HN Explorer

Poll: What Is a Proportionate Response to the North Korea Cyber Attack?

2 points by will_brown ↗ HN
It is official, the US has announced it will respond to the North Korean Cyberattack. From a legal perspective I will say this is a first and will set precedent under the UN Charter as to: 1. what actually constitutes the use of force (which now officially includes cyberattacks on private corporations); and 2. what kind of response is proportional.

Not that the use of force to respond to Cyberattacks has not been anticipated and discussed academically for sometime, but I will admit I have never seen a legal analysis on a hypothetical attack against a private corporation which resulted in leaks of information/crashing systems. Every scholarly paper/article I have ever read or authored was based on Cyberattacks of government or military targets, but now that we have a real world act to analyze the HN community probably has more incite into what took place and what response should be permit under these facts. I will try to add additional options as they are suggested if they are supported by some historical precedent post WWII (i.e. consistent with the UN Charter).

There are many interesting sub-topics such as who has the right to respond, including, whether the US has the right or the right should be limited to Japan. Should Japan and the US have right to respond? Should any country where Sony operates have a right? If N.K. went through servers in Countries outside the US and Japan, should they be able to respond with the use of force? Certainly the UN will issue resolutions that clear up a lot of this, in fact I will guess now that the US will respond prior to a UN resolution authorizing the response and the UN will later retroactively publish a resolution authorizing whatever force the US actually responds with, but as the HN community what response would you authorize if you were the UN?

10 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 36.1 ms ] thread
smacktoward
The wrinkle on "Use of Force (limited to taking out sites that were used to support the Sony Cyberattacks)" is that at least some of North Korea's cyberwarfare operations appear to be conducted on sites in China, such as the Chilbosan Hotel in Shenyang. (See http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2013/1019/In-c..., http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-chinese-hotel-where-no...)

Obviously, striking facilities on Chinese soil (especially ostensibly civilian ones like hotels) could be viewed by China as highly provocative. So "use of force (limited)" might usefully be split into two options, one for further limiting the scope to facilities within North Korea and one without that restriction.

will_brown
This is again one of those very interesting distinctions from a legal prospective. Under the War on Terror the US has taken the legal position that it is lawful Use of Force to go into any country where enemy combatants may be (US has openly used drone strikes in countries who are not state sponsors of terror; one example is US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen). There are some distinctions #1 Anwar al-Awlaki was a non-state actors and #2 politically/militarily China v Yemen.

Maybe even more interestingly, if the Cyberattacks were not N.Koreans, or if in the future they come from non-state actors (terrorists in the US, terrorists abroad, some 15 year old kid) would the US justify the same response as what we are planning now?

Even more basically, what exactly about this attack justifies the Use of Force? If it is what they did? If so, what exactly is it they did that justifies Use of Force? Is it a moral argument that they encroached my and your liberty to see a Seth Rogan movie? Is it because it is Sony? (would the US still react with the Use of Force if North Korea attacked a US porn website)? I guess these are all issues for the UN to decide and vote on through the security council and the resolutions will be adopted to define these things for the future.

jjgreen
The same as that for the Evil Iraqis and their WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, I would imagine.
krapp
You drag the world into one tiny little war based on an entirely fictitious pretense just to satisfy a family grudge and all of a sudden people no longer trust your judgement as a nation...
crzrcn
How about taking cyber security seriously?
olivierduval
Mmmmm... was the US attacked??? I thought that it was only a US company, not linked to any strategic US interest (defense, energy, etc.) ;) I think that the US has NO reason to do anything in that case. However, if Sony wants to strike back... they better not be caught :D

BTW: as Krebs suggested, a cyber attack on NK would only destroy... what the US use to gather intelligence. Just a way to shoot in the foot...

A military operation wouldn't have any ground (not proportionate)... and would be quite risky and unpopular... and there's always too many wars with US soldiers...

So: Obama should just have shut up. Just to avoid to look dumber than W. :D

dragonwriter
> From a legal perspective I will say this is a first

Its not. The US has responded to economic attacks against private US interest in many ways, including, e.g., CIA-backed paramilitary invasions to topple the regime (Guatemala 1954.)

I suspect that any "proportionate response" by the Obama administration to the SPE hack will be minor by comparison.

will_brown
There are a few differences #1 here the UN Security Council will pass a resolution authorizing the US's Use of Force; #2 we do not yet know the response (I included an option of taking down the regime, but that was actually on the high end); #3 with a UN resolution here we will learn what triggers the right to respond; specifically, I have a feeling the focus will be a lot more on the technology side of things rather than due to the economic nature as you indicate was the cause of the Guatemala coup de tat. Other interesting questions would arise if the Sony hackers were not North Koreans but non-state actors.
dragonwriter
> There are a few differences #1 here the UN Security Council will pass a resolution authorizing the US's Use of Force

What is the basis for the claim that:

1. The US will use force, and

2. The UN Security Council will sanction that use of force.

Both of these seem to be pure speculation.

> #2 we do not yet know the response

Well, yeah, which directly contradicts part of #1 (to wit, the claim that there will be a use of force.)

> #3 with a UN resolution here we will learn what triggers the right to respond

Again, what makes you think that there will be a UN resolution?

krapp
Sony is a private business. This is their problem, not the US government's.

However, an initiative to improve our network and utility infrastructure would be a good idea.