NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently proposed a repeal for the Resolution dealing with computer crime that was just passed though the UN a few days ago. It wouldn't be so big of a deal if the organization created to control it wasn't reminiscent of a sort of "big brother." It would let the UN reach into the personal lives of everyday people by monitoring internet activity. The very idea of such an institution is a completely appalling invasion of privacy and a disgusting restriction of personal liberty.

Besides the reason previously stated, the resolution simply gives a list of actions which are prohibited. There is no clear definition of the term, "computer crime." A loose interpretation could lead to an organization that gets caught up in its own power, resulting in a digital inquisition. This kind of association should never be allowed to exist. If you agree, then hop over to the UN proposals page and vote to approve the repeal.

Thank you all for your time,
~Marlin, of the Aquatic Islanders of My Squishy

Well, trot out this horse and lets have a look at it....

M.O.S.S. Proposal.

Please post the text here.

I agree with my colleagues that it would be a good idea to give us a copy of your repeal proposal so that we can view it. From what you've said, I think I'll like it, but one never knows until one has actually seen the text.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

The text:

While the devastating problem of internet crime is widespread and ravaging, this is by no means the proper way of solving the matter. An international mandate with such vast restrictions on civil liberties should not be allowed to pass through any peacable body of national representatives whose PRIMARY CONCERN should be for their people's freedom.

The resolution as a whole would be agreeable and passable if it weren't for the establishment of the International Computer Security Institute(ICSI). This organization seems more like a "big brother" of sorts than a crime prevention agency. By reaching into the PERSONAL lives of everyday people, such an establishment can easily become caught up in it's own power and spiral out of control, resulting in a digital inquisition.

It is proposed that the ICSI be dismantled. The decided method of Internet-crime prevention will lie with each member nation. The UN would be FAR out of it's realm to delve that deeply into the PERSONAL lives of PRIVATE citizens

We support this repeal, though not exclusively for the reasons listed. What bothers us is the constraints this resolution potentially puts on law enforcement and military institutions. There are very legitimate reasons to allow government agencies to remotely access a person's computer without their knowledge, such as when tracking child pornographers via the internet, for instance. Furthermore, many military objectives can now be achieved electronically by penetrating and shutting down enemy computer systems. This means no bombs, no missiles, and no loss of life.

This resolution, then, while well intentioned, both constrains the ability of law enforcement to police the digital arena, as well as places unnecessary and pointless restraints on military strategy that will, ultimately, require more people die during a conflict. Unless there is a clear exception for government agents we will not support any iteration of the original resolution, and most definately support the repeal.

Well, that's really not what I was going for, but thanks anyway for your support. I'm not exactly sure why you think it does not give enough power to law enforcement agencies, when this is clearly an intrusion of privacy. I guess it just all depends on the type of government in each nation. In any case, it gives me a little encouragement that nations looking from a different disposition can still find flaws with this resolution, and perhaps we can get rid of something that's harmful for the both of us.

We support this repeal, though not exclusively for the reasons listed. What bothers us is the constraints this resolution potentially puts on law enforcement and military institutions. There are very legitimate reasons to allow government agencies to remotely access a person's computer without their knowledge, such as when tracking child pornographers via the internet, for instance. Furthermore, many military objectives can now be achieved electronically by penetrating and shutting down enemy computer systems. This means no bombs, no missiles, and no loss of life.

This resolution, then, while well intentioned, both constrains the ability of law enforcement to police the digital arena, as well as places unnecessary and pointless restraints on military strategy that will, ultimately, require more people die during a conflict. Unless there is a clear exception for government agents we will not support any iteration of the original resolution, and most definately support the repeal.

Many nations have gotten round this (Gwenstefani included) by allowing for government authorisation (overriding personal authorisation) in cases of war and crime prevention. I believe that would solve the problems you mentioned.

[OOC:] In RL, this is the case with many laws and rights- they are withdrawn in times of war or if criminal activity is occurring.

I'm not exactly sure why you think it does not give enough power to law enforcement agencies, when this is clearly an intrusion of privacy.

The two are far from mutually exclusive; the resolution places significant restrictions upon the ability of law enforcement to regulate electronic communication while giving an international body authority to monitor said communications. The intrusiveness of the ICSI doesn't mean national governments aren't now hamstringed by this resolution.

SeOCC does not beleive we should have to 'get around' UN resolutions. This resolution was poorly written as it does not explicitly allow governments to license the intrusion into networks. After that issue has been dealt with we can deal with the privacy issues that come with creating large international bodies with blankety authority and no clear accountability. Please do not misunderstand; SeOCC is as concerned about our national autonomy as any nation, but first and foremost we need a UN that doesn't cripple our ability to enforce our laws.

*assumes a fatherly expression* now now, let's not bicker and fight. Let's just join together and repeal this resolution, you know, the topic over which this thread was started ; )

This has been a public service announcement from Marlin of The Aquatic Islanders of My Squishy.

Let's just join together and repeal this resolution

Let's not!

Rough draft of a new repeal, though truth be told the text isn't so important, it's the telegram campaign pushing the repeal that is where the rubber meets the road.

Recognizing the dangers presented by computer crimes to commerce and security;

Aware of the need for international cooperation to prevent and prosecute computer crime;

Disturbed by the limitations placed on law enforcement by the Computer Crime resolution;

Further disturbed by the wide reaching powers granted to the ICSI without accompanying oversight by national governments;

1) Repeals the Computer Crimes resolution;

2) Calls for a new resolution on this issue that properly balances the need for law enforcement and privacy.

Most excellent... though I would recommend adding "We the United Nations," to the top of it all, heh.

Once this is hammered home, perhaps we could better discuss the requirements we see for a more fitting resolution.

Hurray! : ) thank you. That works much better than my verbose version, and much easier on the eyes if I do say. I never really did an extensive TMing campaign on account of nationstates running excruciatingly slowly on my computer. It'd be a bit impractical to say the least. : P

Actually, I'll be sure to mobilize a network of telegram-happy individuals who'd be pleased to assist in this appeal effort should the nation of SeOCC intend to submit the repeal to the UN proposal docket. Worry not, if it makes it into the docket, it WILL make it to the UN floor. Once there, the resolution typically sells itself.

Disturbed by the limitations placed on law enforcement by the Computer Crime resolution;

I don't believe the Computer Crimes Act does limit law enforcement, if anything it strengthens it by promoting international cooperation. Security specialists, etc, are still allowed to develop defences, etc, and law enforcement officials can still override an individuals right to privacy if they are committing a crime (i.e. governmental authorisation) as is the case with non-electronic rights to privacy.


Further disturbed by the wide reaching powers granted to the ICSI without accompanying oversight by national governments;
The ICSI doesn't have any powers! It only serves to promote computer security through education programmes etc, and monitor computer crime trends, etc- information which it passes onto the appropriate law enforcement authorities in order for them to apprehend the criminals.

law enforcement officials can still override an individuals right to privacy if they are committing a crime (i.e. governmental authorisation) as is the case with non-electronic rights to privacy.

This argument is made on some very flimsy, and dangerous, legal reasoning. What is being suggested is that any law can be ignored if the government gives itself sanction to do so, and that this ability is implicit in UN resolutions. If we accept that line of reasoning, then in fact the UN is a meaningless body, since it renders all resolutions de facto voluntary providing your goverment can cook up an interest that pasts the thinnest of scrutiny. Without a regulatory body to enforce resolutions, the UN is meaningless unless its word is law, and not a law that can be ignored on a whim.

That is why we must give governments the explicit power to enter network systems without permission, so that there is no wrangling over whether the UN allows national governments to suspend its laws for the purpose of law enforcement. This clause is lacking in the original resolution, and therefore we support its repeal.

It only serves to promote computer security through education programmes etc, and monitor computer crime trends, etc- information which it passes onto the appropriate law enforcement authorities in order for them to apprehend the criminals.

And who watches the ICSI to ensure it isn't abusing its power? Does the ICSI require a warrant to read my email? Most national governments do, but then who will be giving the ICSI permission to electronically eavesdrop? What has been created here is an international body with broad powers to surveil, but no accompanying check to prevent it from invading and eliminating personal privacy. Nevermind the political ramifactions; will the ICSI be allowed to snoop on secure lines of communication within a government?

No operating procedures for the ICSI are provided, which should raise eyebrows but apparently didn't. I repeat again: what we have is an international body with the power to, 'monitor international computer crime and work with law enforcement agencies to prevent it,' a task so broadly defined that it could be used to justify virtually any action. The ICSI has no power? What is has is no restraints, and such a body is truly a threat to liberty, in one nation and in all nations. Therefore, we support this resolution's repeal.

It would seem to me that an international body with powers of investigation, search and so forth is a violation of individual nations' sovereignty. Indeed it is well within the realm of possibility that a tyranny could even form in the UN and use such powers to harass or otherwise put illegal pressure on nations that do not fall in line.

This repeal is the only proper, sensible thing that the UN can do about the legislation.

The passage of the Computer Crimes Act was truly an invasion of both sovereignty of member nations and personal privacy. Eloina supports a repeal of the Act.

Dame Kirsty supports a repeal of the act.

Furthermore, many military objectives can now be achieved electronically by penetrating and shutting down enemy computer systems. This means no bombs, no missiles, and no loss of life.

Now, that's just not true. Military computer systems will always be the hardest possible target for electronic warfare; after all, they are designed to be robust, dispersed setups that can sustain loss and continue to function. In the world of NS, one cannot assume your own weapons are so superior your enemy cannot defend from them, especially as, in the case of digital warfare, an aware enemy can make such tactics impossible to use against their military computer systems.

Further, it's been shown that even with massive logistical damage a properly motivated army will continue to fight [see: Berlin, Stalingrad]. Digital warfare can do nothing about the tanks, guns and bombs already out there, and presenting it as a 'bloodless' method of combat is at very best a horrible misrepresentation of what can be done against enemy computer systems.

The real usefulness of digital warfare is to the terrorist; shutting down more vulnerable civil systems [traffic or railway signalling, electrical grids, civilian air traffic control or such] would be extremely damaging without the risk of exposure that would go with an overt terrorist strike with gas or explosives. In any such cases, specifically removal of civil power supply, the primary casualties would be those on life support or otherwise requiring power; newborns and the elderly.

