Jump to content



Photo

Killing hackers is justified in cyber warfare, says NATO

hackers nato

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,255 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 21 March 2013 - 12:35

A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks.

Unsurprisingly, the manual advises that attacks must avoid targets such as hospitals, dams, and nuclear power stations in order to minimize civilian casualties, but also makes some bold statements regarding retaliatory conduct. According to the manual's authors, it's acceptable to retaliate against cyberattacks with traditional weapons when a state can prove the attack lead to death or severe property damage. It also says that hackers who perpetrate attacks are legitimate targets for a counterstrike.

"There's plenty of law that applies to cyberspace."

Project leader Professor Michael Schmitt, the Chairman of the International Law Department at the United States Naval War College, tells The Guardian that countries "can only use force when you reach the level of armed conflict," explaining that in most cases the appropriate response to a cyberattack would be digital retaliation. "Everyone talks about cyberspace as though it's the wild west," says Schmitt, "we discovered that there's plenty of law that applies to cyberspace."

http://www.theverge....o-cyber-warfare

Good, start with those anonymous idiots.


#2 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,360 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:24

LMFAO.

Can't wait to see how well this will work out.

#3 Detection

Detection

    Detecting stuff...

  • 8,369 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 10
  • Location: UK
  • OS: 7 SP1 x64

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:31

Good, start with those anonymous idiots.


Prepare for account losses in 3-2-1....... :rofl:

Anon are ok in my eyes, its the other wannabes who claim to be Anon when they do stupid sh** that give them a bad name

#4 SirEvan

SirEvan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,396 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 03
  • Location: Santa Clara, CA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: HTC One (AT&T)

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:41

Good. Hackers (Black hats) are nothing but problems for the internet. A few could stand to be wiped out.

#5 firey

firey

    F͎̗͉͎͈͑͡ȉ͎̣̐́ṙ͖̺͕͙̓̌è̤̞͉̟̲͇̍̍̾̓ͥͅy͓̍̎̌̏̒

  • 7,995 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 05
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Android (4.1.2)

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:43

http://www.theverge....o-cyber-warfare

Good, start with those anonymous idiots.

Prepare for account losses in 3-2-1....... :rofl:

Anon are ok in my eyes, its the other wannabes who claim to be Anon when they do stupid sh** that give them a bad name


I hope that if they do go after anon, they will counterstrike the counterstrikers and blow them all up. But on a more serious note, I do agree with Detection. Anon is doing what they do for a reason, and the more churches they bash and religious related things they poke and bring down I am all for it.

LulzSec and Anon are good in my books.

#6 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,349 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:46

Unsurprisingly, the manual advises that attacks must avoid targets such as hospitals, dams, and nuclear power stations in order to minimize civilian casualties


Well, that's a pretty massive loophole. It means countries will simply have their hackers work in the basements of hospitals and nuclear power plants.

The most interesting consequence of legitimising the killing of those engaging in cyber warfare is that it would open the way for countries like Pakistan to legally launch attacks against the US mainland to take out drone pilots.

#7 +Phouchg

Phouchg

    Resident Misanthrope

  • 5,689 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 11
  • Location: Neowin Detainment Camp

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:49

Did I misunderstand or the scope of this thing is only international and state-sponsored malware like Stuxnet and Flame. Because no matter what, one country cannot just authorize to kill a citizen of another country. Except the "world police", but they'd find a way even without petty documents.

#8 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,699 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 21 March 2013 - 19:12

I can just see them bombing China and Israel.

#9 S7R1K3R

S7R1K3R

    Neowinian

  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: 17-January 02

Posted 21 March 2013 - 20:08

This is crazy, killing people for pushing buttons on a keyboard. And most of the comments seem to advocate this thinking. I am glad I was born when I was, hate to see what this world will turn into.

#10 +imachip

imachip

    Neowinian

  • 1,029 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 04
  • Location: England

Posted 21 March 2013 - 20:14

This is crazy, killing people for pushing buttons on a keyboard. And most of the comments seem to advocate this thinking. I am glad I was born when I was, hate to see what this world will turn into.


Don't be silly, warfare is warfare. If you take down power to a hospital with your keyboard, and cause people harm is it any different to killing them by pulling a trigger?

#11 Kimleng

Kimleng

    Neowinian

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 21 March 2013 - 20:14

This is crazy, killing people for pushing buttons on a keyboard. And most of the comments seem to advocate this thinking. I am glad I was born when I was, hate to see what this world will turn into.


It's as simple as the pull of a trigger. Very little force required to exert maximum amount of damage. A trigger may kill a person, a button press may wipe out an entire city. That button push one day may ruin a water supply, cut power, release gas, etc simply because our systems are now so automated, you no longer have to physically be present to wreak havoc. So, yes, it may be justified in some cases to simply wipe out the button pusher.

#12 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • 5,248 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 21 March 2013 - 20:16

This is crazy, killing people for pushing buttons on a keyboard. And most of the comments seem to advocate this thinking. I am glad I was born when I was, hate to see what this world will turn into.

What if they hack into our military systems, or get hundreds of people killed? Those would be an act of war or terrorism by any other definition, but because they're only hackers it's alright with you?

#13 exotoxic

exotoxic

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,158 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 04
  • Location: England

Posted 21 March 2013 - 22:43

What if they hack into our military systems, or get hundreds of people killed? Those would be an act of war or terrorism by any other definition, but because they're only hackers it's alright with you?


But it works both ways, any country that attacks any other country should be prepared for the consequences.

Didn't the US or Israel make the worm that blew up a bunch of stuff in Iran?? Then when Iran threatens to retaliate the media makes them look like the bad guys :/

#14 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • 5,248 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 21 March 2013 - 22:49

But it works both ways, any country that attacks any other country should be prepared for the consequences.

Didn't the US or Israel make the worm that blew up a bunch of stuff in Iran?? Then when Iran threatens to retaliate the media makes them look like the bad guys :/

From what I read it was a joint project, but the US wasn't planning to deploy it.

Still, attacking the US in their position would be a bit silly.

#15 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 00:13

Just when you think the world can't get any crazier, it does.