GCSC critical infrastructure protection questions: your input needed.

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Wed Nov 15 08:21:42 UTC 2017

> On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:59 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> Aren't there already laws of war that forbid targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as well as laying out the combatants' duties to mitigate collateral damage from strikes on government personnel and facilities? Is there some reason these laws should not continue to apply when the attacks are carried out with bits instead of bombs?

Because…  cyber!

I mean, it would be really _nice_ if they thought the way you do, but they don’t.  They figure the old rules don’t also apply in a new venue.

Also, the rules by which _war_ is conducted don’t apply when it’s not a _war_.  And it’s essentially never a _war_ anymore.

Militaries are very clear that they won’t listen to anyone else about how they should conduct themselves when they’re at war.  This is an effort to create a norm governing their behavior when they’re not at war, and have less excuse or leeway or whatever.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20171115/51e90a13/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list