GCSC critical infrastructure protection questions: your input needed.
bill at herrin.us
Wed Nov 15 05:59:28 UTC 2017
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> One of PCH’s long-term efforts has been to encourage governments to
> restrict their use of offensive cyber attacks against civilian networks.
> As you might imagine, this is a reasonably popular idea everywhere except
> the US, Russia, and China. We’ve successfully gotten that effort out of
> the U.N., where it was floundering, and into a well-supported stand-alone
> commission. It’s being taken very seriously by governments, and will be
> one of the most important topics under discussion at the Global Conference
> on Cyberspace in Delhi next week.
> The work has been divided into two working-groups: one is addressing the
> question of what a norm should say (i.e. “Governments shouldn’t
> cyber-attack X”). The other is addressing the question of what
> infrastructures should be protected (i.e. what is the X that shouldn’t be
> attacked). I’m chairing that second working group. The main thing we’re
> delivering in Delhi is the result of a survey of what infrastructure people
> think should be protected. That survey is still open, and we’d like as
> many people to respond as possible. So, please consider doing so. It’ll
> only take a couple of minutes, and it’s a critical part of an admittedly
> very lengthy process to make your life easier.
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?
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
More information about the NANOG