GCSC critical infrastructure protection questions: your input needed.

[woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)]

> 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?

Becauseâ?¦  cyber!

I mean, it would be really _nice_ if they thought the way you do, but they donâ??t.  They figure the old rules donâ??t also apply in a new venue.

Also, the rules by which _war_ is conducted donâ??t apply when itâ??s not a _war_.  And itâ??s essentially never a _war_ anymore.

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

                                -Bill




-------------- 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>