[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Digital Network Defense"

[Tinfect]

"I would touch on two points: the resolution in question increases the likelihood of interstate conflict by expanding the range of internationally recognized casus belli, as states may use minor cyberattacks as a pretext for war and cite the paucity of details in international legislation as justification, and the resolution in question forecloses the possibility of future international legislation on privacy rights. Those are, as far as Sciongrad is concerned, the most pressing issues the original resolution presents."

"Cyberattacks, by a State-Actor, are hostile actions, Ambassador, regardless of how 'minor' they may appear. If the attack is deemed sufficient grounds for Military Action, then it is merely the right of the State to engage in it.

In any case, the Imperium is in agreement that the Legislation poses a threat to privacy rights in those nations that are so eager to violate them. We do not, however, consider it to be, alone, sufficient grounds for repeal, as the rest of the text is quite agreeable."

[Excidium Planetis]

REALIZING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense actually unintentionally raises the chances of conflict between member nations by declaring even the most minor cyber attacks including minor espionage to be acts of war,

"False." Schultz says, entering the room. "It never declares any such thing. In fact, 'acts of war' never appears in the resolution text. The phrase 'acts of violence' does, but acts of violence are not acts of war... otherwise an Excidian national beating their- uh... 'Freshman', is that correct? Anyways, beating their foreign national spouse would be considered an act of war. Clearly, it usually isn't."

NOTING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense with its broad reach closes the door on further legislation on personal privacy, both online and in general, and network security,

"It doesn't, but I don't have the energy to prove this point wrong at the moment."

FEELING that cyberterrorism and other cyber attacks can be legislated upon in a better manner

"That's probably true. But not grounds for repeal."

[Friday Freshman]

REALIZING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense actually unintentionally raises the chances of conflict between member nations by declaring even the most minor cyber attacks including minor espionage to be acts of war,

"False." Schultz says, entering the room. "It never declares any such thing. In fact, 'acts of war' never appears in the resolution text. The phrase 'acts of violence' does, but acts of violence are not acts of war... otherwise an Excidian national beating their- uh... 'Freshman', is that correct? Anyways, beating their foreign national spouse would be considered an act of war. Clearly, it usually isn't."

I would like the ambassadors to look to following part of GAR 378

"Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyberattacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation;"

As it reads, if a member nation uses any cyber intelligence operation to gain information on any nation, the nation's must be considered in a hostile diplomatic state. This hostile diplomatic state is clearly sets the stage for armed conflict over things such as intelligence gathering. In general, nations do use cyber intelligence against their neighbors, their friends, and their enemies. This resolution means that no one can perform any type of cyber espionage without being in a hostile state with those they are performing espionage on, crippling intelligence gathering during peace time for any nation that uses cyber espionage.

NOTING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense with its broad reach closes the door on further legislation on personal privacy, both online and in general, and network security,

"It doesn't, but I don't have the energy to prove this point wrong at the moment."

The resolution's long handed approach on dealing with cyber attacks opens and closes cyber legislation in less than 200 words. It's wording on all cyber attacks stops further legislation on cyber security and cyber crime by lumping in every nations dealing with of cybercrime and cyberterrorism. It also reaches into a nation's domestic policy not allowing it to make its mind up on how it would like to deal with cybercriminal actions and what justifies them being considered a cyber criminal action. Additionally, it overarching demand that member nations secure all networks within their nation, including civilian networks of which it is not their responsibility and also removes the ability of civilians to keep their networks private.

[Wallenburg]

I would like the ambassadors to look to following part of GAR 378

"Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyberattacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation;"

As it reads, if a member nation uses any cyber intelligence operation to gain information on any nation, the nation's must be considered in a hostile diplomatic state. This hostile diplomatic state is clearly sets the stage for armed conflict over things such as intelligence gathering. In general, nations do use cyber intelligence against their neighbors, their friends, and their enemies. This resolution means that no one can perform any type of cyber espionage without being in a hostile state with those they are performing espionage on, crippling intelligence gathering during peace time for any nation that uses cyber espionage.

"Actually, the target does not read like that at all. The clause you cite permits member nations to employ digital warfare against networks belonging to already belligerent nations. That in no way means that an attempt to conduct 'cyberattacks' on neutral or even friendly nations automatically transforms that relationship into a hostile one. You really should read more on the basics of foreign relations."

The resolution's long handed approach on dealing with cyber attacks opens and closes cyber legislation in less than 200 words. It's wording on all cyber attacks stops further legislation on cyber security and cyber crime by lumping in every nations dealing with of cybercrime and cyberterrorism.

"So? That doesn't prove your repeal correct. Ambassador, there is more to privacy than digital information."

It also reaches into a nation's domestic policy not allowing it to make its mind up on how it would like to deal with cybercriminal actions and what justifies them being considered a cyber criminal action.

"That is untrue, Ambassador. Member nations have total control over arresting cyber-criminals, how to prosecute them, and how to punish those convicted of cyber-crimes."

Additionally, it overarching demand that member nations secure all networks within their nation, including civilian networks of which it is not their responsibility and also removes the ability of civilians to keep their networks private.

"Now that is a boldfaced lie, Ambassador. The target does nothing of the sort. It encourages nations to do so, but in no way demands that such action be taken."

[Excidium Planetis]

"False." Schultz says, entering the room. "It never declares any such thing. In fact, 'acts of war' never appears in the resolution text. The phrase 'acts of violence' does, but acts of violence are not acts of war... otherwise an Excidian national beating their- uh... 'Freshman', is that correct? Anyways, beating their foreign national spouse would be considered an act of war. Clearly, it usually isn't."

I would like the ambassadors to look to following part of GAR 378

"Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyberattacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation;"

As it reads, if a member nation uses any cyber intelligence operation to gain information on any nation, the nation's must be considered in a hostile diplomatic state.

"No," Schultz says, "the resolution prohibits using cyberattacks against foreign nations unless a hostile state already exists. If a nation uses cyberattacks when a hostile state does not exist, they must be considered in violation of this resolution. Violating the resolution does not magically produce a hostile state."

In general, nations do use cyber intelligence against their neighbors, their friends

"Not anymore."

, and their enemies. This resolution means that no one can perform any type of cyber espionage without being in a hostile state with those they are performing espionage on,

"Exactly."

crippling intelligence gathering during peace time for any nation that uses cyber espionage.

"Why should you be allowed to spy on nations that don't pose any real threat to you?"

[Friday Freshman]

I would like the ambassadors to look to following part of GAR 378

"Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyberattacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation;"

As it reads, if a member nation uses any cyber intelligence operation to gain information on any nation, the nation's must be considered in a hostile diplomatic state.

"No," Schultz says, "the resolution prohibits using cyberattacks against foreign nations unless a hostile state already exists. If a nation uses cyberattacks when a hostile state does not exist, they must be considered in violation of this resolution. Violating the resolution does not magically produce a hostile state."

In general, nations do use cyber intelligence against their neighbors, their friends

"Not anymore."

, and their enemies. This resolution means that no one can perform any type of cyber espionage without being in a hostile state with those they are performing espionage on,

"Exactly."

crippling intelligence gathering during peace time for any nation that uses cyber espionage.

"Why should you be allowed to spy on nations that don't pose any real threat to you?"

How are you supposed to know if they are a real threat to you if you can't spy on them....

[Separatist Peoples]

How are you supposed to know if they are a real threat to you if you can't spy on them....

"We don't have to spy on Friday Freshman to make that determination, why should it be different elsewhere? Being familiar with your own military capability is often sufficient to make that determination. Would you need to spy on a nation of five million to make that determination for yourself, ambassador?"

[The Libertarian State of Freedom]

You should also note that "Digital Network Defense" is in direct violation of WA/UN resolution #10 which states that the government cannot spy on citizens online, yet "Digital Network Defense" violates that by saying governments are ALLOWED to do that exact thing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

10 UN was repealed by 1 GA.

[Wallenburg]

You should also note that "Digital Network Defense" is in direct violation of WA/UN resolution #10 which states that the government cannot spy on citizens online, yet "Digital Network Defense" violates that by saying governments are ALLOWED to do that exact thing.

Upon hearing the utterance of the forbidden acronym, a pack of gnomes appear from the shadows, take hold of the unwitting ambassador, and drag them screaming out of the hall.

[Excidium Planetis]

You should also note that "Digital Network Defense" is in direct violation of WA/UN resolution #10 which states that the government cannot spy on citizens online, yet "Digital Network Defense" violates that by saying governments are ALLOWED to do that exact thing.

Historical Resolution #10 is no longer standing, as with all UN resolutions, GA#1 erased the pages of international law.

I'd also like to add that by virtue of being passed, GA#378 is legal and therefore cannot be a direct violation of any GA resolutions.

Upon hearing the utterance of the forbidden acronym, a pack of gnomes appear from the shadows, take hold of the unwitting ambassador, and drag them screaming out of the hall.

Dang, I bet a lot of folks who start to say "You an' me" get dragged away suddenly...

[Friday Freshman]

How are you supposed to know if they are a real threat to you if you can't spy on them....

"We don't have to spy on Friday Freshman to make that determination, why should it be different elsewhere? Being familiar with your own military capability is often sufficient to make that determination. Would you need to spy on a nation of five million to make that determination for yourself, ambassador?"

Because I've seen nations of 5 million with hidden nukes and space weapons programs. Just because your intelligence operations are that capable again doesn't mean EVERYONE elses are. This resolution puts nations who used cyber intelligence as their main form of intelligence gathering at major risk. You may live in a happy go lucky world where you do not have to spy on your neighbors and allies but you clearly do not reside in a region where people and nations backstab each other all the time. I do and this resolution seriously handicaps my ability to properly keep an eye on everyone because I used to have one of the worlds greatest hacking intelligence teams and you made them worthless because "Well I don't have to spy on friends so why should anyone else"

[Separatist Peoples]

"We don't have to spy on Friday Freshman to make that determination, why should it be different elsewhere? Being familiar with your own military capability is often sufficient to make that determination. Would you need to spy on a nation of five million to make that determination for yourself, ambassador?"

Because I've seen nations of 5 million with hidden nukes and space weapons programs. Just because your intelligence operations are that capable again doesn't mean EVERYONE elses are. This resolution puts nations who used cyber intelligence as their main form of intelligence gathering at major risk. You may live in a happy go lucky world where you do not have to spy on your neighbors and allies but you clearly do not reside in a region where people and nations backstab each other all the time. I do and this resolution seriously handicaps my ability to properly keep an eye on everyone because I used to have one of the worlds greatest hacking intelligence teams and you made them worthless because "Well I don't have to spy on friends so why should anyone else"

"Ambassador, we manage a low-level conflict with our neighbors the Bigtopians twice a decade, and tensions with Marche Noir have been getting steadily worse. Don't presume to speak to C.D.S.P. foreign policy unless you know something of it. We don't spy on our allies because spying on allies quickly turns them into something other than an ally. Obviously, the rule of thumb here should be not to ally with a power you cannot trust. What you propose would be to destabilize normalized relations between friendly nations by letting every power treat neutral or allied states as potential enemies. This is a big step towards ratcheting the tension between states at peace up, which ensures that tension between states at less peace is that much worse. All you do is push us a little closer to the brink."

[Sciongrad]

"I would touch on two points: the resolution in question increases the likelihood of interstate conflict by expanding the range of internationally recognized casus belli, as states may use minor cyberattacks as a pretext for war and cite the paucity of details in international legislation as justification, and the resolution in question forecloses the possibility of future international legislation on privacy rights. Those are, as far as Sciongrad is concerned, the most pressing issues the original resolution presents."

"Cyberattacks, by a State-Actor, are hostile actions, Ambassador, regardless of how 'minor' they may appear. If the attack is deemed sufficient grounds for Military Action, then it is merely the right of the State to engage in it.

"Cyber attacks should not be considered casus belli - most reasonable nations acknowledge that - but by sorting all classes of cyberattacks into a single category under international law, hostile states can exploit the paucity of detail and use a cyberattack as a pretext for war, all under the aegis of the World Assembly.

OOC: According to the FBI Director, it is very possible that Russian state spies infiltrated Hillary Clinton's email account and obtained classified information. Are you saying the appropriate and reasonable response is for the U.S. to respond militarily?? Now imagine Estonia hacks into Russian government servers and the UN had a resolution that classified all types of cyberattacks together in a single, distinctionless category. Russia could potentially invade Estonia, using its cyberattack as pretext. That's what this resolution does.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Cyberattacks, by a State-Actor, are hostile actions, Ambassador, regardless of how 'minor' they may appear. If the attack is deemed sufficient grounds for Military Action, then it is merely the right of the State to engage in it.

"Cyber attacks should not be considered casus belli - most reasonable nations acknowledge that - but by sorting all classes of cyberattacks into a single category under international law, hostile states can exploit the paucity of detail and use a cyberattack as a pretext for war, all under the aegis of the World Assembly.

OOC: According to the FBI Director, it is very possible that Russian state spies infiltrated Hillary Clinton's email account and obtained classified information. Are you saying the appropriate and reasonable response is for the U.S. to respond militarily?? Now imagine Estonia hacks into Russian government servers and the UN had a resolution that classified all types of cyberattacks together in a single, distinctionless category. Russia could potentially invade Estonia, using its cyberattack as pretext. That's what this resolution does.

"If a cyberattack is minimal, though, would not a rational state not respond reasonably? Physical border skirmishes happen all the time, but many states don't treat these as a declaration of war because of the scale of the disruption. Why do you expect that most states would not use the same yardstick? Short of giving a committee total authority of declaring war on behalf of nations, will this practically curb military action from those states that use military action as a matter of course anyway?

"I really think the issue is overstated, considering we use the Reasonable Nation Theory in other forms of drafting, and initiating bombing runs in response to, say, an email hack isn't terribly reasonable."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"If a cyberattack is minimal, though, would not a rational state not respond reasonably? Physical border skirmishes happen all the time, but many states don't treat these as a declaration of war because of the scale of the disruption."

PARSONS: Casus belli.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If a cyberattack is minimal, though, would not a rational state not respond reasonably? Physical border skirmishes happen all the time, but many states don't treat these as a declaration of war because of the scale of the disruption."

PARSONS: Casus belli.

"I know. My wording was deliberate. It may be a justification, but is it really a justification likely to be used to support a much more politically and militarily expensive response? Not likely. A border skirmish can be a casus belli, that doesn't mean it will result in a declaration of war, or even anything greater than reciprocal action."

[Sciongrad]

"Cyber attacks should not be considered casus belli - most reasonable nations acknowledge that - but by sorting all classes of cyberattacks into a single category under international law, hostile states can exploit the paucity of detail and use a cyberattack as a pretext for war, all under the aegis of the World Assembly.

OOC: According to the FBI Director, it is very possible that Russian state spies infiltrated Hillary Clinton's email account and obtained classified information. Are you saying the appropriate and reasonable response is for the U.S. to respond militarily?? Now imagine Estonia hacks into Russian government servers and the UN had a resolution that classified all types of cyberattacks together in a single, distinctionless category. Russia could potentially invade Estonia, using its cyberattack as pretext. That's what this resolution does.

"If a cyberattack is minimal, though, would not a rational state not respond reasonably? Physical border skirmishes happen all the time, but many states don't treat these as a declaration of war because of the scale of the disruption. Why do you expect that most states would not use the same yardstick? Short of giving a committee total authority of declaring war on behalf of nations, will this practically curb military action from those states that use military action as a matter of course anyway?

"I really think the issue is overstated, considering we use the Reasonable Nation Theory in other forms of drafting, and initiating bombing runs in response to, say, an email hack isn't terribly reasonable."

"I'm not saying that states will mindlessly respond to cyberattacks with declarations of war. I'm saying aggressive states that are eying the territory of their defenseless neighbor may use this resolution as pretext. And, of course, a disproportionate response could hardly be condemned if the WA itself does not distinguish between minor cyberattacks and truly damaging ones. Just like such a state would use border skirmishes as a pretext for invasion."

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: Casus belli.

"I know. My wording was deliberate. It may be a justification, but is it really a justification likely to be used to support a much more politically and militarily expensive response? Not likely. A border skirmish can be a casus belli, that doesn't mean it will result in a declaration of war, or even anything greater than reciprocal action."

BALDRICKSONS: It's horrid though. I can tell you, however, the war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building. The fact that some bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry then led to the invasion of our Gallic allies. Casus belli indeed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm not saying that states will mindlessly respond to cyberattacks as declarations of war. I'm saying aggressive states that are eying the territory of their defenseless neighbor may use this resolution as pretext. And, of course, a disproportionate response could hardly be condemned if the WA itself does not distinguish between minor cyberattacks and truly damaging ones."

"But there isn't really any mechanism by which the General Assembly can condemn disproportionate attacks, and there isn't any immediate evidence that such legislation will be passed. It seems a bit strange to criticize the blockage of an option that has no immediate or foreseeable application. And aggressive states eyeing up foreign territory have a number of other tools available, most of which they can manufacture. Does that justify using this law to manufacture political drama? No, but I think its a bit overstated to imply that this is so great a flaw when a number of resolutions dealing with conflict also have no such considerations for abuse in this manner, all things considered."

BALDRICKSONS: It's horrid though. I can tell you, however, the war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building. The fact that some bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry then led to the invasion of our Gallic allies. Casus belli indeed.

"If shooting the...um...ostrich lead to an invocation of the treaty, that counts as casus belli. Whether you chose to escalate the issue to war is still a choice your government can make."

[Imperium Anglorum]

BALDRICKSONS: It's horrid though. I can tell you, however, the war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building. The fact that some bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry then led to the invasion of our Gallic allies. Casus belli indeed.

"If shooting the...um...ostrich lead to an invocation of the treaty, that counts as casus belli. Whether you chose to escalate the issue to war is still a choice your government can make."

GEORGESONS: IT WAS THE VILE HUN AND HIS VILLAINOUS EMPIRE-BUILDING!
PARSONS: (dragging Lt George out of the room) Mad as a bicycle!

[Sciongrad]

"But there isn't really any mechanism by which the General Assembly can condemn disproportionate attacks, and there isn't any immediate evidence that such legislation will be passed.

"Not my point. WA member nations cannot effectively condemn other member nations that disproportionately respond to cyberattacks because the WA has categorized all types of cyberattacks together and foreclosed any future legislation on the topic that could clarify the difference between minor and actually harmful cyberattacks. A member nation could use a cyberattack as pretext for war all under the aegis of the World Assembly."

It seems a bit strange to criticize the blockage of an option that has no immediate or foreseeable application. And aggressive states eyeing up foreign territory have a number of other tools available, most of which they can manufacture. Does that justify using this law to manufacture political drama? No, but I think its a bit overstated to imply that this is so great a flaw when a number of resolutions dealing with conflict also have no such considerations for abuse in this manner, all things considered."

"I am not convinced by the argument that just because aggressive member states can use other excuses to attack weaker states, we should not do anything to seal up this particular glaring error. If the World Assembly is committed to reducing conflict, it cannot allow resolutions that increase the likelihood of conflict to stand.

Not the mention the other flaws in this resolution. Namely, that a future resolution on privacy rights would be hamstrung and it forecloses meaningful action on more specific policy by trying to legislate on a broad issue in less than 200 words."

[Wallenburg]

"Not my point. WA member nations cannot effectively condemn other member nations that disproportionately respond to cyberattacks because the WA has categorized all types of cyberattacks together and foreclosed any future legislation on the topic that could clarify the difference between minor and actually harmful cyberattacks. A member nation could use a cyberattack as pretext for war all under the aegis of the World Assembly."

"That all cyberattacks are classified as cyberattacks does not mean that 'Digital Network Defense' says they are all the same."

[Sciongrad]

"Not my point. WA member nations cannot effectively condemn other member nations that disproportionately respond to cyberattacks because the WA has categorized all types of cyberattacks together and foreclosed any future legislation on the topic that could clarify the difference between minor and actually harmful cyberattacks. A member nation could use a cyberattack as pretext for war all under the aegis of the World Assembly."

"That all cyberattacks are classified as cyberattacks does not mean that 'Digital Network Defense' says they are all the same."

"It is the only source of international law on the topic. I realize that many reasonable member nations will fill in the blanks themselves. However, as I said to ambassador Schultz earlier, interstate conflict will increase not because member nations are stupid and can't define words, but because they are clever and won't."

[Tinfect]

"Cyber attacks should not be considered casus belli - most reasonable nations acknowledge that -"

"And why should they not, Ambassador? If a State were to breach networks of your Government that contain highly-controlled information, do you mean to tell me that your Government would not act? How is it reasonable to consider an explicitly hostile action that threatens the security of your Nation as not being an Act of War simply because it does not involve the aiming of a Weapon?"

OOC: According to the FBI Director, it is very possible that Russian state spies infiltrated Hillary Clinton's email account and obtained classified information. Are you saying the appropriate and reasonable response is for the U.S. to respond militarily?? Now imagine Estonia hacks into Russian government servers and the UN had a resolution that classified all types of cyberattacks together in a single, distinctionless category. Russia could potentially invade Estonia, using its cyberattack as pretext. That's what this resolution does.

OOC:
Please don't assume that the position of the Imperium is representative of my actual beliefs. In any case, while such a thing would absolutely be a disproportionate response, and that the threat of Military Action, and maybe some serious trade sanctions, would be far more appropriate, I do actually believe that there is justification for treating cyberattacks as an explicitly hostile action. I do not believe that Nations should be in the business of spying on States that they are not actively at war with. In a world where an attack on a local digital infrastructure has the possibility of causing a large-scale disaster, we need to start taking cyberattacks far more seriously.