News Stories

[kuroishinigami]

Well, the problem with these regulatin if it's adopted is, how broad the category of direct attack is. Let's say a hacker decide to plant a scary gif in someone who just happen to have heart attack and accidentily cause the victim's death. Does this included as directly related to death and it's okay to shoot the hackers? Basically, there's too much subjectivity in such regulation because what a hacker attack is never directly the victim himself, but the system that support the victim's safety.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kuroishinigami

Well, the problem with these regulatin if it's adopted is, how broad the category of direct attack is. Let's say a hacker decide to plant a scary gif in someone who just happen to have heart attack and accidentily cause the victim's death. Does this included as directly related to death and it's okay to shoot the hackers? Basically, there's too much subjectivity in such regulation because what a hacker attack is never directly the victim himself, but the system that support the victim's safety.

So if a Hacker shuts down a power plant and result in the hostpital losing power and patients on life support die. It is not the Hackers fault?

[Der Langrisser]

France's Sarkozy investigated in party-funding affair

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92K1AZ20130321

[Dhomochevsky]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

So if a Hacker shuts down a power plant and result in the hostpital losing power and patients on life support die. It is not the Hackers fault?

We have the police for things like that. Someone commints a crime, you arrest the culprit, punishment is ensured.

You do not call in the military to assassinate criminals, right?

Oh wait, maybe if you're the U.S... In which case this may seem like a natural continuation of law enforcement?
But usually I'd say this would be police work, maybe with (investigative!) help of security agencies.

[kuroishinigami]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

So if a Hacker shuts down a power plant and result in the hostpital losing power and patients on life support die. It is not the Hackers fault?

I'm not making judgement here, just commenting that the regulation is too ambiguous at its current form. Too much subjectivity on which hacker you can shoot and which ome you can't. All hacker must be punished, I agree, but should we really treat a hacker the same as a criminal with a gun? With an ok signal to retiliation using physical force/weapon?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

We have the police for things like that. Someone commints a crime, you arrest the culprit, punishment is ensured.

You do not call in the military to assassinate criminals, right?

Oh wait, maybe if you're the U.S... In which case this may seem like a natural continuation of law enforcement?
But usually I'd say this would be police work, maybe with (investigative!) help of security agencies.

This is my intrinsic problem with the whole "war on terror". Treating criminals like "warriors", you're just puffing their little egos up and eviscerating due process for everyone else along the way.

[ganbaru]

Myanmar riots stoke fears of widening sectarian violence
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92L04G20130322

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

We have the police for things like that. Someone commints a crime, you arrest the culprit, punishment is ensured.

You do not call in the military to assassinate criminals, right?

Oh wait, maybe if you're the U.S... In which case this may seem like a natural continuation of law enforcement?
But usually I'd say this would be police work, maybe with (investigative!) help of security agencies.

Uhh yeah, in normal circumstances the police is who deals with it.
But this is UN international guidelines of warfare cyber-attacks used in midst of a WAR, is it not?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

We have the police for things like that. Someone commints a crime, you arrest the culprit, punishment is ensured.

You do not call in the military to assassinate criminals, right?

if the Hacker was a foreign national working for a foreign government in a foregin country?

Originally Posted by kuroishinigami

I'm not making judgement here, just commenting that the regulation is too ambiguous at its current form. Too much subjectivity on which hacker you can shoot and which ome you can't. All hacker must be punished, I agree, but should we really treat a hacker the same as a criminal with a gun? With an ok signal to retiliation using physical force/weapon?

what is worse killing a dozen people up close with a gun or killing thousands while pressing a button?

[ganbaru]

Capping Visit, Obama Brokers Israeli Apology to Turkey
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/wo...ma-israel.html

AMMAN, Jordan — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Friday apologized in a personal phone call to Turkey’s prime minister for a deadly commando raid on a Turkish ship in 2010, in a sudden reconciliation between the two countries that was partly brokered by President Obama during his visit to Israel this week, according to Israeli, Turkish and American officials.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Capping Visit, Obama Brokers Israeli Apology to Turkey
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/wo...ma-israel.html

And Obama and Abdullah II from Jordan are now making joint statements about the Syrian refugee problem.

Maybe a beginning to an end to the 2000-year fighting?

BTW willx won in breaking the stereotype. Not all bankers are fat.

Once-obese Goldman analyst becomes fitness evangelical, gym CEO

[Dhomochevsky]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

if the Hacker was a foreign national working for a foreign government in a foregin country?

what is worse killing a dozen people up close with a gun or killing thousands while pressing a button?

In that case, if you first declare a war on said country for once, then ok. Go knock yourself out.

But from recent years it's more likely, that even though the hacker is a citizien of country X, he is also doing evil things.
And we are at war with evil.
So killing him is ok, without going into another war with his home country.

So the guy who 'hacked' (guessed the password) of the minister's nephew's facebopok page gets killed by a drone strike. And the country he's a citizien of is ok with that, because politics.

Oh and did we forget the part where these 'warriors' are actually just suspects? If in doubt innocent and that.
The war status seems to be a nice way to get around that little problem too.

This is an effort to widen the possible use of an instrument for cases it should not be used for, nothing else.

[Sumeragi]

I find it funny everyone is ignoring this when discussion this hacking thing:

Additionally, an attack originating in a country doesn't constitute proof for retaliation - there has to be proper evidence that the attack is the actual work of a government.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

In that case, if you first declare a war on said country for once, then ok. Go knock yourself out.

But from recent years it's more likely, that even though the hacker is a citizien of country X, he is also doing evil things.
And we are at war with evil.
So killing him is ok, without going into another war with his home country.

So the guy who 'hacked' (guessed the password) of the minister's nephew's facebopok page gets killed by a drone strike. And the country he's a citizien of is ok with that, because politics.

Oh and did we forget the part where these 'warriors' are actually just suspects? If in doubt innocent and that.
The war status seems to be a nice way to get around that little problem too.

This is an effort to widen the possible use of an instrument for cases it should not be used for, nothing else.

Just like any other government-supported operation of espionage, the target is not classified a criminal, but instead a infiltrator and an enemy soldier. Also, did you miss this part?

Additionally, an attack originating in a country doesn't constitute proof for retaliation - there has to be proper evidence that the attack is the actual work of a government.

Basically it's not differentiating between soldiers attacking your nation, and a soldier causing physical harm to your citizens through hacking.
The only difference is the tools.


EDIT: DAMNIT SUMERAGI YOU NINJA

[Dhomochevsky]

It does not mention a 'soldier' at all.

Equally surprising is the classification of civilian hacktivists as legitimate targets during war.

Don't make this up.
Because that would be an actually useful restriction.

[Sumeragi]

Yes, during war, as in all-out war not some "War on Terror" bushfire.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

It does not mention a 'soldier' at all.

Don't make this up.
Because that would be an actually useful restriction.

Huh? It's classifying civilian hackers under the service of a government as "legitimate targets".

That's considering them government agents, which I used the word "soldier" for.
Certainly not the word you used, which is "criminals".

If anything that quote supports what I'm saying, not yours.

[Dhomochevsky]

It's like you guys are from 20 years ago and never wittnessed how any desired target is already being labeled 'enemy combatant' without any actual war going on.

Sure. Only in war. How reassurinmg that is.

[Sumeragi]

Sure, because we don't wear tin foil hats and think the government is trying to consolidate power for the few elitists.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Capping Visit, Obama Brokers Israeli Apology to Turkey
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/wo...ma-israel.html

Israel ??? APOLOGIZING ????!