
Killing hackers is justified in cyber warfare, says NATO-commissioned report - achalkley
http://vrge.co/11jje2R
======
damoncali
I can feel some downvotes coming for this, but people need some perspective.
They are talking about hacking the US military with potentially life and death
consequences. Why people seem to think that they could do that without risking
their lives is beyond me.

~~~
roc
They are not talking about hacking _only_ military targets. But they _are_
talking about State-sponsored attacks and State-directed retaliation.

The study indicates that killing _state-sponsored_ hackers is justified as an
act _against the aggressor State_ , not as an act _against those individuals_.

Attacking an individual in another State is itself a violation of that target
State's sovereignty and would be grounds for legal retaliation.

The real legal problem in this comes from the grey area around where
"terrorists" fit in these definitions [1] and who exactly gets to define
"terrorist" [2].

But given how far US legal minds have already taken the escalation of
executive power in these cases, it seems silly to think they'd feel
particularly restricted in adding "hellfire missile" to their list of options,
if not for some third party's supportive legal opinion.

Frankly, when the State can simply disappear a citizen without recourse, the
question of whether they may decide outright murder is legal seems rather
superfluous.

[1] Where it is precisely the _lack_ of State sponsorship that brands one a
"terrorist" and opens the door to extra-legal abuse.

[2] In the US, two administrations have asserted that a "terrorist" is anyone
the executive branch claims is a terrorist due no particular evidential
requirement and subject to no legislative restriction or judicial review.

~~~
bobwaycott
Well put.

Exactly some of the points I tried to point out, as well, in my comments.
There is also the central issue that this document is a _NATO handbook_ , not
a doc focused on the US military or other governmental agencies.

NATO is trying to wrestle with how to understand and apply the Geneva
Conventions to cyberwarfare.

Seems some people are missing that part and reacting as if this is another
secret White House memo.

------
yk
I think that it is intuitively quite clear, that it is possible for 'cyber
operations' to be part of acts of war. [1] And the perpetrators are therefore
combatants and legitimate targets. But since I read P.W. Singer's _Wired for
war_ I have the strong feeling that the second order effects of 'cyber' and
drone operations are quite poorly thought out. So for example a drone pilot is
by this standard a combatant. And this reduces the protections international
law has for his house and the civilians within ( his family).

So I think, that the dominant military power ( or in case of the NATO,
military alliance) should try to limit the use of potentially disruptive
developments, already out of self interest.

[1] I will not argue in this about the morality of war or the logic of
warfare. Here I will simply argue within this framework.

~~~
kiiski
"And this reduces the protections international law has for his house and the
civilians within ( his family)."

I don't know what protections you are talking about, but I doubt the pilots
would be piloting anything from their homes. They only go there on leave, just
like all other soldiers. As for hackers, if a state sponsored attack is
launched from a civilian home, it is a violation of the rules of war. The
hackers should be in a military installation when doing anything (they
probably would anyway, just for security, easier cooperation etc.). There has
always been soldiers who fight wars without going to the battlefield.

~~~
yk
The scenario I am thinking about is, that bombing an apartment block full of
civilians is quite clearly a war crime. On the other hand, bombing barracks is
not. And since a drone pilot on leave is as far as I understand still a
combatant, he can be attacked given that the harm to civilians is
'proportional.' [1]

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_necessity>

~~~
stcredzero
Also, it should be possible to give drones even more selective weapons:

[https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/bullet...](https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/bullet/)

------
smtddr
And there we go. Right on track[1]. So first we keep putting "chinese" and
"hackers" into the same sentence with or without proof. Now we start to talk
about killing hackers. So now I've been told hackers can be made targets of
lethal force and China has a lot of hackers. What next?

1\. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5351714>

------
noonespecial
Add that to their ever increasing willingness to kill everyone and anyone
secretly with drones and it equals serious badness.

~~~
bobwaycott
Who is "their"? This is _NATO_ we're talking about. To my knowledge, NATO
purchased 5 _surveillance_ drones a year ago, and one of them crashed in
January. So they're down to four. And I don't believe there are any NATO
drone-executed kill operations known to have occurred.

------
snarfy
Consider stuxnet. Now replace Iran with the US and replace centrifuges with
missile launch and targeting systems.

~~~
sneak
You don't need to do that; the US already kills anyone they want to as it is.

You don't even need an internet connection for them to receive virtually zero
criticism for blowing you up with a drone-launched missile.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
An impressive amount of hyperbole was packed into this comment.

In response to the parent: I highly doubt any of those systems are connected
to the web, and more importantly it's likely the operators of such systems
practice a bit more stringent data sanitization than the Iranians.

