5 ms·

I suspect this to be the work of the US government, but out of curiosity I wonder if there would be any legal consequences were Sony or another private party to

I suspect this to be the work of the US government, but out of curiosity I wonder if there would be any legal consequences were Sony or another private party to launch a DDOS attack on North Korea from the US. Obviously no one would be extradited to NK, but I'm curious if that would run afoul of US law. If not, it might be fun to create some software or a mobile app that would keep this going indefinitely. I imagine a "CrashNK" app would get alot of downloads.

Alupis 12y ago
> I suspect this to be the work of the US government If true, the backlash could be significant. There's already large portions of the world trying to de-centralize the internet from the US (routing around, etc) after the Snowden leaks and discoveries of egregious abuses of power over the internet by the US government. No single country should have the capability (or right) to knock an entire other country off the internet, North Korea or not...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- free2rhyme214 12y ago
  I think you don't understand how powerful the US military really is. We take down governments in our sleep and replace them with our own puppets.
  - cubano 12y ago
    We take down governments in our sleep and replace them with our own puppets. Except for the fact that the Chinese protect that particular government, and that makes thing a lot stickier.
    - knd775 12y ago
      China is publicly backing away from North Korea. They have said that they will not come to NK's aid if they do something stupid and get attacked.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        > China is publicly backing away from North Korea It seems to be quite the opposite actually: > Any civilized world will oppose hacker attacks or terror threats. But a movie like ‘The Interview,’ which makes fun of the leader of an enemy of the U.S., is nothing to be proud of for Hollywood and U.S. society,” an editorial in the newspaper said. “No matter how the U.S. society looks at North Korea and Kim Jong-un, Kim is still the leader of the country. The vicious mocking of Kim is only a result of senseless cultural arrogance.[1] [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-hack-triggers-diplomatic-tightwalk-china-condemns-cyberattacks-without-1764432 http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-hack-triggers-diplomatic-tightwa...
        snogglethorpe 12y ago
        China's position on this particular incident is just a reflexive defense of the concept of "no interference in other countries' affairs, regardless of how bad they look" something which China strongly advocates for its own reasons, not for the benefit of NK. China's general attitude over the last decade or two has been a gradually increasing private irritation with NK's behavior and while China still tends to defend NK in public, these defenses seem more and more perfunctory as time goes on. There's a sense that while they value NK as a communist buffer state, the Chinese government has little love for the NK regime in particular, and wishes they'd get their act together.
- burnstek 12y ago
  The US has a lot more capability than that. Wrong or right, the US (and many other countries) could knock North Korea from the map entirely. Lives are much more important than Internet access.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> I wonder if there would be any legal consequences were Sony or another private party to launch a DDOS attack on North Korea from the US. Obviously no one would be extradited to NK, but I'm curious if that would run afoul of US law. We could consider an analogy: would Sony run afoul of US (or international) law if they knocked North Korea offline by launching highly-targetted ballistic missiles from their US offices? My gut feeling is yes, that's illegal. If not, then the US is even more self-righteous than it appears!
- downandout 12y ago
  >would Sony run afoul of US (or international) law if they knocked North Korea offline by launching highly-targetted ballistic missiles from their US offices? That isn't remotely close to an analogy. Mere possession of explosive devices, or even the materials to make them, is a crime in the US. However, it isn't clear if attacking a remote network is a crime under US law. Normally it would be up to the victim country to prosecute and request extradition, but there would be no extradition from the US or any other country (except perhaps from China, one of NK's few allies) in this case.
crazypyro 12y ago
This is illegal. Under the CFAA, any unauthorized access of any "protected" system anywhere (that causes at least $5,000 in damages, but hell, anything over a 1-2 man business can have $5,000 in damages, in legal terms, in a few seconds) is a felony. Protected system: "including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States" I think taking down NK internet would be considered affecting foreign commerce/communication.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  But, I wonder, if a case could be made for such an attack being a defensive maneuver on the part of the USG? That is, due to the claimed recent activity by NK and future threats articulated by NK to engage in cyber warfare, might taking their access offline be construed as a defensive measure? If so, would there be anything under the U.S. Code or otherwise that would supersede the CFAA; or are there exclusions in the CFAA itself?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Acts of the executive branch (or of anyone the executive branch agrees with) can escape criminal prosecution (whether or not they are technically crimes) simply because (1) the executive branch controls prosecutions, and (2) the executive branch has the power of the pardon. Criminal law, except from a political standpoint, does not constrain the policy of the executive branch.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      So, you're saying that the GP's point is moot, in that the USG would disregard any perceived constraints imposed by the CFAA in limiting an attack like this? If so, we're effectively saying the same thing, with the exception that I do believe individuals are, and know themselves to be, technically liable for criminal conduct. As such, I believe that individuals and groups working within the USG (Executive or otherwise) do seek legal cover for their actions.
rgbrenner 12y ago
IANAL.. but the US laws on cybercrime aren't limited to attacks within US borders. For example, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act says "such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act here's a list of us cybercrime laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cybercrime#U.S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cybercrime#U.S.

Alupis 12y ago

> I suspect this to be the work of the US government If true, the backlash could be significant. There's already large portions of the world trying to de-centralize the internet from the US (routing around, etc) after the Snowden leaks and discoveries of egregious abuses of power over the internet by the US government. No single country should have the capability (or right) to knock an entire other country off the internet, North Korea or not...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
free2rhyme214 12y ago
I think you don't understand how powerful the US military really is. We take down governments in our sleep and replace them with our own puppets.
- cubano 12y ago
  We take down governments in our sleep and replace them with our own puppets. Except for the fact that the Chinese protect that particular government, and that makes thing a lot stickier.
  - knd775 12y ago
    China is publicly backing away from North Korea. They have said that they will not come to NK's aid if they do something stupid and get attacked.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      > China is publicly backing away from North Korea It seems to be quite the opposite actually: > Any civilized world will oppose hacker attacks or terror threats. But a movie like ‘The Interview,’ which makes fun of the leader of an enemy of the U.S., is nothing to be proud of for Hollywood and U.S. society,” an editorial in the newspaper said. “No matter how the U.S. society looks at North Korea and Kim Jong-un, Kim is still the leader of the country. The vicious mocking of Kim is only a result of senseless cultural arrogance.[1] [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-hack-triggers-diplomatic-tightwalk-china-condemns-cyberattacks-without-1764432 http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-hack-triggers-diplomatic-tightwa...
      - snogglethorpe 12y ago
        China's position on this particular incident is just a reflexive defense of the concept of "no interference in other countries' affairs, regardless of how bad they look" something which China strongly advocates for its own reasons, not for the benefit of NK. China's general attitude over the last decade or two has been a gradually increasing private irritation with NK's behavior and while China still tends to defend NK in public, these defenses seem more and more perfunctory as time goes on. There's a sense that while they value NK as a communist buffer state, the Chinese government has little love for the NK regime in particular, and wishes they'd get their act together.
burnstek 12y ago
The US has a lot more capability than that. Wrong or right, the US (and many other countries) could knock North Korea from the map entirely. Lives are much more important than Internet access.

chriswarbo 12y ago

> I wonder if there would be any legal consequences were Sony or another private party to launch a DDOS attack on North Korea from the US. Obviously no one would be extradited to NK, but I'm curious if that would run afoul of US law. We could consider an analogy: would Sony run afoul of US (or international) law if they knocked North Korea offline by launching highly-targetted ballistic missiles from their US offices? My gut feeling is yes, that's illegal. If not, then the US is even more self-righteous than it appears!

downandout 12y ago
>would Sony run afoul of US (or international) law if they knocked North Korea offline by launching highly-targetted ballistic missiles from their US offices? That isn't remotely close to an analogy. Mere possession of explosive devices, or even the materials to make them, is a crime in the US. However, it isn't clear if attacking a remote network is a crime under US law. Normally it would be up to the victim country to prosecute and request extradition, but there would be no extradition from the US or any other country (except perhaps from China, one of NK's few allies) in this case.

crazypyro 12y ago

This is illegal. Under the CFAA, any unauthorized access of any "protected" system anywhere (that causes at least $5,000 in damages, but hell, anything over a 1-2 man business can have $5,000 in damages, in legal terms, in a few seconds) is a felony. Protected system: "including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States" I think taking down NK internet would be considered affecting foreign commerce/communication.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
But, I wonder, if a case could be made for such an attack being a defensive maneuver on the part of the USG? That is, due to the claimed recent activity by NK and future threats articulated by NK to engage in cyber warfare, might taking their access offline be construed as a defensive measure? If so, would there be anything under the U.S. Code or otherwise that would supersede the CFAA; or are there exclusions in the CFAA itself?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Acts of the executive branch (or of anyone the executive branch agrees with) can escape criminal prosecution (whether or not they are technically crimes) simply because (1) the executive branch controls prosecutions, and (2) the executive branch has the power of the pardon. Criminal law, except from a political standpoint, does not constrain the policy of the executive branch.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    So, you're saying that the GP's point is moot, in that the USG would disregard any perceived constraints imposed by the CFAA in limiting an attack like this? If so, we're effectively saying the same thing, with the exception that I do believe individuals are, and know themselves to be, technically liable for criminal conduct. As such, I believe that individuals and groups working within the USG (Executive or otherwise) do seek legal cover for their actions.

rgbrenner 12y ago

IANAL.. but the US laws on cybercrime aren't limited to attacks within US borders. For example, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act says "such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act here's a list of us cybercrime laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cybercrime#U.S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cybercrime#U.S.