5 votes

Killing hackers is justified in cyber warfare, says NATO-commissioned report

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."

Here is the actual manual. http://issuu.com/nato_ccd_coe/docs/tallinnmanual?mode=embed&...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Define "hacking"

Please define "hacking".

Too many organizations (the MPAA/RIAA are notorious) have pushed "hacking" charges against individuals who exploited POOR SECURITY SCHEMES (unencrypted drone video) or poor passwords, or poor whatever to shift the blame off of them. And then they run and hide behind DMCA, or whatever legislation, and expect the jury to fully understand the technology and the law. And now they can use that as justification to (frame and) kill you.

Even before considering the definition of "hacking", everyone should have their day in court. This should be unacceptable.

Intentional taking over

of the Internet private property ownership or inflicting damage to the use of Internet private property.

The worst part

...is when people conflate hacking and cracking.

I guess Mike Rivero is a big NATO fan

He feels the same way about "hackers."

NATO is staffed with sociopaths. If it moves, kill it.

NATO is a cabal of psychopathic Nations seeking to kill freedom wherever the find it.

Free includes debt-free!

During a war

individual rights do not carry their usual supremacy even for Libertarians. I still do not understand what is the point to defend hackers. Although I can understand that Blue Republicans, OWS, Anonymous and Code Pink do not respect private property as Libertarians do and might indeed have some affinity with hackers...

sounds like something

you'd hear from glen beck or the tea party express.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Did not

Anonymous boast about hacking sites? Do leftists highly respect private property?