6 ms·

There's a current U.S. bill from February looking at reviving these as well, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6869/text?r=1&s=1 https://w

There's a current U.S. bill from February looking at reviving these as well, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6869/text?r=1&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6869... but it hasn't passed the house yet. Let's say hypothetically we gave letters of marque to civilian hackers, do the letters need to be registered somewhere, or is it a bearer token you provide when you get caught by your own side, and if you do have one, does it make you an enemy combatant, and therefore a legit target from the perspective of target nations? Can the Letter holder use subcontractors? That we're only seeing the bill now means they haven't been necessary before. It's romantic, but it doesn't seem like wise policy, and it sets a precedent that licenses american civilians to be terrorists against other nations, which has historically been a privilege reserved for the intelligence community.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> if you do have one, does it make you an enemy combatant Yes, that's the whole point. > a precedent that licenses american civilians to be terrorists against other nations What does "terrorist" mean here? Ordinarily it would refer to someone with a political objective, but letters of marque exist to promote a military objective.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Terrorism is generally the use of tactics that inflict terror on a civilian population to get a desired effect. The specific exclusion of official government and military actions is motivated reasoning on the part of government officials, who prefer to use nicer euphemisms to describe their own actions. > on 28 March 1945 the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, sent a memo by telegram to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff in which he started with the sentence "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed...."[13][14] Under pressure from the Chiefs of Staff and in response to the views expressed by Chief of the Air Staff Sir Charles Portal, and the head of Bomber Command, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, among others, Churchill withdrew his memo and issued a new one.[14] This was completed on 1 April 1945 and started instead with the usual euphemism used when referring to strategic bombing: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests....".[15] (Incidentally, I think you have to stretch even my definition of terrorism to include hacking.. having your power turn off or your bank shut down by hackers is certainly destructive and disruptive, but terror inducing? That's a stretch. It's not like you're trembling in fear wondering if a bomb is going to crash through your roof tonight.)
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    The definition you offer doesn't appear to be compatible with either half of the sentence I asked about: >>> it sets a precedent that licenses american civilians to be terrorists against other nations, which has historically been a privilege reserved for the intelligence community. in that, as you note, the activities being endorsed here would not qualify as terrifying, but also in that this is generally not something the intelligence community tries to do.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > The definition you offer doesn't appear to be compatible with either half of the sentence I asked about: Yes, I agree that privateer hackers aren't terrorists and I wasn't trying to bolster that claim. But it's not because they're given letters of marque, government sanctioned terrorism is still terrorism as far as I'm concerned. Rather, privateer hackers aren't terrorists because they generally don't use tactics specifically intended to inflict terror. Rather their aim is to disrupt industry and the economy.
      - motohagiography 4y ago
        If hackers were (hypothetically, surely) to cause a liquid natural gas plant explosion, is that less terroristic than causing a truck, a data centre, a wastebin, a church, or a policeman's pub to explode? All are examples of major terrorist attacks in living memory, and it's strange how intuitively it seems less like terrorism to hit an LNG plant, even though several workers would likely not survive and it's going to cause knock-on social instability from price jumps. When you attack an economy, you are making people fear starvation instead of murder, but it's still a violent act that instills an irrational fear that you are responsible for as a means to affect policy. I wouldn't accuse you in particular of being able to rationalize it as something like, "it's not murder if you starve them," but when you destroy critical infrastructure that supplies their food system as a way to put fear into their economy, that's precisely the rationalization of that attacker. It would be interesting what the argument for it not-being terrorism would be though.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Ordinarily it doesn't refer to much other than a series of acts that a particular country is willing to break it's own norms in order to prevent from continuing. Originally, it just referred to asymmetrical warfare where there was no chance that the weaker side could win through battles, so instead they commit random, surprising violence to the stronger in order the keep them individually paranoid and terrified, and eventually to break their will. I think the term was originally coined by Anarchists as an ideal, humane, effective war strategy. Propaganda of the deed.
walrus01 4y ago
I think it is probably a good thing that we did not, for example, give letters of marque to somebody like Erik Prince.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> if you do have one, does it make you an enemy combatant Yes, that's the whole point. > a precedent that licenses american civilians to be terrorists against other nations What does "terrorist" mean here? Ordinarily it would refer to someone with a political objective, but letters of marque exist to promote a military objective.

robonerd 4y ago
Terrorism is generally the use of tactics that inflict terror on a civilian population to get a desired effect. The specific exclusion of official government and military actions is motivated reasoning on the part of government officials, who prefer to use nicer euphemisms to describe their own actions. > on 28 March 1945 the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, sent a memo by telegram to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff in which he started with the sentence "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed...."[13][14] Under pressure from the Chiefs of Staff and in response to the views expressed by Chief of the Air Staff Sir Charles Portal, and the head of Bomber Command, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, among others, Churchill withdrew his memo and issued a new one.[14] This was completed on 1 April 1945 and started instead with the usual euphemism used when referring to strategic bombing: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests....".[15] (Incidentally, I think you have to stretch even my definition of terrorism to include hacking.. having your power turn off or your bank shut down by hackers is certainly destructive and disruptive, but terror inducing? That's a stretch. It's not like you're trembling in fear wondering if a bomb is going to crash through your roof tonight.)
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  The definition you offer doesn't appear to be compatible with either half of the sentence I asked about: >>> it sets a precedent that licenses american civilians to be terrorists against other nations, which has historically been a privilege reserved for the intelligence community. in that, as you note, the activities being endorsed here would not qualify as terrifying, but also in that this is generally not something the intelligence community tries to do.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > The definition you offer doesn't appear to be compatible with either half of the sentence I asked about: Yes, I agree that privateer hackers aren't terrorists and I wasn't trying to bolster that claim. But it's not because they're given letters of marque, government sanctioned terrorism is still terrorism as far as I'm concerned. Rather, privateer hackers aren't terrorists because they generally don't use tactics specifically intended to inflict terror. Rather their aim is to disrupt industry and the economy.
    - motohagiography 4y ago
      If hackers were (hypothetically, surely) to cause a liquid natural gas plant explosion, is that less terroristic than causing a truck, a data centre, a wastebin, a church, or a policeman's pub to explode? All are examples of major terrorist attacks in living memory, and it's strange how intuitively it seems less like terrorism to hit an LNG plant, even though several workers would likely not survive and it's going to cause knock-on social instability from price jumps. When you attack an economy, you are making people fear starvation instead of murder, but it's still a violent act that instills an irrational fear that you are responsible for as a means to affect policy. I wouldn't accuse you in particular of being able to rationalize it as something like, "it's not murder if you starve them," but when you destroy critical infrastructure that supplies their food system as a way to put fear into their economy, that's precisely the rationalization of that attacker. It would be interesting what the argument for it not-being terrorism would be though.
pessimizer 4y ago
Ordinarily it doesn't refer to much other than a series of acts that a particular country is willing to break it's own norms in order to prevent from continuing. Originally, it just referred to asymmetrical warfare where there was no chance that the weaker side could win through battles, so instead they commit random, surprising violence to the stronger in order the keep them individually paranoid and terrified, and eventually to break their will. I think the term was originally coined by Anarchists as an ideal, humane, effective war strategy. Propaganda of the deed.

walrus01 4y ago

I think it is probably a good thing that we did not, for example, give letters of marque to somebody like Erik Prince.