in with a story about a Red Cross committee that is debating if people playing war video games should be subject to the same humanitarian laws as people in a real war. Seriously. "With 62 billion kills in Call of Duty: Black Ops alone, a committee of the Red Cross is debating whether the International Humanitarian Law is applicable to online gamers, and if they are violating it. From the committee's site: 'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law. Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of this law in video games.' While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention, the Red Cross committee's actions seem to be aimed more at game developers — as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"

15 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Two thoughts by 0123456789 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda. Secondly, if the Red Cross actually are debating this, perhaps it's in an effort to revise International Humanitarian Law to keep up with the times, inasmuch as International Humanitarian Law actually exists.

    1. Re:Two thoughts by retroworks · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm in the USA, and I know to dismiss Daily Mail headlines thanks to years on Slashdot. It would be nice if the Slashdot submitter or moderator could work some kind of a disclaimer into these summaries or headlines. The Onion has funny stories, too. If /. promotes Onion and Mail headlines without warning that they are suspicious, it could harm /. reputation in the long run. With that said, I do know the pressures of "slow news day". Maybe Daily Mail should just be like The Onion and nothing no disclaimer is necessary.

      --
      Gently reply
  3. Re:Retarded. by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

    It looks like it was a "side event" at a conference. See here.

    I can't find any extra information on the ICRC website, can anyone else? Otherwise, it's most likely that the Daily Mail fabricated the rest of the story. Most of the article is speculation, except for a copy+paste from the website I linked to.

  4. WARNING - DAILY MAIL by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please realise that this story is published in a far-right newspaper originally started to publish the antisemitic views of Oswald Moseley. The Daily Mail is anti-government, anti-Europe, against socialised healthcare or indeed any form of social responsibility, and run by people known to be members of right-wing extremist groups.

    If you're not white, English and a good tax-paying servant^Wcitizen, the Daily Mail hate you and want you jailed, deported, or dead.

  5. Re:Retarded. by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow. Every time I think Peta can't go any further off the deep end, they top themselves. Anyone remember when they tried to get people to call fish "sea kittens", so that we wouldn't eat them?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  6. Clickbait by bjourne · · Score: 5, Informative

    The whole fucking article is clickbait. Read this one instead. They are basically debating what influence depicting armed conflicts witout adherence to international law can have on what people think about warfare. It's only the retarded journalists trying to make an upsetting story of something that absolutely isn't one just to drive traffic to their sorry excuses for news sites.

    --
    Football Odds
    1. Re:Clickbait by N1AK · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's only the retarded journalists trying to make an upsetting story of something that absolutely isn't one just to drive traffic to their sorry excuses for news sites.

      Sadly you could level nearly the exact same comment at Slashdot for including this bollocks. Seriously, why the fuck can't Slashdot try and provide news rather than helping flamebait and misinform. The number of people who are likely to see this, think that the Red Cross has gone batshit crazy and never realise that Slashdot is, by fronting for the article, bullshitting them.

  7. Re:Retarded. by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its by the Daily Mail, a newspaper which we in the UK call the Daily Wail, and they are known for their extreme "angles" on anything. Their "reporting" and slants can even make Mother Teresa appear as a devil.

    --
    Have a nice day!
  8. Re:International law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bush: "So how can we get away with imprisoning our own citizens in Cuba and torturing them?"
    Aide: "Well, the Red Cross once said something stupid, so this gives precedent to ignore international law"
    Bush: "Awesome"

  9. Re:Retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its by the Daily Mail, a newspaper which we in the UK call the Daily Fail,

    FTFY. I've never heard it called the Wail.

  10. Re:Retarded. by queBurro · · Score: 3, Informative

    not really, the guardian reported about things like the recent phone tapping scandal, trafigura and wiki-leaks whereas the DM supported Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail)

    --
    sag
  11. Re:Retarded. by kbg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Enoy Sea Kittens

  12. Re:Retarded. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Informative

    So you don't have to wade through the bullshit in the article or the outraged incredulity of the comments:

    Gamers worried their actions on the virtual battlefield could land them at the Hague war crimes tribunal can relax.

    The International Committee of the Red Cross says media reports that it is investigating whether the Geneva Conventions apply to video games are false.

    The Swiss-based humanitarian group assured gamers Thursday that “serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations.”

    The ICRC says it is nevertheless interested in working with video game makers to promote a better understanding of international humanitarian law because some companies also develop war simulations for armed forces.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/game-on-red-cross-says-players-of-combat-simulations-wont-face-war-crimes-prosecution/2011/12/08/gIQAivwAfO_story.html

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  13. Re:Retarded. by dtmancom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow, I want to party with you.