~~~
stonemetal
[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-
fle...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/)

Maybe better but not good enough.

------
alan_cx
So, presumably its fine for secret murderers to hunt down fighter pilots, tank
commanders, Navy commanders, drone operators, etc?

A hacker is a person using a tool, or weapon. They do the hack, and its done.
Then get on with life, or do work or do training, etc. Same as a tank
commander. Most of the time they are not doing tank killing. They are laid up,
or doing something else. So, why not hunt them down the same way? Why are
hackers special?

Talk about pussy easy fashionable target.

~~~
cube13
> So, presumably its fine for secret murderers to hunt down fighter pilots,
> tank commanders, Navy commanders, drone operators, etc?

Uh, during wartime... yes?

They're all combatants, and it's simply a good strategy to hit your enemy when
they can't shoot you back.

------
bobwaycott
The title is, unfortunately, link-baity, misleading, and really misses some of
the most alarming parts of this doc.

The article from _The Guardian_ [1] is more balanced in presenting the actual
news. This doc[2] is directed at how to handle _state-sponsored_ and other
_war-time_ cyber attacks, offering a set of guidelines that indicate targets
that are expressly advised to be off-limits--such as "sensitive civilian
targets such as hospitals, dams, dykes and nuclear power stations". It is
wrestling with how to understand and apply the Geneva Conventions to cyber
attacks (e.g., see Rule 80).

Where do civilian hackers come into play? When they're among those "who
participate in online attacks during a war". Yes, that is worrisome and
potentially alarming if applied too broadly. While abuse of these guidelines
concerns me (greatly), this is not a new issue in the art of contemporary war.

Consider the French Resistance during WWII--a heavily civilian-populated
paramilitary resistance force that not only engaged in intelligence theft &
trafficking, but also were highly regarded and notorious for coordinating and
executing sabotage against power grids, transportation infrastructure, and
telecommunications networks. I think it could be argued that the Resistance is
a historical analogue to contemporary hackers/hacktivists engaged in cyber
attacks during a state of war. This document is essentially wrestling with the
legalities and rules of war that should apply where the contemporary
equivalent is concerned. Of course, I'd guess a lot of us would have greater
sympathy for Resistance-style hackers engaged in acts of sabotage than, say,
state-sponsored hackers who are targeting domestic nuclear facilities.

The real meat of the NATO document appears to be circling this line of
thinking:

< _The manual suggests "proportionate counter-measures" against online attacks
carried out by a state are permitted. Such measures cannot involve the use of
force, however, unless the original cyber-attack resulted in death or
significant damage to property._

Okay. Prohibition against launching missiles and invasion forces as
retaliation for hacking that did not result in death or significant damage to
property? Check. (of course, we need to be careful about how we define
'significant damage to property').

This is, however, where the document gets far more interesting and alarming
than the OP article mentions. Specifically, note Rule 22 and commentary:

> _"An international armed conflict exists whenever there are hostilities,
> which may include_ or be limited to _cyber operations occurring between two
> states or more . . . To date, no international armed conflict has been
> publicly characterised as having been solely precipitated in cyberspace.
> Nevertheless, the international group of experts unanimously concluded that
> cyber operations alone might have the potential to cross the threshold of
> international armed conflict."_

We've now hit the point that state-sponsored digital operations are recognized
as having the potential to initiate armed international conflicts. Not only
that, but we have a formal declaration that international armed conflict _may
be limited to_ 'cyber operations occurring between two states or more'. _That_
is the more alarming bit of news here.

[1]: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-
cyberwarfa...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfare-
nato-manual) [2]: <http://bit.ly/YTbtRd>

~~~
ctdonath
Viable scenario: a state-organized effort perpetrated solely thru data
networks shuts down a nation's entire power grid (electric, gas, etc.), and in
a manner where re-activation thereof will be slow & expensive (transformers
blown, gas pipes ruptured, etc.) with extensive major civilian consequences
(dominating digital economy offline, health/rescue services
disrupted/overwhelmed, traffic congestion skyrockets, etc.). Think Stuxnet for
the electric company. The perpetrator is identified.

Variation: this is detected beforehand, but very little time remains
(hours/minutes) before "detonation". Polite diplomatic channels are in no way
fast enough. The cyber-attack is traced to 10,000 malware-hijacked PCs in a
handful of concentrated residential neighborhoods.

Discuss.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Too many variables uncounted for in the second scenario. For example, do we
know what is going to be targeted and through what method it would be
attacked? How many legitimate users need web access to this critical service?

