When did a majority of people start voting in the US?
When did we start asking voters whether to go to war or not?
True that Democracy is the worst form of government...that's why the US was formed as a republic to promote only the best aspects of democracy while installing powerful anti-democratic checks to avoid the chaos of mob rule that predictably follows.
As we have dismantled those safety systems under the rallying cry that "we need more democracy," the pillars of our republic are crumbling under the weight of the mob. Just as political scientists reaching back to Plato predicted it would.
Not sure where the freakout is coming from. This is an old hat, and Biden is doing his job clearly communicating the defense posture of the United States (and its allies) to those belligerent adversaries who have systematically rejected and derailed attempts at clarifying and formalizing meaningful international norms around cyber.
In 1996 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has provided, under the concept of self-defense codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter, within the limits of proportional response doctrine, and excluding otherwise prohibited weapons, there are no legal prescriptions authorizing or prohibiting a nation from responding in self-defense using any weapon of their choice. In 2001 it ruled that UN Article 22, “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,” allows countermeasures, which are otherwise unlawful actions taken by one state against another in response to an unlawful act in order to compel the offending state to terminate the unlawful activity and/or make reparations.
Remember when, at the 3rd meeting of GGE at the UN in 2017, an attempt to clarify how these norms apply to Internet Communication Technologies (ICT) was defeated (most certainly by the Russia/China coalitions) and Cuban rep Miguel Rodrígueza said, “We consider unacceptable the formulations contained in the draft, aimed to establish equivalence between the malicious use of ICTs and the concept of ‘armed attack’ …,” who then ALSO rejected the application of international humanitarian law to ICT, citing an objection that “it would legitimize a scenario of war and military actions in the context of ICT”.
So, according to this opposition coalition, no matter what harm ICTs cause to a nation's infrastructure or non-combatants there should be no international legal ramifications rising to the level of war/self-defense. Now that's stupid, unless ICTs are your favorite weapon to undermine your powerful adversaries in the western democracies, in which case it's brilliant.
US rep Markoff said “I am coming to the unfortunate conclusion that those who are unwilling to affirm the applicability of these international legal rules and principles believe their States are free to act in or through cyberspace to achieve their political ends with no limits or constraints on their actions”.
Furthermore, the NATO manual, a product arising through debate among international legal scholars and technical experts under the observation and advice of organizations such as the International Red Cross and submitted for peer review to many countries, has established cyber as "a domain of warfare" no different than land or sea.
The 2017 version (Tallinn Manual 2.0: International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations) tries to clarify what might constitute an “armed attack” under the meaning of international law when applied to the cyber realm.
In the absence of international treaties that specifically deal with the rules of war (jus ad bello) as they apply to cybersecurity, the Tallinn Manual provides legal opinions (opinio juris) to address the important questions of when a nation has the right to conduct acts of warfare (jus ad bellum), the constraints of necessity and proportionality, and how traditional terms like “use of force” might translate from the physical to the electronic domains of national defense. These include the thorny questions of attribution of individual actions to the state and questions of jurisdiction.
International agreements are persistently blocked by Russia, China, and other authoritarian regimes who are pursuing strategies to legitimize government control of the internet within their borders against political dissent and foreign influence. If they were passed, they would also apply to the US, which suggests that we are not routinely engaging in unprovoked warlike cyber activity such as you suggest. This is different than espionage, which according to international law is legal for everyone to do.
Communicating the clear intentions of the United States to reserve the right to retaliate (as Biden did), however and whenever it sees fit (within existing international norms) is not "stupid": it provides a clear warning to our adversaries that they better be damned careful or risk getting a hell of a lot more than they bargained for. This should help prevent mis-steps, not provoke them as you seem to suggest.
Now, if you just want to say "war is stupid" in general, OK...sure I'm with you there. But to latch on to these comments by Biden as somehow different than what's been going on for 15-20 years is mis-informed. And at the end of the day, no matter how much you want to criticize the US, we all better hope that US-based democratic and rights-based values would prevail in any conflict if you want these kinds of discussions to continue.
I think you raise a good intellectual question about control nodes that warrants further study, and I'd love to see a similar map depicting those effects. Got data?
Otherwise, your dismissive conclusions are just more popular activism against the big tech/big government boogeyman. OK, boomer.
It seems to me Mike Masnick has made a far stronger case here.
To be fair, it should be worth noting that trademark holders are compelled to pursue infringement if they wish to retain their property rights. Failing to bring suit in a timely fashion once aware could invite a laches and acquiescence defense.
The landmark example is Thomas Kenneth Abraham d/b/a Paddle Tramps Manufacturing Co. v. Alphi Chi Omega, case no. 12-1341 (2013).
I don't mean to suggest they have no choice in the matter, but my guess is most legal teams would prefer to let the judge decide rather than risk protection of the brand.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Roy_Hinkley.
Re: Re: 5-4 or 6-3, Same outcome?
When did a majority of people start voting in the US?
When did we start asking voters whether to go to war or not?
