3 ms·

And when that hacking results in a power plant in a region being taken offline and after several days of emergency power several babies in incubators die is tha

by Teever 10y ago

And when that hacking results in a power plant in a region being taken offline and after several days of emergency power several babies in incubators die is that still humane?

steverb 10y ago
And when a power plant in a region is taken offline via conventional means? That isn't covered by the Current Laws of Land Warfare, why should a digital version be any different?
- zeveb 10y ago
  I think that it is covered by the laws of war: as long as the military benefit of attacking the power plant is sufficient to outweigh the collateral damage, it's legal. If you're wrong, and you lose, then you hang after the war is over.
  - steverb 10y ago
    You are correct. I should have said that it's not prohibited.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > And when a power plant in a region is taken offline via conventional means? That isn't covered by the Current Laws of Land Warfare While details of the context will matter, an attack on such a plant would potentially implicate any or all of Arts. 51-56 (exc. 53) of Protocol I to the 1949 Conventions (the US is not a party to Protocol I but had traditionally viewed it's terms as declarative of and redundant with pre-existing customary international law.)
903c4e46dba7 10y ago
We do have international treaties, prohibited attacks to e.g. nuclear reactors. For these facilities, a Digital Geneva Convention is needed.
- steverb 10y ago
  Do those treaties apply only to non-digital attacks?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    One could probably make a case that, e.g., Additional Protocol I protections apply equally to cyberattacks were one litigating a case; the problem is that laws of warfare are "laws" that rely more on everyone sharing an understanding and treating them as reciprocal moral rules rather than enforcement through litigation. So an explicit recognition is vastly better than an ambiguity that you think a court would resolve in your favor if it had the opportunity, even moreso than in the case of, say, domestic criminal law.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  Do we have such treaties, can you point me at one of them? IIRC nuclear reactors have been explicitly targeted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack#Military_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plant...) and would be so in the future; although common sense states that both parties would want to avoid a Chernobyl-like event in their battlezone. Furthermore, this would be a perfect example where a "digital Geneva convention" would not be needed; you'd want a treaty expressing mutual agreement that everyone understands that destruction of such facilities is not in anyone's best interest, and everyone agrees not to do it in principle - without any reference to specific means of destruction; the same principles should apply for digital attacks as for bombing or insider sabotage. The Geneva convention Protocol I states that facilities like nuclear reactors "may be attacked but only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces", and that seems a perfectly valid description - there is no blanket prohibition to attack them, you are explicitly allowed to bomb or sabotage the nuclear plant in a way that disables it but not in a way that causes a meltdown; so you'd be also allowed to hack it in a way that disables it but not in a way that causes a meltdown.
mindslight 10y ago
That sounds beyond gross negligence (better described as maliciousness, really) by whomever set up that power plant control network. They probably belong in prison.
PeterisP 10y ago
Taking down key enemy infrastructure during wartime is generally legitimate, even if it's clear that civilians will die as a side effect. The current treaties prohibit explicitly targeting civilians, but as long as the target has a military use as well, it's valid even if it's mixed with civilians. Bombing the defense ministry (with civilian offices in the next building), armament factories (with civilian workers inside), power plants necessary to run these factories (and everything else, including hospitals), bridges or railways (with civilians on them) - all these targets generally are not prohibited. As it generally wouldn't be a violation to bomb that power plant from a plane or sabotage it via infiltrated spies, sabotage by hacking shouldn't have special treatment. Doing so should be just as [il]legal according to the exact same criteria that determines if it'd be allowed or not by conventional means.

by Teever 10y ago

And when that hacking results in a power plant in a region being taken offline and after several days of emergency power several babies in incubators die is that still humane?

steverb 10y ago

And when a power plant in a region is taken offline via conventional means? That isn't covered by the Current Laws of Land Warfare, why should a digital version be any different?

zeveb 10y ago
I think that it is covered by the laws of war: as long as the military benefit of attacking the power plant is sufficient to outweigh the collateral damage, it's legal. If you're wrong, and you lose, then you hang after the war is over.
- steverb 10y ago
  You are correct. I should have said that it's not prohibited.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> And when a power plant in a region is taken offline via conventional means? That isn't covered by the Current Laws of Land Warfare While details of the context will matter, an attack on such a plant would potentially implicate any or all of Arts. 51-56 (exc. 53) of Protocol I to the 1949 Conventions (the US is not a party to Protocol I but had traditionally viewed it's terms as declarative of and redundant with pre-existing customary international law.)

903c4e46dba7 10y ago

We do have international treaties, prohibited attacks to e.g. nuclear reactors. For these facilities, a Digital Geneva Convention is needed.

steverb 10y ago
Do those treaties apply only to non-digital attacks?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  One could probably make a case that, e.g., Additional Protocol I protections apply equally to cyberattacks were one litigating a case; the problem is that laws of warfare are "laws" that rely more on everyone sharing an understanding and treating them as reciprocal moral rules rather than enforcement through litigation. So an explicit recognition is vastly better than an ambiguity that you think a court would resolve in your favor if it had the opportunity, even moreso than in the case of, say, domestic criminal law.
PeterisP 10y ago
Do we have such treaties, can you point me at one of them? IIRC nuclear reactors have been explicitly targeted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack#Military_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plant...) and would be so in the future; although common sense states that both parties would want to avoid a Chernobyl-like event in their battlezone. Furthermore, this would be a perfect example where a "digital Geneva convention" would not be needed; you'd want a treaty expressing mutual agreement that everyone understands that destruction of such facilities is not in anyone's best interest, and everyone agrees not to do it in principle - without any reference to specific means of destruction; the same principles should apply for digital attacks as for bombing or insider sabotage. The Geneva convention Protocol I states that facilities like nuclear reactors "may be attacked but only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces", and that seems a perfectly valid description - there is no blanket prohibition to attack them, you are explicitly allowed to bomb or sabotage the nuclear plant in a way that disables it but not in a way that causes a meltdown; so you'd be also allowed to hack it in a way that disables it but not in a way that causes a meltdown.

mindslight 10y ago

That sounds beyond gross negligence (better described as maliciousness, really) by whomever set up that power plant control network. They probably belong in prison.

PeterisP 10y ago

Taking down key enemy infrastructure during wartime is generally legitimate, even if it's clear that civilians will die as a side effect. The current treaties prohibit explicitly targeting civilians, but as long as the target has a military use as well, it's valid even if it's mixed with civilians. Bombing the defense ministry (with civilian offices in the next building), armament factories (with civilian workers inside), power plants necessary to run these factories (and everything else, including hospitals), bridges or railways (with civilians on them) - all these targets generally are not prohibited. As it generally wouldn't be a violation to bomb that power plant from a plane or sabotage it via infiltrated spies, sabotage by hacking shouldn't have special treatment. Doing so should be just as [il]legal according to the exact same criteria that determines if it'd be allowed or not by conventional means.