Do Nations Have the Right To Kill Enemy Hackers? 482
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?"
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
A nation should be able to retaliate against attack.
It would be morally wrong to not try a hacking counterattack first, however.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
To Pick a not-so-hypothetical example, various intelligence agencies have been monitoring hospitals over the last decade or two to find wanted terrorists as they come to the west in disguise looking for medical treatment for cancer, etc.
So, if i'm a sysadmin in an Irish (or Swiss, or other non-NATO, neutral) hospital, and my internal databases get hacked, in such a manner that patients lives are put at risk / lost, and I _think_ I can trace the attack back to Virginia, what do I do?
Civilian lives lost due
Re: (Score:3)
There is always a risk when killings spys of killing a civilion.
Im sorry, but civilions dont exist. Ive met *many* an ion in my life, and not a single one of those bastards was ever civil to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody is spying on everybody, so killing spies threatens international order. Al-Qaeda kills spies, not nations at peace.
Oh. You mean all those spies at the WTC. My bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody is spying on everybody, so killing spies threatens international order.
Killing "spies" (which as a term of art means either A's military in B's country dressed as B civilians, or B civilians knowingly working for A) has always been on the table, just as has killing "enemy agents" (citizens of A working in B, with or without diplomatic cover, usually trying to develop and/or aid "spies") when they cannot be captured and interrogated, and maybe traded for "intelligence agents" (our guys who the other side would call "enemy agents" or "spies" if they used our terms) at a later da
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I'm morally opposed to unjust war. One of the issues of just war is porportionality, which is mentioned in the slashdot article as "so long as that force is proportional".
We're talking about using kenetic weapons against hackers in cyberspace. Tell me, how much mass is in a bit?
I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I understand your argument. I agree in part.
The least we can do is bring back a draft so the burden of war can be more equitably shared across the socio-economic scale. If war is going to be more horrible, it should be more horrible for everyone, especially the people with the wealth and power to influence whether or not governments go to war in the first place.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
A draft is not going to push the burden of war on to the wealthy.
A draft pushes even more of the burden onto the poor.
With the draft: Rich kids get exemptions. Poor kids get drafted, sent to war, and get paid peanuts.
Without the draft: Poor kids go to war, but at least get paid enough to entice them to volunteer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If war was more horrible people would do more to prevent it.
Yes, that strategy worked so well in preventing the Sequester, I am sure it would also work for preventing wars between nation-states.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
Or we could do what Kirk did and destroy all the critical computer systems, thus forcing the cyber-attackers to build real bombs to wage real war rather than their current cyber-war.
Then we could invite the cyber-attackers to a peace conference, since they'd now be afraid of real pain and suffering.
Then we could kill them all at that conference.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. War should be one-on-one, a blood and guts in-your-face ordeal. It should be as unpalatable as possible.
And yes, enemy hackers should be seen as combatants and treated as such. Send in the ninjas and cut their throats.
Same thing goes for the MPAA and RIAA. Cut the throats of all the bosses and see just how keen they are to continue their evil ways.
Oh, and the banksters - give them a close shave as well.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have argued before the least moral war is the one you are not really trying to win. Fundamentally the activity of war will kill, maim, and destroy property. If you are going to do those things you should have a damn good reason. If you have such a reason than it follows really very few targets should be off limits; we are already killing, maiming and destroying lively hoods for the cause after all. Total war really is the only just form of war. There is still some line, bombing an elementary school deliberately would be crossing it; for example, or maybe not if you have good cause to think the enemy is using them as human shields. The reality is war not the men of tribe slugging it out with sticks and stones.
War is factories building munitions, its banks financing the factories and facilitating payrolls, its farmers raising crops to feed troops, etc. These are staffed with people who are at least in some way complicit in some way. Your janitors job is necessary to the war effort if not directly. A munitions factory is a hazardous place and more so if not maintained; if something happened that impaired its output the war effort might be hurt. So even if he is just sweeping the floors he is doing it in a place the purpose of which is killing the enemy. Arguably any one who inst a child, invalid, or war protestor is a collaborator. Is the farmer growing corn and selling it the army to feed troops more or less culpable a soldier who may be a conscript? Any capital asset can be weaponized or turned toward war fighting use. This is just the reality of war between modern states.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
There will always be someone to step in to fill the power vacuum. The point is that after a while self-preservation will ensure that those who do fill it will be extremely averse to initiating violence against another country.
