Advertisement
by Freepublican » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:57 pm
by Imperial Domain of Persia » Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:19 pm
by Poopsancagizal » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:45 pm
by Lord Dominator » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:47 pm
Poopsancagizal wrote:Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."
Strong Against.
by Kenmoria » Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:23 am
Freepublican wrote:Hey, does this mean we can treat members of organizations that use hacking as prisoners of war?
The WA in most cases, and, where there exists no GA law, member nations themselves. Due to the ambiguity of the current proposal, a member state has a lot of leeway as to what constitutes a cybercrime.Wabberjocky wrote:Who determines what constitutes a crime?
The enemy cannot just call something a hospital, it must actually be a hospital to be protected by this proposal. If you disagree with that idea then unfortunately you have several resolutions which protect the status of medical facilities. I am also unsure as to what benefit a nation could gain from attacking concentration camps.)Poopsancagizal wrote:Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."
Strong Against.
by Araraukar » Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:29 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Off the top of my head, I see the proposal defines cyberweapons as items that can cause "electronic or physical damage," and that the type of "cyberwarfare" which causes prohibited political damage can only be carried out with "cyberweapons." This has the odd effect of making it illegal for hackers and soldiers to cause political damage (since their devices must be classified as cyberweapons, being capable of causing electronic or physical damage), but ordinary/unskilled people may go right ahead and advocate (and succeed in!) overthrowing the government under this proposal, since their devices are simply not dangerous in that manner.
Hereby defines the usage of electronic devices that cause significant negative political, economic, industrial, or physical damage to another sovereign state an act of warfare, to be referred to as Cyberwarfare.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Saranidia » Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:50 am
Wabberjocky wrote:Who determines what constitutes a crime?
by Saranidia » Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:54 am
Kenmoria wrote:Freepublican wrote:Hey, does this mean we can treat members of organizations that use hacking as prisoners of war?
(OOC: No, it means you can treat people who are part of hacking organisations as criminals, not prisoners of war.The WA in most cases, and, where there exists no GA law, member nations themselves. Due to the ambiguity of the current proposal, a member state has a lot of leeway as to what constitutes a cybercrime.Wabberjocky wrote:Who determines what constitutes a crime?The enemy cannot just call something a hospital, it must actually be a hospital to be protected by this proposal. If you disagree with that idea then unfortunately you have several resolutions which protect the status of medical facilities. I am also unsure as to what benefit a nation could gain from attacking concentration camps.)Poopsancagizal wrote:Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."
Strong Against.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:15 am
Araraukar wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Off the top of my head, I see the proposal defines cyberweapons as items that can cause "electronic or physical damage," and that the type of "cyberwarfare" which causes prohibited political damage can only be carried out with "cyberweapons." This has the odd effect of making it illegal for hackers and soldiers to cause political damage (since their devices must be classified as cyberweapons, being capable of causing electronic or physical damage), but ordinary/unskilled people may go right ahead and advocate (and succeed in!) overthrowing the government under this proposal, since their devices are simply not dangerous in that manner.
OOC: The proposal doesn't agree with you, though:Hereby defines the usage of electronic devices that cause significant negative political, economic, industrial, or physical damage to another sovereign state an act of warfare, to be referred to as Cyberwarfare.
It doesn't mention anything about needing to be a professional hacker or soldier. If you as a regular civilian use your smartphone to arrange a successful political smear campaign (think things like using Facebook in a non-professional manner) against a prominent candidate in another nation (which may be your home nation! you just need to be in another nation) and they end up not getting elected in an important election, you've caused "significant negative political damage" nevertheless, and also, "Establishes these electronic devices or tools as Cyberweapons" and "to be designated and treated ... as" make your smartphone count as one. Or using your cellphone for stock trading in a mannner that can easily tank a nation's economy, if it rests on a single product (like Saudi Arabia's rests on oil) that you crash the market price for.
Now, if it was referring to nations officially causing said things to happen, then I'd agree with you. But there's no restriction on "usage".
Like I said before, it doesn't matter that a newborn baby isn't a nuclear weapon; if you're required to designate and treat it as one, then it legally counts as one. Think of RL examples of how new vehicles invented by people in history have been licenced under (and thus "designated and treated as", as far as legislation has been concerned) licence systems meant for existing, often radically different vehicles, simply because there wasn't a suitable existing category.
Establishes these electronic devices or tools as Cyberweapons, to be designated and treated alongside conventional arms and weaponry as:
I. A means of causing significant electronic or physical damage that would warrant a proportional diplomatic or military response.
Designates further the legally binding definitions of the term Cyberwarfare as:
I. A warfare technique utilizing and relying on the class of weaponry defined under Clause I as cyberweapons.
II. A method of warfare which, using cyberweapons, causes significant economic, industrial, political, or physical damage to the target entity.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:34 am
by Araraukar » Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:37 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Hey Ara, internal contradiction isn't illegal.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Greater Cesnica » Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:34 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Araraukar » Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:07 pm
Greater Cesnica wrote:Welp. The drawing board shall be cleaned and be used again very soon.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Saranidia » Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:46 am
Taliostia wrote:Will this stop hackers and keep the internet safe? That's up to debate.
by Araraukar » Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:42 am
Saranidia wrote:Now if a nation does that their leaders could be arrested for war crimes as could the hackers themselves and all other points of the chain of command.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Saranidia » Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:16 am
Araraukar wrote:Saranidia wrote:Now if a nation does that their leaders could be arrested for war crimes as could the hackers themselves and all other points of the chain of command.
OOC: The leaders could only be legally accused of that if they actually gave the orders to use cyberweapons on civilian targets. Besides, it's not like US President or UK royalty/prime minister got accused of warcrimes just because some of their soldiers committed some during WW2, nor did US president get accused of all the civilian deaths from using nukes in Japan, even knowing there'd be huge civilian casualties and also that they didn't actually need to use them. Chain of command only works up to whoever actually made the actual decision, and even then national leaders tend to get in trouble only if they're on the losing side.
by Saranidia » Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:20 am
by Araraukar » Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:53 pm
Saranidia wrote:The Grand Mufti of Saranidia Suleiman Al Gaddafi condemns the idea of voting against this
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Saranidia » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:42 am
Araraukar wrote:Saranidia wrote:The Grand Mufti of Saranidia Suleiman Al Gaddafi condemns the idea of voting against this
"And I'm sure you would do that for the same reasons why I'll be yelled at for logging Araraukar's vote "against"; because of the government wanting to have the power to strip people of modern communication devices for the flimsiest of reasons. Makes the masses easier to control."
by Lord Dominator » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:01 am
"Cyberweapons Control Act" was defeated 10,741 votes to 5,010.
by Greater Cesnica » Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:27 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Wallenburg » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:01 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement