On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On Nov 15, 2017, at 12:33, Mark Blackman <[email protected]
Had there been an international agreement or declaration, of the type
that Bill is negotiating, to which the UK was signed up, I would
certainly have used it when lobbying that point, and it might have made
it easier to obtain what we did and maybe - just possibly - we might
have got a bit further along the spectrum of protection than we actually
achieved.
Perhaps, but international law of this type usually speaks to
behaviour in *international* conflicts and completely ignores
'internal' matters (cf the Hague and Geneva treaties). Those
protections are completely ignored when it comes to 'own'
infrastructure or populations (as an example, the use of CS
irritant is strictly prohibited in (international) war as a
chemical weapon, yet states use it liberally (as it were)
against protesters within the state.)
Chances are an international traty would be seen not to apply to
LEOs acting within their own borders. It may help some in a
construct like the EU which consists of (yet) sovereign states, I
have no idea though how international war treaties would treat a
conflict between EU members...
cheers,
Sascha Luck
Malcolm.
On 15/11/2017 12:51, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Not exactly... ??a diplomatic norm is a commonly-accepted agreement as to
expected behavior. ??It???s essentially a step short of a treaty. ??
The problem here is that the US, Russia, and China all want to preserve
their ???right??? to conduct offensive cyber operations against anyone they
want, any time they want, without it rising to the level of a diplomatic
incident. ??Pretty much everyone else (but most actively the Dutch,
Singaporeans, and French) agree that this is unacceptable behavior. But
until diplomats agree on a definition of what exactly is unacceptable,
when it???s unacceptable, in what context it???s unacceptable, by whom it???s
unacceptable, and against whom it???s unacceptable, there isn???t sufficient
consensus to constitute a norm.??
Once there???s a norm that???s clear and understandable for governments to
agree to, we can start picking up momentum. ??When a lot of governments
agree to it, violating it will become more and more diplomatically
costly for the few governments that do.??
This is the stick. There has to be an opportunity cost incurred by
governments that attack private sector infrastructure.??
That???s what we???re working towards.??
???? ??
???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??-Bill
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
