Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Now, to hack into RIAA headquarters and launch an attack from there in the name of Al Quaeda! Take off every drone!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Let's do it. This would solve the growing cost of pensions, and open up lawns for kids everywhere.
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?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
"Whups - we launched missiles into Libya, not Syria. Hard to keep these issues straight. I don't believe we launched missiles into Syria yet - have we?"
And that, kids, is American foreign policy in a nutshell, right there.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.