Assuming that knowledge, there's plenty that could be done if we have
forewarning. Take those neighborhoods offline at the ISP level. Alternately,
block the zombie IP ranges via firewall at the receiving end.

I think the real danger is that we won't have such forewarning, and in the
slim chance we did we won't have that crucial knowledge(what specifically is
the target and attack vector?).

------
adventured
I don't think there's any new distinction to be made about hackers regarding
this. Rather, hasn't it always been a question of whether someone was a target
of interest or not?

I wouldn't be surprised if the US and Soviets were killing hackers 25+ years
ago during the cold war.

~~~
schabernakk
There are some conspiracy theories floating around the deaths of Boris
Floricic [1] and Karl Koch [2]. Especially the latter one is often connected
to the KGB due to his involvement as a hacker during the cold war.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_%28hacker%29> [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_%28hacker%29>

~~~
adventured
Wasn't familiar with them. The notion that Koch burned himself to death with
gasoline as a means of suicide is absurd.

------
lucb1e
URL shortener blocked here for some reason. Working link:

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-
on-t...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-
international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare)

------
jiggy2011
Surely in this context "cyber warfare" means state sponsored hackers, probably
working for the military at a military establishment guarded by people with
guns.

Not just some kid who nmaps the wrong netblock.

~~~
bobwaycott
That is _precisely_ what the NATO document in question is specifying.

However, they also include civilian 'hacktivists' who engage in cyber attacks
against an enemy state during existing armed conflict.

[edit: clarify civilian angle]

------
jurassic
This message is sure to alleviate their technical recruiting problems.

------
Roboprog
Spying and sabotage have always been frowned upon by countries at war,
regardless of the means.

Whether wars are of the "world" variety, the "cold" variety, or the dubious
"terror" variety matters not.

------
stcredzero
Related to this:

[https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/bullet...](https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/bullet/)

A weapon system comparable to this would enable a drone to reliably target one
and only one person. That would be instrumental in taking out both hackers and
drone pilots under this new doctrine.

------
pixelcort
If you're interested in a movie related to the subject, check out
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Dealer>

Ignore the main plot and look to the interactions between the protagonist and
the drones:

> catches him monitoring a frequency used by the drones, an act that warrants
> a brutal attack

------
Ygg2
What does the report says about what amount of damage requires killing in
retribution? Is it with due process or not? Would hacker include anyone with a
computer that's in reach of drones?

~~~
pekk
Please explain your understanding of the role 'due process' plays in
international wars. Are acts of war preceded by international trials of some
kind? Who provides the judge?

~~~
Ygg2
I meant in cases when military is damaged by a foreign spy working on American
soil. If he is an American citizen would he receive chance to defend or just
be summarily executed?

------
caycep
Someone hide Ally Sheedy and Matthew Broderick!!

------
codeoclock
...what? What part of "killing is bad" don't these people understand?!

~~~
pekk
What part of "killing by electronic means is just as bad as other killing"
don't you understand?

~~~
codeoclock
I totally get that, killing by way of attacking critical infrastructure is
totally morally wrong, but it doesn't justify retaliation by killing or
"counterstrike". It's the reason I don't agree with the death penalty, but I
also get that the death penalty is a contentious issue. My point is, killing
is bad all the time regardless of reasoning (barring self defence), and
justifying killing by saying "oh, they did it first" isn't ok. Surely it would
be better to go about it in such a way that all killing was marked as wrong,
and retaliation would be confined to reasonable legal measures, such as
jailtime etc.

------
knodi
I don't see why it wouldn't be. We live in high tech times. Cyber warfare is
nothing different then physical violence.

~~~
daenz
> Cyber warfare is nothing different then physical violence.

So you wouldn't mind then if I secretly install a program that makes your
computer attempt to hack some US military network? Because that's a huge
difference between physical violence and cyber "violence": in meat space, I
can't hijack your body to commit crimes.

~~~
ctdonath
"Casualties of war" are, like it or not, a given. In war, if X is an active
lethal threat, and the best expedient option is to destroy it ASAP, bystanders
caught in the destruction are deemed acceptable losses. If a program running
on your computer unbeknownst to you is doing something causing grave harm to
others _right now_ , those being harmed have the natural right to do whatever
it takes, including at least equal harm, to make it stop.

In fact, that's the whole point of war: all other viable options for self-
preservation (personal and national) have been exhausted, leaving only killing
people and breaking things until the threat stops.

~~~
delian66
The whole point of modern war, is that you make other people kill each other,
in order to profit from selling them both weapons and "help" them rebuild
after the destruction.

