Dear Bill Thank you very much for making me/us aware of this.
I talked to a few people about it after starting to answer the survey and noticing that I run into a lot of problems. Since I have hardly thought about this topic (attacks against civilian infrastructure), my thoughts are still rather unstructured, but I feel it important to give you feedback, especially as I see no other feedback on this list. My concerns: - what _exactly_ am I stating with my answers? - how will the results be used? - By saying "I do not consider it necessary to include X in this protection from government attacks" do I not implicitly say "I consider it OK for governments to attack this infrastructure"? - By saying "Governments should never attack Y", what are the implications for private law? Does one (not being a government) become a terrorist when one attacks Y, or is one still "just" a criminal? - There are similar things in effect already, and there are a lot of players who simply do not care about it. I don’t think Guantanamo is in any way in concordance with a lot of law. NSA and CIA don’t seem so very concerned about too many regulations, and AFAIU participate in false flag operations both in the physical world and "cyberspace", leaving false trails, leading investigators of their attacks to e.g. russians or iranians. How is this different? On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:41:29 -0800 Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote: > commission. It’s being taken seriously by governments, and will be Hahahahahahahahahaha Sorry, but I’d love to know which governments you are talking about. The ones I consider relevant for this topic are the ones who will lie to your face without even noticing themselves that they are lying, because the person lying is just a strawman and actually believes what he is saying. I remember a promise by the PoTUS himself to close guantanamo and I believe there is more historical evidence that politicians (which make up governments) can possibly not be taken literally 100% of the time. > 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. To give my answer to that questions: all. Why should _any_ _civilian_ infrastructure _ever_ be a target for inter-national disputes at all? In how far is that ok? If we do need rules, how about "don’t attack anyone"? And if anyone breaks that, one has to answer in a courtroom and bear the consequences of ones actions. > 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. It only takes a couple of minutes when one does not question the premise and actually thinks about this topic. Please be honest about this. You are chairing that working group. There is nothing easy about that topic. And I wonder: what is this process that will make my life easier? Thanks Hendrik -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog