I think this is a misassumption of what the military's Cyber Command does. It's not about arresting domestic criminals, but countering attacks (or perpetuating attacks) from other nation-states on our infrastructure.
It appears that they may be trying raise the profile of "hackers" to pave the way for public support of new "cyber terrorism" policies:
"States have an inherent right to self-defense that may be
triggered by certain aggressive acts in cyberspace,” says
the policy. Indeed, such aggressive acts might compel a
country like the US to act even when the hacking is
targeted at an allied country.
"Certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could
compel actions under the commitments we have with our
military treaty partners,” says the document. “When
warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts
in cyberspace as we would any other threat to our
country."
‘Nation state’ is the appropriate term of art in the context of cyber security. The fact that a domestic service appears to be attacking an area that is seeking autonomy makes it more relevant.
This is seriously scary. I'd hope any NATO response to a cyberattack is in-kind, it seems really foolhardy to escalate a physical war over a cyberattack.
I hope so too, and I doubt the US government's response will be cyber-warfare related. There's not much they can do in the first place, and it would be a petty tit-for-tat reprimand.
Well that's the main issue, currently the states do not consider such cyberattacks the equivalent of sending troops or rockets across the border that justify a "kinetic" response but rather the equivalent of earlier espionage activities which usually justifies only a diplomatic response. Of course, that might change in the future.
If this attack results in actual loss of life, I firmly believe the US should ensure that there are real-world physical consequences for these criminals. They cannot be described as anything less than the worst humanity has to offer. A failure to respond with meaningful and severe consequences for those responsible (assuming this is attack can be confidently attributed to a particular threat actor) opens the floodgates. Time to find out how seriously the US takes its own cyber doctrine.
The hacker group attacked resources considered "critical infrastructure"; this was closer to an act of war than any other cyber attack has come. The US Cyber Command responded swiftly.
> "governments take advantage of crises to gain power"
Please, elaborate? I fail to see how the US Govt is taking advantage of this crisis for more power.
It seems like the pace of cyberattacks is accelerating...will be interesting to see how the US responds, and especially if it's even possible for massive government organizations to adapt quickly enough.
Nobody wants to be hacked by a random kid from their parent’s basement. It’s kind of embarrassing. It’s nicer to just say that we are being attacked by a nation state. “It’s understandable, nobody could resist such force!”
We're getting closer and closer to cyber and kinetic warfare intermingling regularly. Attacking a US company may become akin to attacking a US citizen. State backed or State sanctioned actors will be looked at as an agent of the state itself. Hacks will lead to proportional responses from governments against governments.
It's not much different than our military and contractors protecting domestic oil company interests abroad.
reply