4 ms·

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.

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.