4 ms·

Everyone seems to be missing an important point here, especially for HN users. Hackers and anyone supporting them are now live bomb targets. Hackers are no long

Everyone seems to be missing an important point here, especially for HN users. Hackers and anyone supporting them are now live bomb targets. Hackers are no longer punished by just putting them in jail. Death is a punishment option too. In the past, they were collateral damage now they are a direct target.

kmlx 8y ago
the argument is that they were/are terrorists. which is partly true, hamas and islamic jihadis control gaza, want the destruction of the state of israel and are classified as terrorist orgs.
gizmo686 8y ago
... if you are living in a de-facto warzone where both sides had already escalated to bombings. If the hacker was based in Iran, I doubt Israel would have anywhere near the same reaction.
- chriselles 8y ago
  It's worth noting that a number of Iranian's involved with Iran's nuclear program were the victims of targeted assassination in Iran. Israel has also aggressively targeted engineers back in the 80's/90's reportedly involved in asymmetric weapon design/engineering(prior to advent of easier cross border info sharing). Perhaps hacking tool developers would also be similarly targeted, or already have been?
chriselles 8y ago
It's my understanding that a hacking incident that principally contributes to injury/death can justify a kinetic response. Hacking incidents with kinetic effects are only rare outliers today, but that could change tomorrow. Kinetic deterrence & reprisal for hacking incidents is a legitimate option, but ripe for significant abuse if allowed without clear attribution of hack and/or link to related kinetic effects. Much like how terrorism is(or should be) mostly a law enforcement function. Hacking should be as well. But planning for exceptions is also important. Especially planning to ensure exceptions don't become the norm.
- seymourbuttes 8y ago
  >Kinetic response >Kinetic deterrence & reprisal Bombing
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  From the story here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19834802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19834802 > They claimed it housed Hamas cyber operatives, which had been engaging in a cyberattack against Israel's "cyberspace." > "We were ahead of them all the time," said Brigadier General D., the head of the IDF's cyber defense division. "The moment they tried to do something, they failed." > Israeli officials did not disclose any details about the Hamas cyberattack; however, they said they first stopped the attack online, and only then responded with an air strike. No details, at all, except that they had already stopped the attack, and from things like "ahead of them all the time", it doesn't exactly sound like they didn't know any other way to prevent injury or death other than to level the building. > But planning for exceptions is also important. Just because they killed people doesn't mean that it was an exceptional case that required it, so I would start there.
  - chriselles 8y ago
    I’m generally pro Israel. But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. In this case, it certainly sounds like a very serious and incongruent disconnect between the public affairs officer for Cyber and the actual kinetic response. The Israelis have always been pretty quick to kill or capture not only leadership, but technical talent. In this case, if I had to guess, there was a rare opportunity to hit apex and/or volume technical talent the IDF justified by the rocket attacks and/or it’s signalling that moving forward insurgent cyber will be considered a valid target for kinetic action. It’s also worth mentioning that the people targeted may not be hackers, but social media camapigners/influencers.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      > But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. It rather seemed you came up with a rationalization for the deed just because it was done. Presented with facts, you don't skip a beat either. > In this case, if I had to guess That's the thing, you don't have to. So why do you? And what's with the weasel words like "kinetic action"? If someone mistook someone you loved for a threat and killed them, and someone else just said "oh yeah, they've always been quick to capture or kill people", and "this may be signalling that going forward people mistaken for threat are considered a valid target for physical removal", would you like that? > Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault. In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history. -- Noam Chomsky When I said "start there", I meant start with the deed. Start with the principles, and if you would like them to be applied to you and people you love. There are things we cannot bless. We can support them, but that just degrades us, it doesn't enoble these things one bit. > People who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. -- Noam Chomsky I rather consider Yeshayahu Leibowitz "pro Israel" -- in a sense of supporting the heart, body and soul, not just the body come what may -- just like I would have considered Sophie School "pro Germany", not "anti Germany". Principles, and applying them equally, and not having double standards, those are real, being pro this or that is just rhetoric.
threezero 8y ago
In a case like this when you can’t go in and arrest someone who is attacking your country and lives are at stake, there’s not a lot of options besides dropping a bomb on them.
- chachachoney 8y ago
  > there’s not a lot of options besides dropping a bomb on them. There's nothing in the article that indicated that lives were at stake.
int_19h 8y ago
If you treat it as a war, was it really any different? SIGINT is generally considered legitimate military targets. So if you're explicitly hacking on behalf of one of the parties in the conflict, and especially if you're hacking military targets, why shouldn't you be considered a combatant? It's interesting that the tweet in this article makes this point: > this is the equivalent of saying blowing up drone pilots at Ellis AF Base is okay too. For a party currently engaged in military conflict with US - say, Taliban - why would it not be, in terms of international rules and customs of war? Drone pilots are definitely combatants - you don't get to lob Hellfires at targets remotely, but then complain when they find you in person and shoot back. Does anybody seriously thinks otherwise?
- WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
  >If you treat it as a war, was it really any different? It's a huge difference. It's a game changer. The rule has been to respond in kind. In the past cyber attacks were responded with cyber attacks. Now a bomb will be dropped on the attackers. Hackers haven't gone into war thinking they are direct targets. That's changed now. Of course, that means that the targets will get better defenses but don't expect to be a supporting player and be treated as such. At some level, it's a recognition of how much of modern society is managed in cyberspace and how much damage can be done with a cyber attack.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    I don't think there was ever an "in kind" rule that is that narrow. I remember back in 1999 during the Kosovo war, NATO bombed the Yugoslavian Ministry of Defense, for example - and it was generally considered a legitimate target, even though the people inside weren't directly shooting at anybody. I think the broader context is important here. A cyber attack by itself does not justify this sort of response. But a cyber attack that is intended to bolster one side in a military conflict, carried out by people explicitly aligned with that side, is a part of the broader war effort. Responding to that with deadly force is still responding "in kind".

