Headline, April19, 2014



!WOW!'s New Sadness :

The Ferry tragedy of South Korean students. We mourn and share the grief and sorrow. What is so damn obvious is that  "the safety procedures and measures were never  well  thought out. Never ever adequate:

With little students, little angels on board, who was monitoring the passage from the shore. Were the weather minimas  discussed?

The Captain Jumped the ship??

With a heavy heart, and prayers for the departed, and the  missing, I return to the post:

POOR  learner,    -that I am, I never seem to get anything right. So what? - And be that it may, I just about give two hoots to that, anyway and everyway!

But wait a minute, wait a minute, I have somehow learnt some very basic and some very damning truths : One of which is :  ""that cyberspace appears to be the worst of both worlds"".

I pray and hope that all my enemies are condemned to end up there. No worse fate will ever, befall them. -now or ever.

Only last year, First, North Korea complained about a cyber-attack from  "'hostile forces"'

The main sign was that the state's news agency went briefly offline. Some thought it might be a mere power cut. Then it was the South's turn    -on a bigger scale.

On March 20th, same year,  two big banks   and three broadcasters were crippled. Screens went blank; on some skulls popped up. ATM machines froze.

Both episodes highlight the ambiguity of  cyber-warfare. Tensions went very high on the Korean Peninsula, so either side could have attacked the other. 

But a purported attack could also be used to justify posturing  or retaliation. Attribution   -detecting a cyber-attacker's fingerprints-   is hard and can be impossible.

A defence-ministry spokesman in Seoul said it would be  "premature"  to blame the North. One attack seemed to be a  hacker group  calling itself  "Whots". Investigations in cases like this take months and months.

If the practicalities are difficult,  so too is the legal framework that governs them.

"Real warfare"    -at least in theory-   is subject to detailed international law that has grown up over  150 years.

It determines when force can legally be used and against whom.

But what about  online   conflicts?

When does a state sponsored  cyber attack   become an act of war? How bad does it have to be before the victim can respond with a  "'kinetic"'   ie, real life weapon?

Do civilian hackers  become  combatants?  How to protect targets such as hospitals?  

A group of International lawyers has now published a book  on the subject, under the auspices of  NATO's  defence centre in Tallinn. They argue that existing laws broadly apply to cyber-space.

Online or Offline, espionage is  not warfare.

But blowing things up by hacking them is essentially the same as using bombs. The editor,  Michael Schmitt  is a Professor at  the US Naval War College, cites among the crucial factors:

""Severity,  immediacy, invasiveness, measurability, and state involvement".

Such rules would definitely help  if  law-abiding countries went to war. For example,  Sweden  against   Canada.

But Keir Giles, a British expert, doubts that other countries   -and non state actors-   will take much more notice of the manual.

""Large part of the world will not consider it legitimate," he says. Like Pyongyang for example.

And by the way, does anybody know ?!! :

The Internet Engineering Task Force Credo :  ""We reject Kings, Presidents and Voting. We believe in Rough Consensus and Running Code"".

With respectful dedication to Dr Ray August, Professor of business law. Washington State University. And

Dr M Jawaid  Khan/US. 

With loving dedication to Rabo, Dee, Ehsan, Anila, Hussain, Ali, Saima, Zeba.

With respectful dedication to the Students of the world. See Ya all on !WOW!  -the World Students Society Computers-Internet-Wireless:

"' Honours Ahoy "'

Good Night & God Bless!

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless


Post a Comment

Grace A Comment!