The problem is of course finding and killing these people. Israel has a hard enough time tracking down the Palestinians who make the bombs and order the attacks.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
... Rather than the cracked computer that Grandma hasn't updated since she bought it 8 years ago.
Right, and this is why the DOD hasn't really come down on one side or the other where cyberattack response is concerned.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
Let's do it. This would solve the growing cost of pensions, and open up lawns for kids everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bugger the children!
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
A nation should be able to retaliate against attack.
I think the old saying "If you play with fire, you might get burnt..." applies here. Do I think it is right, yes and no at the same time. Just because the hacker is sitting in an office typing on a keyboard doesn't mean he/she isn't inflicting real world harm on others in another part of the world. At the same time, I think it would likely be a huge escalation to go from something being hacked to dropping a bomb - but that's not to say that dumb things don't happen - especially when politicians are involved.
I think anyone who is doing harm to another country, whether it is with a rifle and boots, or with a keyboard and an internet connection is fair game.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
NO. It makes a huge difference whether somebody is *acting as an agent of the country's government (military or intel agency)* or not.
If you are a hacker, in the employ and uniform of your nation's military, then you are a legitimate target in a state of war. If a military truck driver in a military convoy is a legitimate target, then so is a military hacker. If not in a state of war, and you are captured as a spy, you are also sub
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, if your infrastructure is that broken, then perhaps we should be fixing that problem.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
It does need tio be considered carefully, but a cyberwarfare hacker and facility are every bit as much a legitimate target of war as a central headquarters, signals intelligence installation or codebreakers. However, if a shooting war hasn't (yet) broken out, it is also just as much an escalation as bombing any other military target would be.
Yes. Cynicism begin. Valid targets everywhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
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.
oops misspelled asymmetry (Score:2)
Re: IUD's !== IEDs (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, the British redcoats saw the American militias as terrorists,
Banastre Tarleton aside, the British DID see members of the American militia and the Continental Army as legitimate soldiers, because they took them as prisoners of war rather than just bayoneting them. Of course, they stored the PoWs on hulks in conditions that would make Abu Ghraib at its worst look like the Marriott, and a large portion of those prisoners died of various diseases (e.g., typhus) before they could be exchanged, but that is more the fault of the 18th century army and lack of sanitation in the pre-Pasteur, pre-Lister era.
Re: (Score:3)
so thanks for informing me. I have to agree with you there. I assume that there was not as much gratuitous torture being performed in the Revolutionary War as there was at Abu Ghraib, b
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bet wars would be a lot less common if there was more leader killing. Sounds like a plan!
Re: (Score:2)
I think anyone who is doing harm to another country, whether it is with a rifle and boots, or with a keyboard and an internet connection is fair game.
I agree with this, but it is still a matter of degrees. The level of retaliation should be at least somewhat in scale with the potential damage the hacker could do. Robbing some bank accounts is one thing, disabling the cooling system in a nuclear reactor is something else.
And, of course there's the problem if positively identifying the real attacker. But once that's done with certainty, then yes, they're every bit as fair game as someone charging at citizens with a rifle.
A parallel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A parallel (Score:5, Interesting)
My (German) grandfather would have fought in the battle of the bulge; but due to equipment shortage wasn't able to go. Everyone else in his unit who went, died.
Bombing factories made me possible.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Sorry, but what's a proper counter-attack?
What if the first attack disabled banking services while the response disabled all power to all hospitals?
One is more likely to cost lives than another.
I think it's better to just say "yes" and be done with it. The fact is these rules are set to convey what an actor should expect in retaliation. If is is expected that a bombing attack or a sniper's bullet may be the return for engaging a target (because let's face it, the attack may have been enough to disable ha
Re: (Score:3)
How do you even answer the question which is more serious? Disabling power systems in hospitals will probably kill more people in immediate terms. Taking out the banking infrastructure in a nation like ours would cause chaos and might cripple industry in preparation for a larger kinetic invasion.
WARNING (Score:3)
the geneva convention is very clear. if a citizen of a country is physically attacked by soldiers from another country, it is AUTOMATICALLY a declaration of war by the attacking country. once that declaration has been made - whether it be implicit or explicit - that declaration AUTOMATICALLY gives ALL citizens of the country that has been attacked the right to retaliate against all and any assets and citizens of the attacking country.
as i have mentioned repeatedly on slashdot for some years now whenever t
Re:WARNING (Score:4, Informative)
Proportionate Response (Score:4, Insightful)
If said hacker is messing with infrastructure, yes. That sort of thing can put lives at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Will you apply those rules to the home team?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let the enemy worry about that.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have rules covering the home team.
Re:Proportionate Response (Score:4, Insightful)
I would but my "team" doesn't represent me. And I believe that is the case for most governments these days.
Fact is, the government and the people are far enough apart these days to be completely different species.
Re: (Score:3)
I will believe you the first time I see a politician refuse to vacate his seat after losing an election.
Which puppet is in the seat isn't relevant as long as the strings are attached.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, one could calculate the total amount of force used by the hacker while pressing his keys and retaliate proportionally. One trembling punch and two pokes per hacked site should be about right.
Re:Proportionate Response (Score:4, Funny)
Well, one could calculate the total amount of force used by the hacker while pressing his keys and retaliate proportionally.
So if the hacker's been pounding away on his beloved Model-M, then we can drop a bunker buster on him and call it even.
His neighbors would probably appreciate the quiet too.
Re: (Score:2)
Permitted? We're talking about warfare, the enemy rarely asks for permission!
If you mean morally, the equivalent would be if an army hid a weapons cache in your basement without your knowledge.
High risk of mistakes being made (Score:2)
Strongly Agree (Score:5, Funny)
Now, to hack into RIAA headquarters and launch an attack from there in the name of Al Quaeda! Take off every drone!
Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"Proportional Force" (Score:2)
You've heard the maxim that violence solves nothing? That's not quite true. "Proportional violence" solves nothing. "Overwhelming violence" ends issues. You can debate the morality of this truism, but history backs its legitimacy.
Think of all of the long term wasted resources and suffering that could be solved with a little overwhelming force... The next time Israel and one of their neighbors starts slapping each other with their silly limp wristed marketing ploys.....nuke Jerasulem and the capital of
Public Beheadings (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
well Duh (Score:2)
Or less serious have your man from universal exports / SAG group do a hardcore run and find the right manhole covers pour in diesel add polystyrene packing elements and a short delay fuse.
In fact close reading of something the Foreign secretary said in a recent documentary on
Re: (Score:3)
Two birds, one bomb (Score:2)
Now we can finally get rid of all those meddling proxies and exit nodes!
Damn those enemy combatant hacker-terrorists polluting the RAIN-clouds and causing your PVR to miss recordings!
How do we know? (Score:2)
There is enough trouble as it is proving that an IP on a file sharing network is legit and it is the current owner of that IP who is sharing a file. With the resources available to a government agency, how likely is it that an IP would actually point at the source of the attack?
This is going to lead to the bombing of apartment buildings with tons of collateral damage.
Key is kinetic (Score:2)
The summary I read restricted a "kinetic response" to cases where "kinetic damage" occurred. For those who do not read that language, that means no dropping bombs unless physical damage is done.
So Iran might have been justified under this doctrine in attacking the creators of Stuxnet, but South Korea would not be justified under this doctrine in launching a few artillery shells/missiles at the initiator of whoever attacked them, because while wiping hard drives is really annoying, it does not rise to the l
Re: (Score:2)
that means no dropping bombs unless physical damage is done.
Then how would strikes against AWACS be justified? They're electronic warfare platforms, and legitimate targets, but they carry no physically offensive weapons, and cannot directly cause injury. You could even consider jamming as a wireless Denial Of Service attack.
Missiles are not an "Act of War" (Score:3)
If memory serves, the US government doesn't consider firing missiles into a foreign country an act of war (used as justification for the missile attacks into Syria).
If firing missiles into a country isn't an act of war, which surely killed foreign citizens at the time, then by that logic it is OK for a country to kill foreign hackers.
Just get the geo-location of their IP address and fire off a couple of missiles. Or (as described here [imdb.com]) have agents drive a jeep into the cul-de-sac of the house in question, fire off a bazooka or M47 or other portable "instrument of justice" into the house, and drive off.
