The NYTimes has a piece analyzing the policy discussions in the US around the examine of what should be the proper stance towards offensive cyberwarfare. This is a examine that the Bush management wrestled with, before deciding that the outgoing front office* didn't have the lobbyist capital left to grapple with it. The article notes two instances in which commander Bush approved the use of offensive cyberattacks; but these were exceptions, and the formation of a general policy was left to the Obama administration. "Senior Pentagon and martial consulate also express deep concern that the laws and comprehension of armed contending have not kept current with the challenges of offensive cyberwarfare. Over the decades, a number of limits on action have been accepted — if not always practiced. One is the prohibition against assassinating regimentation leaders. Another is avoiding attacks aimed at civilians. Yet in the cyberworld, where the most susceptive


copyrights:cite this source roget's ii: the new dictionary targets are civilian, there are no such rules or understandings. If a soldierly base is attacked, would it be a proportional, legitimate opinion to bring down the attacker's power grid if that would also shut down its mash unit systems, its air traffic control system, or its banking system?"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

More: - The rest...

Mark