kmlx 8y ago

the argument is that they were/are terrorists. which is partly true, hamas and islamic jihadis control gaza, want the destruction of the state of israel and are classified as terrorist orgs.

gizmo686 8y ago

... if you are living in a de-facto warzone where both sides had already escalated to bombings. If the hacker was based in Iran, I doubt Israel would have anywhere near the same reaction.

chriselles 8y ago
It's worth noting that a number of Iranian's involved with Iran's nuclear program were the victims of targeted assassination in Iran. Israel has also aggressively targeted engineers back in the 80's/90's reportedly involved in asymmetric weapon design/engineering(prior to advent of easier cross border info sharing). Perhaps hacking tool developers would also be similarly targeted, or already have been?

chriselles 8y ago

It's my understanding that a hacking incident that principally contributes to injury/death can justify a kinetic response. Hacking incidents with kinetic effects are only rare outliers today, but that could change tomorrow. Kinetic deterrence & reprisal for hacking incidents is a legitimate option, but ripe for significant abuse if allowed without clear attribution of hack and/or link to related kinetic effects. Much like how terrorism is(or should be) mostly a law enforcement function. Hacking should be as well. But planning for exceptions is also important. Especially planning to ensure exceptions don't become the norm.

seymourbuttes 8y ago
>Kinetic response >Kinetic deterrence & reprisal Bombing
PavlovsCat 8y ago
From the story here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19834802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19834802 > They claimed it housed Hamas cyber operatives, which had been engaging in a cyberattack against Israel's "cyberspace." > "We were ahead of them all the time," said Brigadier General D., the head of the IDF's cyber defense division. "The moment they tried to do something, they failed." > Israeli officials did not disclose any details about the Hamas cyberattack; however, they said they first stopped the attack online, and only then responded with an air strike. No details, at all, except that they had already stopped the attack, and from things like "ahead of them all the time", it doesn't exactly sound like they didn't know any other way to prevent injury or death other than to level the building. > But planning for exceptions is also important. Just because they killed people doesn't mean that it was an exceptional case that required it, so I would start there.
- chriselles 8y ago
  I’m generally pro Israel. But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. In this case, it certainly sounds like a very serious and incongruent disconnect between the public affairs officer for Cyber and the actual kinetic response. The Israelis have always been pretty quick to kill or capture not only leadership, but technical talent. In this case, if I had to guess, there was a rare opportunity to hit apex and/or volume technical talent the IDF justified by the rocket attacks and/or it’s signalling that moving forward insurgent cyber will be considered a valid target for kinetic action. It’s also worth mentioning that the people targeted may not be hackers, but social media camapigners/influencers.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > But quite happy to criticise them when and where warranted on specific issues/incidents. It rather seemed you came up with a rationalization for the deed just because it was done. Presented with facts, you don't skip a beat either. > In this case, if I had to guess That's the thing, you don't have to. So why do you? And what's with the weasel words like "kinetic action"? If someone mistook someone you loved for a threat and killed them, and someone else just said "oh yeah, they've always been quick to capture or kill people", and "this may be signalling that going forward people mistaken for threat are considered a valid target for physical removal", would you like that? > Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault. In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history. -- Noam Chomsky When I said "start there", I meant start with the deed. Start with the principles, and if you would like them to be applied to you and people you love. There are things we cannot bless. We can support them, but that just degrades us, it doesn't enoble these things one bit. > People who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. -- Noam Chomsky I rather consider Yeshayahu Leibowitz "pro Israel" -- in a sense of supporting the heart, body and soul, not just the body come what may -- just like I would have considered Sophie School "pro Germany", not "anti Germany". Principles, and applying them equally, and not having double standards, those are real, being pro this or that is just rhetoric.

threezero 8y ago

In a case like this when you can’t go in and arrest someone who is attacking your country and lives are at stake, there’s not a lot of options besides dropping a bomb on them.

chachachoney 8y ago
> there’s not a lot of options besides dropping a bomb on them. There's nothing in the article that indicated that lives were at stake.

int_19h 8y ago

If you treat it as a war, was it really any different? SIGINT is generally considered legitimate military targets. So if you're explicitly hacking on behalf of one of the parties in the conflict, and especially if you're hacking military targets, why shouldn't you be considered a combatant? It's interesting that the tweet in this article makes this point: > this is the equivalent of saying blowing up drone pilots at Ellis AF Base is okay too. For a party currently engaged in military conflict with US - say, Taliban - why would it not be, in terms of international rules and customs of war? Drone pilots are definitely combatants - you don't get to lob Hellfires at targets remotely, but then complain when they find you in person and shoot back. Does anybody seriously thinks otherwise?

WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
>If you treat it as a war, was it really any different? It's a huge difference. It's a game changer. The rule has been to respond in kind. In the past cyber attacks were responded with cyber attacks. Now a bomb will be dropped on the attackers. Hackers haven't gone into war thinking they are direct targets. That's changed now. Of course, that means that the targets will get better defenses but don't expect to be a supporting player and be treated as such. At some level, it's a recognition of how much of modern society is managed in cyberspace and how much damage can be done with a cyber attack.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I don't think there was ever an "in kind" rule that is that narrow. I remember back in 1999 during the Kosovo war, NATO bombed the Yugoslavian Ministry of Defense, for example - and it was generally considered a legitimate target, even though the people inside weren't directly shooting at anybody. I think the broader context is important here. A cyber attack by itself does not justify this sort of response. But a cyber attack that is intended to bolster one side in a military conflict, carried out by people explicitly aligned with that side, is a part of the broader war effort. Responding to that with deadly force is still responding "in kind".