True that Democracy is the worst form of government...that's why the US was formed as a republic to promote only the best aspects of democracy while installing powerful anti-democratic checks to avoid the chaos of mob rule that predictably follows.
As we have dismantled those safety systems under the rallying cry that "we need more democracy," the pillars of our republic are crumbling under the weight of the mob. Just as political scientists reaching back to Plato predicted it would.
See Jonathan Rauch's 2016 article in The Atlantic for more.
Nothing new here...what's the big deal?
Not sure where the freakout is coming from. This is an old hat, and Biden is doing his job clearly communicating the defense posture of the United States (and its allies) to those belligerent adversaries who have systematically rejected and derailed attempts at clarifying and formalizing meaningful international norms around cyber.
In 1996 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has provided, under the concept of self-defense codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter, within the limits of proportional response doctrine, and excluding otherwise prohibited weapons, there are no legal prescriptions authorizing or prohibiting a nation from responding in self-defense using any weapon of their choice. In 2001 it ruled that UN Article 22, “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,” allows countermeasures, which are otherwise unlawful actions taken by one state against another in response to an unlawful act in order to compel the offending state to terminate the unlawful activity and/or make reparations.
Remember when, at the 3rd meeting of GGE at the UN in 2017, an attempt to clarify how these norms apply to Internet Communication Technologies (ICT) was defeated (most certainly by the Russia/China coalitions) and Cuban rep Miguel Rodrígueza said, “We consider unacceptable the formulations contained in the draft, aimed to establish equivalence between the malicious use of ICTs and the concept of ‘armed attack’ …,” who then ALSO rejected the application of international humanitarian law to ICT, citing an objection that “it would legitimize a scenario of war and military actions in the context of ICT”.
So, according to this opposition coalition, no matter what harm ICTs cause to a nation's infrastructure or non-combatants there should be no international legal ramifications rising to the level of war/self-defense. Now that's stupid, unless ICTs are your favorite weapon to undermine your powerful adversaries in the western democracies, in which case it's brilliant.
US rep Markoff said “I am coming to the unfortunate conclusion that those who are unwilling to affirm the applicability of these international legal rules and principles believe their States are free to act in or through cyberspace to achieve their political ends with no limits or constraints on their actions”.
Furthermore, the NATO manual, a product arising through debate among international legal scholars and technical experts under the observation and advice of organizations such as the International Red Cross and submitted for peer review to many countries, has established cyber as "a domain of warfare" no different than land or sea.
The 2017 version (Tallinn Manual 2.0: International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations) tries to clarify what might constitute an “armed attack” under the meaning of international law when applied to the cyber realm.
In the absence of international treaties that specifically deal with the rules of war (jus ad bello) as they apply to cybersecurity, the Tallinn Manual provides legal opinions (opinio juris) to address the important questions of when a nation has the right to conduct acts of warfare (jus ad bellum), the constraints of necessity and proportionality, and how traditional terms like “use of force” might translate from the physical to the electronic domains of national defense. These include the thorny questions of attribution of individual actions to the state and questions of jurisdiction.
International agreements are persistently blocked by Russia, China, and other authoritarian regimes who are pursuing strategies to legitimize government control of the internet within their borders against political dissent and foreign influence. If they were passed, they would also apply to the US, which suggests that we are not routinely engaging in unprovoked warlike cyber activity such as you suggest. This is different than espionage, which according to international law is legal for everyone to do.
Communicating the clear intentions of the United States to reserve the right to retaliate (as Biden did), however and whenever it sees fit (within existing international norms) is not "stupid": it provides a clear warning to our adversaries that they better be damned careful or risk getting a hell of a lot more than they bargained for. This should help prevent mis-steps, not provoke them as you seem to suggest.
Now, if you just want to say "war is stupid" in general, OK...sure I'm with you there. But to latch on to these comments by Biden as somehow different than what's been going on for 15-20 years is mis-informed. And at the end of the day, no matter how much you want to criticize the US, we all better hope that US-based democratic and rights-based values would prevail in any conflict if you want these kinds of discussions to continue.
Re: Re: Key Nodes
"very little to say"?
I think you raise a good intellectual question about control nodes that warrants further study, and I'd love to see a similar map depicting those effects. Got data?
Otherwise, your dismissive conclusions are just more popular activism against the big tech/big government boogeyman. OK, boomer.
It seems to me Mike Masnick has made a far stronger case here.
“laches” and “acquiescence” compels suits like this
To be fair, it should be worth noting that trademark holders are compelled to pursue infringement if they wish to retain their property rights. Failing to bring suit in a timely fashion once aware could invite a laches and acquiescence defense.
The landmark example is Thomas Kenneth Abraham d/b/a Paddle Tramps Manufacturing Co. v. Alphi Chi Omega, case no. 12-1341 (2013).
I don't mean to suggest they have no choice in the matter, but my guess is most legal teams would prefer to let the judge decide rather than risk protection of the brand.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Roy_Hinkley.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt