4 ms·
> "hostile or warlike action in time of peace or war" A lot of comments jump on the war and cyber war definitions, but the article states the exclusion is base
by ascar 8y ago
> "hostile or warlike action in time of peace or war"
A lot of comments jump on the war and cyber war definitions, but the article states the exclusion is based on a "hostile or warlike action", which is a much looser definition.
Based on the announcement of multiple governments that this attack is from Russian origin this exclusion might very well be justified.
- OkGoDoIt 8y agoCouldn’t most hacking attempts be defined as “hostile actions”? And the second part “at a time of peace or war” effectively means all the time. Seems like an extremely broad exclusion.
- ascar 8y agoYea, I thought that too. I imagine either the "or warlike" part or additional text that was not quoted narrows it down to state actors or state-like actors (e.g. terror groups like ISIS or al-Qaida). Would still be a very broad definition.
- mannykannot 8y agoI have no idea how the law would interpret it, but while 'hostile warlike act' might narrow the scope as you suggest, 'hostile or warlike act' would seem to widen the scope to any hostile act, warlike or not. (Are there any non-hostile warlike acts? Accidents such as so-called 'friendly fire' incidents might fit...)
- int_19h 8y agoI think the implication here is that it must be carried out by a state agent.
- mcguire 8y agoThere seem like two possible outcomes: 1. Insurance that covers nation-backed cyber attacks becomes very expensive, or 2. Countries start treating nation-backed cyber attacks as actual acts of war.
- jeremyjh 8y agoYes some PR people made some statements, but have they produced any evidence that these attacks originated in Russia? Zurich will need actual evidence of facts, not newspaper articles quoting the spokesmen of political appointees in charge of these agencies.
- gcb0 8y agothere's a comic that goes : - it wasn't elective surgery. I would have died! - but you elected to live.