NATO 'Cyberwar' Manual Says Hacktivists Must Wear A Uniform
from the dressed-to-kill dept
Last year, Techdirt wrote about an interesting article suggesting that we should welcome "cyberwar" since it would be so much less painful than the ordinary kind. Of course, that begs the question what we actually mean by "cyberwar", since some forms are probably less humane than others. As we have pointed out, the use of the totally embarrassing "cyber" prefix is really just an excuse for more government controls and for security companies to get fat contracts implementing them.
Against that background, the following news from The Verge about an attempt to pin down what exactly "cyberwar" might be, is particularly interesting:
A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by 20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored cyberattacks.
The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare is a fascinating, if rather dry read: it consists of 95 key statements or rules about "cyberwarfare", each followed by pages of academic argument about what that statement means, and why. Mostly, it's about transposing existing law on warfare into the online world, defining things like "sovereignty", "attack", "force", "proportionality" etc. But there's one area where old ideas don't help: that of "hacktivists", defined in the Manual as "A private citizen who on his or her own initiative engages in hacking for, inter alia, ideological, political, religious, or patriotic reasons."
That's because conventional war makes a distinction between combatants -- those fighting in regular armies -- and those who are "unprivileged belligerents". The difference is crucial: the former enjoy important rights, for example to be treated as prisoners of war if captured, whereas "unprivileged belligerents" do not. The distinction between the two groups is relatively obvious in traditional warfare, where combatants are organized and subject to clear command structures. Hacktivists, by contrast, may decide to defend their country by taking part in group attacks from their home or from a local café, say; the issue then becomes whether or not they are to be considered combatants with rights, or "unprivileged belligerents" without them.
The following section from the Tallinn Manual shows the experts floundering here -- and just how hard it is to come up with sensible rules for this "cyberwar" stuff:
Combatant status requires that the individual wear a 'fixed distinctive sign'. The requirement is generally met through the wearing of uniforms. There is no basis for deviating from this general requirement for those engaged in cyber operations. Some members of the International Group of Experts suggested that individuals engaged in cyber operations, regardless of circumstances such as distance from the area of operations or clear separation from the civilian population, must always comply with this requirement to enjoy combatant status.
So if you're ever tempted to engage in a little patriotic hacking into enemy computers, please don't forget to put on your uniform first...
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cyberwar, hacking, hactivism, nato, rules, uniform
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Way ahead of you
* Resource Locator
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you banned them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you banned them...
That can't go over well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you banned them...
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you banned them...
So your protester uniform pays into the corporations that hold up the system they are so often protesting. Quit being trendy little shits and make your own mask if you want to hide your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But you banned them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Articles of War.
You did read the article didn't you?
Large well established armies do tend to follow some rule of law. It kind of comes with the territory. It's part of what separates an army from a mob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Articles of War.
In theory it would also apply to people like drone pilots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Articles of War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uniforms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes I agree.
Now, can you please adjust your webcam a bit to the left? We'd like to see if that thing on the background is a banana or a rocket launcher. Oh, and your microphone sound is coming in a bit quiet. Can you look into it?
Thanks!
PS: Don't forget your doctor's appointment on Wednesday.
-- Your government
(PS: This post is merely satire. Please don't freak out over this. DO freak out over the fact that your government has the ability to do this...and probably does it routinely...not to "you" specifically, but to "you" in general)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not? They're already getting flight pay and their wings like real pilots.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_uas_career_100909w/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While the article you linked goes on for a while, the premise is pretty easy to grasp. Congress sets the military's base pay. You then get a bunch of other stuff on top of it. Combat pay, flight pay, hazardous duty pay, etc...
Believe it or not, flying a drone or operating sensors is hard work. The USAF wants to recognize that fact by giving them some extra pay. The problem is there isn't anything on the books for drone operators, so they have to shoehorn flight pay in there.
It's all because the Air Force really likes this drone thing, but most personnel want to be real pilots. Incentives are the name of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recruitment
Had an Internet War broken out then hacktivists would be rounded up and persuaded to work under military control. Most likely they would be armed with specialised technology and crammed into a uniform to help instigate national pride.
No hacktivist could work for long, at least in any successful sense, without drawing attention of people on the same side already working under military control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar
(Apologies for yet another America-centric interpretation, but feel free to localize...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds familiar
Something that predated the Geneva Conventions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But for the nerd-squad uniform? That's easy.
Pocket protectors, slide rules and glasses with tape in the center.
Oh, and the man's virginity still intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Play both sides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um
Doesn't this kind of help people arrested for hacking? If you have a Fawkes mask, does that mean you get special POW rights?
But it also sucks, because the "war" can be indefinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People who believe this are mistaken.
What happens is the barrier to resorting to force is lowered, the less lethal attacks on infrastructure are used to soften up targets so the following very lethal attacks are more effective.
It's also silly to imagine that anger and consequent retaliations would be absent following destructive attacks (if it couldn't do damage that pissed off an opponent enough to risk violence in return you probably shouldn't be calling it warfare).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uniforms never seen....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b) the whole point of a uniform is to simplify figuring out who is a PoW and who isn't
c) they probably mean an ONLINE uniform, not an offline one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]