Really, it's a no-brainer.
Libya, not Syria (Score:3)
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?
Re:Libya, not Syria (Score:5, Funny)
"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.
If killing the hacker is a proportional response (Score:2)
Say someone is trying to take down the power supply in a hospital or disable safeguards in a nuclear plant. But, this is one of those probably fictitious "24" scenarios. If you have that much information to find the guy, you should already have enough intel to stop him by more reasonable means.
They already does (Score:2)
Every nation on Earth already has the right to kill whoever they want.
But in this particular case, the question is not do they have the right but do they want to go to war with the country that citizen is part of or not.
Any man hacking in the prone position in bed... (Score:2)
a nation under cyber-attack can respond to the cyber-attackers with "kinetic force," so long as that force is proportional.
What defines "proportional" in this case? Do they have to spend a night in the box?
Wrong targets. (Score:3)
"We are certain there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Thousands of deaths later... evidence emerges this was a complete fabrication.
"A broader definition of imminent","No specific threat","Without trial or due process."
Quoting recent media regarding the Obama Administration's use of drones against Americans domestically.
Now, these are just the military examples. How many people have been given the death penalty after exhausting all of their appeals, due process, etc., only to later have it emerge that authorities lied, omitted key evidence, or coerced confessions? More than you're probably comfortable admitting.
And now, we're going to entrust the government with making the correct and accurate assessment of who the hacker is, and then use lethal force on them? We can't even properly trace a 911 call before sending the SWAT team to a guy's house in an attempt to get him killed even after the guy warned them this would happen ahead of time! What the sam hell makes any of you think they're going to do better on a network with far less security and safeguards than our public telecommunications network?
attack - counterattack (Score:2)
I say *NO*! We don't need even more wanna be ganstas shooting at just anything that freekin moves. What happens in the
Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
"Proportional" (Score:2)
Well, given the "proportion" the justice seems deems fair for copyright infringement (multi-million dollar judgements) and violating the terms of service of websites (20+ years in jail, million-dollar fines) I'd say the appropriate response to, say, defacement of a government website by a foreign hacker is a tactical nuclear weapon lobbed at him.
Re: (Score:2)
correction: "justice system" not "justice seems"
yeah, sure (Score:2)
if a country can kill hackers, shouldn't it be able to call in the drones against tax cheats, dishonest bankers, publishers of unflattering new articles, jokes which insult the dignity of the nation...
Re: (Score:2)
Why noy? (Score:2)
BTW - "proportional"? What does that have to do with the situation?
Responsibility and Proportional Response (Score:2)
CIA's new weapons in war on spying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Enemy hacker" is a pretty vague term. (Score:2)
Let's all look forward to the days when people like the guy who got into Sarah Palin's email can be summarily executed without a trial.
Defense Contractor Play for Money (Score:2)
Just another defense contractor play for money. Same old story from the Military Industrial Complex.
what to target (Score:2)
Typically nations are expected to attack the other nation's strategic resources, and any people who get in the way are going to get creamed. Nations may also target persons who are providing an effective defense or offense against themselves. There's nothing new here.
However, as mentioned above, it may be very difficult to accurately target the hacker. IMO in most cases it will prove more efficient to target the other nation's infrastructure. Breaking fiber optic links, locking attackers out of satellites y
Foreign drones on American soil (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A "right"? No, of course not. It's not a question of "having the right to commit an act of war". You commit an act of war you either win the fucking war you just started or you lose the fucking war and you take the fucking consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't use bombs. But we do use code designed to disable equipment used to make nuclear weapons.
Much more fruitful, these cyber-attacks. Surgical targeting of those waging war is better than the insanity of drones and bad intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Then after said removal they can account for their crimes.
Yeah, 'cuz that's never full of controversy.
(Gitmo....)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since that is an impossible standard of proof to achieve, your answer could have been more succinctly stated as, "NO."
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't mean that they have the right to it, morally. Just that they don't get punished for it.
It will not stop, at least it isn't very likely to stop any time soon. But if the wars going on right now should teach us something, then that force will be met with resistance, as long as the majority does not accept that force as legitimate. Just having the bigger gun is no legitimation, if applied incorrectly all it breeds is more resistance.
It is amazing how little we learn from history. The atrocities of