3 ms·

Hypothetically, if another "U.S." company with higher economical consequences got cyberattacked, would it be considered an act of war? For example if Facebook g

by rawnlq 12y ago

Hypothetically, if another "U.S." company with higher economical consequences got cyberattacked, would it be considered an act of war? For example if Facebook got shutdown for a few days/weeks. Or does it have to be military/government/infrastructure related tech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare#Cyberwarfare_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare#Cyberwarfare_in_th... "The new United States military strategy makes explicit that a cyberattack is casus belli just as a traditional act of war."

enraged_camel 12y ago
It most likely wouldn't be considered an act of war, for several reasons. Most cyber-attacks are difficult to trace to a source, and even when they are traced, it's basically impossible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the attack was state-sponsored. Countries let more serious transgressions slide, because wars are costly and they cause orders of magnitude more damage than any cyberattack. In the grand scheme of things, economic damage resulting from cyber-espionage or cyber-sabotage is regarded -- or at least should be regarded -- as a cost of doing business on the Internet. Companies should treat DDoS attacks the way banks treat robberies: inevitable and expected. And just like banks, they should simply buy insurance to cover the costs and damages.
- BetaMechazawa 12y ago
  I honestly feel that in this case we can say that beyond a reasonable doubt this is a state-sponsored attack. This is because of both the target and the fact that traffic is manipulated at the "great" firewall to initiate this attack.
darkhorn 12y ago
To be considered an act of war the USA should have something to gain such as oil or destroying a small communist coutry.
pjc50 12y ago
So is shooting down an airliner (MH17), but you just don't declare war on another nuclear power if you want to see tomorrow.

by rawnlq 12y ago

enraged_camel 12y ago

It most likely wouldn't be considered an act of war, for several reasons. Most cyber-attacks are difficult to trace to a source, and even when they are traced, it's basically impossible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the attack was state-sponsored. Countries let more serious transgressions slide, because wars are costly and they cause orders of magnitude more damage than any cyberattack. In the grand scheme of things, economic damage resulting from cyber-espionage or cyber-sabotage is regarded -- or at least should be regarded -- as a cost of doing business on the Internet. Companies should treat DDoS attacks the way banks treat robberies: inevitable and expected. And just like banks, they should simply buy insurance to cover the costs and damages.

BetaMechazawa 12y ago
I honestly feel that in this case we can say that beyond a reasonable doubt this is a state-sponsored attack. This is because of both the target and the fact that traffic is manipulated at the "great" firewall to initiate this attack.

darkhorn 12y ago

To be considered an act of war the USA should have something to gain such as oil or destroying a small communist coutry.

pjc50 12y ago

So is shooting down an airliner (MH17), but you just don't declare war on another nuclear power if you want to see tomorrow.