3 ms·

As long as - the military personnel did not kill someone in order to defend themselves - they kill civilians - they kill other military personnel during peac

As long as - the military personnel did not kill someone in order to defend themselves - they kill civilians - they kill other military personnel during peace time Then yes, they should be charged with murder.

dwild 7y ago
> - they kill other military personnel during peace time I see that you did some effort choosing the word "peace time" to be able to say "well we are at peace with China, thus this is fine to charge them", but at the end of the day, what is peace time? Does receiving the order to attack a target make it become a war? They got an order to attack the US company, this is not peace.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > I see that you did some effort choosing the word "peace time" to be able to say "well we are at peace with China, thus this is fine to charge them" Incorrect, actually I did it because I am against events such as the murder of the Irani general. I personally do not think that hacking should be illegal so I do not think that the chinese agents should be charged in this instance. > but at the end of the day, what is peace time? Not having a formal declaration of war.
  - zip1234 7y ago
    Hacking should not be illegal? So if someone hacks a bank and steals money from people--totally legal?
    - DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
      it's up to the bank to provide a secure service. Also if you get hacked as a business a couple of times your insurance premiums will go up. In the same vein shoddy IoT devices (and I argue anything that is online) should be fair game exactly so that things have a chance to become more secure. BrickerBot (e.g. Janit0r) had the right ideas here ... Even Japan got inspired by Brickerbot and knocked many devices offline last year which have become unservicable and posed too great a liability. If it were really about providing secure services then we'd be holding companies responsible, and even encouraging hackers to clean up those systems by hacking them. But it isn't about security so instead we're criminalizing hackers and engage in security-theater.
      - azernik 7y ago
        Responsibility and liability are not zero-sum. You can put the thief in jail, and also sue the pants off the bank for negligence.
smnrchrds 7y ago
Apparently there no longer is a universally accepted definition of peace time, or military personnel for that matter. See Omar Khadr fiasco for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

dwild 7y ago

> - they kill other military personnel during peace time I see that you did some effort choosing the word "peace time" to be able to say "well we are at peace with China, thus this is fine to charge them", but at the end of the day, what is peace time? Does receiving the order to attack a target make it become a war? They got an order to attack the US company, this is not peace.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> I see that you did some effort choosing the word "peace time" to be able to say "well we are at peace with China, thus this is fine to charge them" Incorrect, actually I did it because I am against events such as the murder of the Irani general. I personally do not think that hacking should be illegal so I do not think that the chinese agents should be charged in this instance. > but at the end of the day, what is peace time? Not having a formal declaration of war.
- zip1234 7y ago
  Hacking should not be illegal? So if someone hacks a bank and steals money from people--totally legal?
  - DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
    it's up to the bank to provide a secure service. Also if you get hacked as a business a couple of times your insurance premiums will go up. In the same vein shoddy IoT devices (and I argue anything that is online) should be fair game exactly so that things have a chance to become more secure. BrickerBot (e.g. Janit0r) had the right ideas here ... Even Japan got inspired by Brickerbot and knocked many devices offline last year which have become unservicable and posed too great a liability. If it were really about providing secure services then we'd be holding companies responsible, and even encouraging hackers to clean up those systems by hacking them. But it isn't about security so instead we're criminalizing hackers and engage in security-theater.
    - azernik 7y ago
      Responsibility and liability are not zero-sum. You can put the thief in jail, and also sue the pants off the bank for negligence.

smnrchrds 7y ago

Apparently there no longer is a universally accepted definition of peace time, or military personnel for that matter. See Omar Khadr fiasco for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr