Law of Armed Conflict To Apply To Cyberwar 242
charter6 writes "Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of STRATCOM, just declared that the Law of Armed Conflict will apply to cyberwar, and that the US won't rule out conventional (read: kinetic) responses to cyber-attacks. This means that we consider state-supported 'hackers' to be subject to the Geneva Conventions and Customary International Law, including the rules of proportionality and distinction (i.e. if we catch them, we can try them for war crimes). Incidentally, it also means we consider non-state cyber-attackers to be illegal enemy combatants, which means we can do all kinds of nasty stuff to them."
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Who knows what happens to enemy combatants.
Cyber Guantanamo. Maybe they could swipe a small beach from Cyber Yugoslavia [juga.com]
Oil Barons (Score:3, Funny)
This completely explains [wikipedia.org] what happened to my Commodore 64 cluster...
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Funny)
(We have domestic law enforcement spying on us)
and the hacker thinks.... (Score:4, Funny)
"Incidentally, it also means we consider non-state cyber-attackers to be illegal enemy combatants, which means we can do all kinds of nasty stuff to them."
the hacker thinks to himself ...hmmmm, if I hack the military, they might
1. stick me in a cold, dark, room.
2. feed me old, stale food.
3. keep me away from friends, family, and girls.
4. keep me awake all night.
...(pause), ALRIGHT! Woohooo!. I wonder if I get to play WoW too!/p?
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
With apologies to Martin Niemoller... (Score:5, Funny)
So, with geolocation services, we could finally make all the jokes about ICBM addresses [catb.org] come true?
First they tortured the terrorists,
And I felt kinda iffy about that,
Even though it worked on TV.
They they tortured Iraqi civilians,
And I felt pretty embarassed,
Even though I was safe at home in America.
Then they tortured people they thought were suspicious,
And I started to get scared,
Even though I didn't hang out with anybody like that.
Then they started torturing the spammers, the botnet herders, and the malware authors,
And I'm sorry, Professor Niemoller,
But that makes up for everything!
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Cyber Guantanamo - wouldn't that be like making them use AOL over a 9600 baud modem? Or would that be considered torture by the Geneva Convention?
Sir, you're replying to a comment submitted via GPRS on the Worcester-London train. I now officially hate you.
Beware... (Score:5, Funny)
Launching an ICMP attack might get an ICBM response...
Time to update the RFCs.
Re:Rules of Engagement would still apply (Score:3, Funny)
Well, unless you thought the Fallout games were a training simulator.
Re:Awesome (Score:1, Funny)
- Remember kids (by the camp fire, outside of the burned remains of the White House), once upong a time there was these things called criminal law and international cooperation. There was also this entity called "administration" which controlled the thoughts of the majority.
- Inconceivable! (gasping)
- One of the administrations invented the necessary concepts to militarize every part of the criminal law and so the Withusoragaistus was born. The ueberish leader at the time was called the Bush.
- Hehe, bush, hehe. (around the fire)
- I know (smiling). Anyway, at the time the Withusoragaistus was only a thought and it took several decades to materialize as the then nations Controller.
- The Controller, huh. (shivering, filled with fear) What happened to the international cooperation?
- You see? (waving hand towards the remains) Well, kids, why don't we eat some of those delicious anticuchos. They look well made already.
Hacking Judicial Precedents (Score:3, Funny)
This would actually be a cool hack. You'd have to pwn Lexis and Westlaw, and print up some bogus law books (numbered reporters of legal decisions such as Federal Reporter 3d and United States Reports) and plant them in all the law libraries and courthouses (just mail them out in official-looking West Publishing cardboard boxes). Presto, habeas corpus is back. Your legal brief in your next case would read something like this: "We hereby overrule our previous precedent in Jones v. Fatootie denying habeas corpus. Potrzebie v. Holder, 779 U.S 998 (2009)."