Do Nations Have the Right To Kill Enemy Hackers?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Cyber-attacks are much in the news lately, thanks to some well-publicized hacks and rising concerns over malware. Many of these attacks are likely backed in some way by governments anxious to seize intellectual property, or simply probe other nations' IT infrastructure. But do nations actually have a right to fire off a bomb or a clip of ammunition at cyber-attackers, especially if a rival government is backing the latter as part of a larger hostile action? Should a military hacker, bored and exhausted from twelve-hour days of building malware, be regarded in the same way as a soldier with a rifle? Back in 2009, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (which also exists under the lengthy acronym NATO CCD COE) commissioned a panel of experts to produce a report on the legal underpinnings of cyber-warfare. NATO CCD COE isn't funded by NATO, and nor is it a part of that organization's command-and-control structure—but those experts did issue a nonbinding report (known as "The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare") exploring the ramifications of cyber-attacks, and what targeted nations can do in response. It's an interesting read, and the experts do suggest that, under circumstances, a nation under cyber-attack can respond to the cyber-attackers with "kinetic force," so long as that force is proportional. Do you agree?"

Comments

Yes.

[egcagrac0]

A nation should be able to retaliate against attack.

It would be morally wrong to not try a hacking counterattack first, however.

Re:Yes.

[Barlo_Mung_42]

No. There isn't enough transparency to be sure we are killing the right person in such a case. We bomb to many innocent people as it is.

Re:Yes.

[khasim]

The problem is locating the attacker.

Rather than the cracked computer that Grandma hasn't updated since she bought it 8 years ago.

Any cracker should be going through at least 2 levels of zombies he controls that are configured to dump all the logs to /dev/null.

Drone strike on the senior center.

Re:Yes.

[hedwards]

It makes a huge difference whether somebody is armed or using a computer. So, what's next, we bomb Chinese factories because their goods harm Americans? Because that's about as rational as what you're suggesting.

Taking human life needs to be done thoughtfully, doing it because you can is something that states are supposed to aspire not to do. And really, they shouldn't be taking life over this sort of thing.

Re:Yes.

[ZombieBraintrust]

Cyber attacks falls under espionage. Nations have been killing spies for thousands of years. There is always a risk when killings spys of killing a civilion. They generally don't use bombs to do it though.

Re:Yes.

[gl4ss]

they don't have the right to just kill random dudes around the world without a trial. where the fuck did you get that idea? obama? bush?

maybe, maybe if they first define that they're in a war with the said enemy country and then start bombing them or invade them and kill the said hacker in battle(just shooting them in cold blood and not taking them as POW would still not be right).

even then it's debatable if they have the right for it. doesn't mean that some countries wouldn't do shit like that without declaring war though. it just doesn't make it right.

where the fuck did you guys learn your ethics for war? from fucking terrorists? what's next, saying it's ok to use mustard gas on suspected hooligans since shop keepers have a right to defend their porch? gunning down someone who stole your wifi is ok?

Re:Yes.

[dnorman]

the difference is that a spy is traditionally on enemy soil, so are likely considered more fair game. a hacker is likely operating from a basement bunker in virginia etc...

Re:Yes.

[Belial6]

A draft is not going to push the burden of war on to the wealthy. Just like when there was a draft before, the wealthy will just fit in the "exceptions" category. Whether that is because they can afford college, or they can have one of their cronies arrange for their kid to get a states side posting.

Re:Yes.

[StormyWeather]

You are morally opposed to bombing, that's cool, I can respect that seriously.

However if we bomb a janitor trying to feed his family and taking the only job he can find at a bullet manufacturing plant and kill him, then what makes him so diametrically more involved in war than someone writing software to guide missiles, or someone who writes software to melt down an enemy nuclear rector or worse.

Rules of war are a zany thing, especially since one side (the underdogs) usually ignores them completely and figures they probably won't be alive to see the aftermath of that decision, or they will be a totalitarian regime, and won't have to face the music.

Re:Yes.

[StormyWeather]

How much water is behind the hoover dam which software controls? How much mass is in a tomahawk missile that runs on software? How much mass; is in a bunker buster, that is guided by GPS which is also run on military software?

Without software no modern military would be able to mount a campaign.

I know man, I don't want to get killed either, but just saying the guy that holds a joystick flying a drone bombing people isn't really that much better than someone shooting bullets other than he has air conditioning and a chair.

Re:Yes.

[Dogtanian]

Are you suggesting this as a serious possibility, or trying to illustrate (via ludicrousness) how unworkable such tactics would be unless we convert the Internet into something *totally* different to what it is today?

If the former, I'd like to point out that such tactics would be unworkable unless we converted the Internet into something totally different to what it is today. :-)

In all seriousness, there's no way that you'll *ever* be able to isolate any country on the Internet today from any other country- no matter how hard you try. Unless you totally isolate that country from *every* other one, and seal all holes, it'll still be possible to get through by indirect means.

"Secure Club"? Works well, provided there are absolutely *no* holes whatsoever in the outside of this massive infrastructure, and everyone is happy to go along with your plans exactly as you want them. Which is to say, it's not going to work in reality.

In fact, it's clear that even if the US decided it wanted to cut itself off entirely from *every* other country- while retaining approximately the same level of infrastructure within the US- it would be ludicrously difficult and unlikely to work.

Re:Yes.

[TFAFalcon]

Just start assassinating enemy leaders as the basic response to attacks and there will be a lot more peace in the world. Imagine if every time N Korea created an incident, their leader got shot/bombed. Or if the UK killed off the leadership of Argentina when the Falklands were invaded.

Proportional response is a good thing. But why direct it at cannon fodder and not at the people in charge? If you come under attack by state sponsored hackers, then kill off their heads of state. You'll get a much more satisfactory result with fewer casualties.

Re:Yes.

[wiredlogic]

That's not a fair accusation because you are examining those actions through the lens of modern warfare where precision munitions are a reliable and effective tool. That capability didn't exist back then and they applied the technology they had as best they could.

Irrelevant

[Hatta]

The biggest threats to our freedom, safety, and economic well being come from our own governments, not foreign ones. When we start using proportional force against internal threats, we can start talking about what proportional force against external threats is.

IOW, I'm a lot more scared of Goldman Sachs than I am scared of China.

A parallel

[mhajicek]

Should a factory worker manufacturing weapons and munitions be targeted? In war historically they have been. I think the main problem now is that we don't have distinct times of war and peace, we have a messy in-between all the time.

Yes. Cynicism begin. Valid targets everywhere...

[girlinatrainingbra]

And shouldn't drone pilots from and within the USA be just as much a target for targeted killing by the "other side" even while they are located in the USA geographical boundaries? So if the cyberwarfare hacker is still a legitimate target while not actively engaged in the "war activity", couldn't a USA drone pilot be legitimately targeted while walking into a grocery store to buy groceries for her/his family and herself/himself? There's a lot to think about when we decide to expand the boundaries of what we are allowed to do while still claiming "nya-nya-nya, you can't do that to us while we can do that to you", mostly because of the assymetry of our tactical abilities.
.
Overreaching on moral boundaries because of our tactical abilities could be our downfall when we no longer have the tactical advantage. We no longer have the moral advantage (considering the things that have already been done in "our" name, since it is our USA and our armed forces and our "special forces" that have carried out extra-ordinary rendition, torture in Abu Ghraim, extra-judicial kidnappings and extra-judicial extra-warfare executions/assassinations) but it makes to sense to keep digging ourselves deeper when we could actually be a beacon of sensibility to the world. Oh, wait, that's not really our goal, is it, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are leading in the Executive or in the Legislative branches of our government.