NWO sets the rule for cyberwarfare

[tiny_tove]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfare-nato-manual

I still have to read the Tallin document, but sounds very interesting.

[RyanWreck]

I've been doing NetSec (network security) and systems Administration for some time now professionally and have been "hacking" and writing code since I was about 13, back in 1998. I've paid a good deal of attention to the state of cyber laws and attacks/defense. I don't think any government entity should write up rules for itself when it comes to that dreaded buzzword "Cyber Warfare" or "E-Terrorism". The APT's (advanced persistent threats) are increasingly getting better as the months tick away, they are well funded (especially in China and Russia) and most importantly, they have become increasingly ruthless. NATO and allied countries have been fucking themselves with their policy papers and rules (i.e. Libicki (2009), Kugler (2009) and especially General Alexander). Any oversight and/or bureaucratic management that comes with these rules and policies does nothing but hinder us.

I absolutely abhor "Anonymous", any of their sympathizers and any so-called "hacktivists" who work against their own countries by fucking with the military, economy and worst of all create leftist, pinko faggot propaganda that somehow works on all the idiot college kids and liberals out there. What is needed is asymmetric and unmanaged defensive hackers ("blue teaming") in place so these rules do not apply to them. And I assume we probably have some in place, or I would at least hope we do.

[Jordan]

I agree that Anon people are above all faggy, but I'm all for attacking the military of any country. It's also pretty funny that a group composed largely of script kiddies can be such a threat, or at least a nuisance.  For those reasons, and only for those reasons, I don't think they're as gay as they are. Well, also, some of them used to be kind of funny, at the start.

[Andrew McIntosh]

Coming up with rules and guidelines is all well and good but this is probably more a p.r. exercise than anything else, since -

The handbook is not official Nato document or policy but an advisory manual

- the classic "get out of responsibility free" excuse.

Of course warring governments are going to ignore rules when hacking at each other. In war, there are no rules, only tactics. For example -

The handbook says that, in accordance with Geneva conventions, attacks on certain key civilian sites are outlawed.

When has that ever stopped anyone?

[HongKongGoolagong]

I absolutely abhor "Anonymous", any of their sympathizers and any so-called "hacktivists" who work against their own countries by fucking with the military, economy and worst of all create leftist, pinko faggot propaganda that somehow works on all the idiot college kids and liberals out there.

I very much disagree with this. Personally I'm an internationalist but even if I did harbour patriotic or nationalist views, people like Barrett Brown have in fact done their own nation a service by exposing breathtakingly corrupt secret scams and privacy-invading ripoffs such as Trapwire, which was revealed via the Stratfor hacks. It's a stupid PR disaster for the USA to be prosecuting him. It's not gonna look good in the history books and it doesn't look good to the rest of the world now. I was in tinychat rooms with the guy not long before his arrest, clearly he had been pushed to the edge by the harrassment. The 'Mask of Shame' moralfag anons are certainly an annoying bunch but the likes of Mr Brown (and by extension, Bradley Manning) are my idea of true patriots at their best whose reward has been prosecution by the moneygrabbing self-serving secretive elites.

A good op-ed about this stuff - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/hacktivists-as-gadflies/

Meanwhile I enjoyed seeing the Guccifer hacks of Rockefeller family gatherings recently out of pure voyeurism, Cryptome has a link.