3 ms·

One targeted a civilian organization, the other targeted a government installation (one could even make the case it was a military target). It's not hard to und

One targeted a civilian organization, the other targeted a government installation (one could even make the case it was a military target). It's not hard to understand why some people would give one a "terrorist" label but not the other.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mobiplayer 12y ago
One inflicted economic damage to a private company, but Stuxnet put several lives at risk. Saying the former is a terrorist attack means that the attacks to Target et al were terrorist attacks, too.
xnull1guest 12y ago
Haven't private corporations been hacked by the US also (Brazilian PETROBRAS)? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans-use-economic-espionage-benefit-american-corporations/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments... Given the first Geneva article placing private targets within international convention if they are of military interest (including media and broadcast services), and SONY's cooperation with the State Department in producing "The Interview", might SONY then qualify under international law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target
- csandreasen 12y ago
  Petrobras is hardly a private corporation - the Brazilian government is the majority shareholder[1]. What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. Per your own link, broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance. [1] http://peakenergystrategist.com/archives/tag/petrobras/ http://peakenergystrategist.com/archives/tag/petrobras/
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Petrobras is very close to 50% owned by the public, but okay. There's plenty of other examples including the IT systems of various private firms around the world, Stellar, Cetel, IABG, Huawei, Deutsche Telekom, even some multinational companies based in the US. > What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. 100% agree. It is very different and establishing boundaries here is an important keystone to US cyberwarfare norm efforts. Unlike other posters I would separate sabotage from 'corporate doxxing' - Stuxnet then is very different. > broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance Which depends on the perspective - as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" and the US is well known for international propaganda, I could well understand if another nation state considered the private company partners to be an extension of fundamental military importance (and certainly the US considers it a keystone of international efforts and calls it "Psychological Warfare").
    - csandreasen 12y ago
      > as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" Whoa - that's a bold claim. I'm assuming that you're referring to this[1], which claims that Bruce Bennett from the RAND Corporation was consulted five days after North Korea began making threats towards Sony over the film. The CEO of Sony claimed that someone at the State Department agreed with his assessment. Consulting about the political ramifications of a film after a foreign leader threatens violent action is different than being actively involved in the development of the film. I still very much disagree that Sony could be considered a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, but will concede that North Korean leadership is crazy and would make up any excuse. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-sony-emails-allege-u-s-govt-official-ok-d-controversial-ending-to-the-interview.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-s...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mobiplayer 12y ago

One inflicted economic damage to a private company, but Stuxnet put several lives at risk. Saying the former is a terrorist attack means that the attacks to Target et al were terrorist attacks, too.

xnull1guest 12y ago

Haven't private corporations been hacked by the US also (Brazilian PETROBRAS)? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans-use-economic-espionage-benefit-american-corporations/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments... Given the first Geneva article placing private targets within international convention if they are of military interest (including media and broadcast services), and SONY's cooperation with the State Department in producing "The Interview", might SONY then qualify under international law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target

csandreasen 12y ago
Petrobras is hardly a private corporation - the Brazilian government is the majority shareholder[1]. What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. Per your own link, broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance. [1] http://peakenergystrategist.com/archives/tag/petrobras/ http://peakenergystrategist.com/archives/tag/petrobras/
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Petrobras is very close to 50% owned by the public, but okay. There's plenty of other examples including the IT systems of various private firms around the world, Stellar, Cetel, IABG, Huawei, Deutsche Telekom, even some multinational companies based in the US. > What was done to Sony is entirely different as well - this was a clear effort to cause damage to them, not a means to gather intelligence. 100% agree. It is very different and establishing boundaries here is an important keystone to US cyberwarfare norm efforts. Unlike other posters I would separate sabotage from 'corporate doxxing' - Stuxnet then is very different. > broadcast services are only legitimate targets for attack under the Geneva Conventions if they are of fundamental military importance Which depends on the perspective - as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" and the US is well known for international propaganda, I could well understand if another nation state considered the private company partners to be an extension of fundamental military importance (and certainly the US considers it a keystone of international efforts and calls it "Psychological Warfare").
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    > as the State Department was involved with SONY in the development of "The Interview" Whoa - that's a bold claim. I'm assuming that you're referring to this[1], which claims that Bruce Bennett from the RAND Corporation was consulted five days after North Korea began making threats towards Sony over the film. The CEO of Sony claimed that someone at the State Department agreed with his assessment. Consulting about the political ramifications of a film after a foreign leader threatens violent action is different than being actively involved in the development of the film. I still very much disagree that Sony could be considered a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, but will concede that North Korean leadership is crazy and would make up any excuse. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-sony-emails-allege-u-s-govt-official-ok-d-controversial-ending-to-the-interview.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/17/exclusive-s...