What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Killing hackers is justified in cyber warfare - NATO report

PhenoMenal

Hairdresser
Veteran
I guess nuclear scientists aren't the only ones who have to worry now!?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4...international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare

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.

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."
 

Stoner4Life

Medicinal Advocate
ICMag Donor
Veteran


if someone hacked my bank account & I could find him/them, I'd definitely consider killing them. and that's only over money. stealing all of my money is certainly enough to literally worry me to death, turnabout is fair play.

 

vta

Active member
Veteran
analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks.

To me this means governments...not a script kiddy sitting in Starbucks. So if a foreign government hacks our financial institutions or gov servers...watch out! But who knows...Obummer's interpretation may result in adding individuals to his drone kill list :biggrin:
 

mpd

Lammen Gorthaur
Veteran
Live by the sword and die by it. I have to admit I have no dog in this fight. If the military wants to strap on hackers and blow their shit away, thems be the breaks. You want to live or be a target. Simple choice.
 

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
they can hack me all they want. they are gonna be disappointed. Wow no money, but there is 8,327 pics of him skiing naked........ except for the Indiana Jones hat.
 

mpd

Lammen Gorthaur
Veteran
they can hack me all they want. they are gonna be disappointed. Wow no money, but there is 8,327 pics of him skiing naked........ except for the Indiana Jones hat.

Seriously dude, those were some crappy pictures. The ones of your wife hanging from the trapeze naked were much better. :thank you:
 
R

recent guest

Live by the sword and die by it. I have to admit I have no dog in this fight. If the military wants to strap on hackers and blow their shit away, thems be the breaks. You want to live or be a target. Simple choice.

Im not trying to agitate, but you absolutely have a dog in this fight. Theres a storm coming, and not a soul on earth can hide from it.
 
I don't think most of you understand how serious this is.

Let's say you download/are forced to download a virus and the hacker decides to perform an attack against a bank using all of your Internet connections, whether you like it or not, you are now officially a terrorist for taking part in the attack.

What does this means? It means you can either learn how to detect and remove viruses manually or get killed. Have fun everyone
 

PhenoMenal

Hairdresser
Veteran
I don't think most of you understand how serious this is.

Let's say you download/are forced to download a virus and the hacker decides to perform an attack against a bank using all of your Internet connections, whether you like it or not, you are now officially a terrorist for taking part in the attack.

What does this means? It means you can either learn how to detect and remove viruses manually or get killed. Have fun everyone

Most ISP's keep access logs for at least 24hrs if not weeks or months, and would be able to acknowledge that the attack was from an outbound source. Banks also keep detailed logs of every transaction (for YEARS).

In other words, if you truly were hacked then it should be easy enough for you to prove that you weren't involved. Good luck getting any money back though.
 

devilgoob

Active member
Veteran
Hacking is modifying the way a computer works by having intimate knowledge of the software and or hardware.

Not stealing your account.
Not watching you through a webcam.
Not spamming your computer.

Those are.crimes.

Hacking is not.a crime. Only when a crime is commited is hacking a crime.

That person does hack, protects you from truly maliciously evil people.

So you're not speaking of hackers.
.

you are speaking of voyeurs and robbers.

Squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares. Hope that helps.to not.assume so much.

Also The Onion article depicting the hacker sweating over the keyboard is a pretty good read to understand this issue.
 
Conventionally attacking a hacker is foolish and wrong. If you dont want your computers hacked, stop running vulnerable software. A hacker can do no harm other than what the system lets him do. How in the hell could you prove that a specific person committed a specific attack which "caused harm", anyway? If you could not detect the incoming attack to begin with, odds are you aren't going to be able to trace it reliably. Are we saying the government should have the right to just bomb any IP address it detects potentially bad traffic from? What if it's YOUR house the IP traces back to, with the hacker either a) using YOUR wireless access point to perform the attack, or b) the attacker has owned your computer via some web site exploit and is using it as a tool to participate in the attack? You think it's cool if the government just goes ahead and launches a missile through your window first and asks questions later, because of "national security" or some other bullshit excuse?
 
Top