If you want to murder newborns and old men as a nation, nerve gas is generally more effective. Modern precision bombing techniques, to contrast, can get civilian casualties down to double figures in massive campaigns against multiple critical targets. These targets are not just 'shut down if they're using a compatible OS that we can penetrate,' they are destroyed.

Sphinx the Great supports a repeal of this act.

The Principality of Quadlia has lent its unwavering support to the proposal submitted by Seocc. While we are a peaceful nation that has no quarrel with any other peoples, we are still mindful of the defense of our country - regarding both military prowess and autonomy. Our primary philosophy as a UN delegate is to advance the causes of human rights while ensuring the UN does not, by intent or accident, rob nations of their rightful sovereignty. Unchecked agencies, regardless of their purpose, have the alarming potential to greatly impede the sovereignty of memeber nations.


Quadlia

the holy empire of recoria and its fellow nations of salty capachinos are fully behind you on this repeal for our forces and our populations sake...

GMC: Crippling military networks is not a requirement to achieve military objectives. With the evolving complexity and vast networking necessary to maintain the levels of e-commerce in the status quo, attempts by opposition governments to cripple aspects of civilian networks could also provide for methods of achieving the same objectives. The most recent example of such a possibility came from Japan, whereby a cell phone virus gridlocked the entirety of Japan's emergency services by simultaneously dialing 911 from a number of cell phones.

Beyond that, there are so many networks in the status quo that the modern military relies on to maintain its operations that it's infeasible to assume they can secure them all. Otherwise, measures by the US to prevent export of 128-bit encryption software nowadays to unfriendly nations wouldn't be such a big push.

GMC: Crippling military networks is not a requirement to achieve military objectives. With the evolving complexity and vast networking necessary to maintain the levels of e-commerce in the status quo, attempts by opposition governments to cripple aspects of civilian networks could also provide for methods of achieving the same objectives. The most recent example of such a possibility came from Japan, whereby a cell phone virus gridlocked the entirety of Japan's emergency services by simultaneously dialing 911 from a number of cell phones.

Beyond that, there are so many networks in the status quo that the modern military relies on to maintain its operations that it's infeasible to assume they can secure them all. Otherwise, measures by the US to prevent export of 128-bit encryption software nowadays to unfriendly nations wouldn't be such a big push.

Again, useless in NS terms. Our nation maintains two distinctly different systems, one internal and one external. The external is where the rest of the world interfaces - the internal limits itself to Vastiva proper and her colonies. The two are not connected and work on root principles which are alien to one another. Infecting one does nothing to the other - and an infection in one cannot translate to the other. Our military operates on a third system, which is again incompatable. Doing nasty things to our cellphones (happens now and again, we encourage native hackers) will not cripple our emergency services, will do nothing to our military, will not halt trade. It will just affect the phone system. Whoopie!

GMC: Crippling military networks is not a requirement to achieve military objectives.

Um...That depends entirely on the objectives in question. There are staggeringly few plausible objectives than can be fulfilled just by disabling online computer systems.

The most recent example of such a possibility came from Japan, whereby a cell phone virus gridlocked the entirety of Japan's emergency services by simultaneously dialing 911 from a number of cell phones.

Which would be a valid tactic for a terrorist, but is militarily useless, as I said. Can you stop the movement of troops or material, the production or arms in a factory using offline computers to regulate mechanical production machinery, or prevent the deployment of forces?

No. You can screw around with manifests and send the wrong things to the wrong places, but at best that would mildly inconvenience an enemy by making them rely on physical systems that cannot be hacked [like filing cabinets]. You can screw around with weakly secured civil systems [assuming such things even exist in a world like NS where such warfare is relatively commonplace], crash some trains into each other or fuck with civil ATC and blow up some planes full of innocent civilians, but that achieves no military goal other than making the enemy more angry.

Which is bad.

As an aside; how would shutting down emergency services perform any military function but maximising casualties as part of a saturation bombing run? In that situation digital warfare would actually allow you to increase fatalities among noncombatants!

Beyond that, there are so many networks in the status quo that the modern military relies on to maintain its operations that it's infeasible to assume they can secure them all.

Irrelevant. As stated, even massive physical logistical damage does not stop an army from fighting if it's properly motivated. This is when the factories and railway lines are gone, not just frozen up a little because some computers have been knocked out.

Further, you're making the assumption that your technology will always be up to the task and the enemy's OS will always be compatible, neither of which are valid assumptions to make in the NS world.

Again, useless in NS terms. Our nation maintains two distinctly different systems, one internal and one external. The external is where the rest of the world interfaces - the internal limits itself to Vastiva proper and her colonies. The two are not connected and work on root principles which are alien to one another. Infecting one does nothing to the other - and an infection in one cannot translate to the other. Our military operates on a third system, which is again incompatable. Doing nasty things to our cellphones (happens now and again, we encourage native hackers) will not cripple our emergency services, will do nothing to our military, will not halt trade. It will just affect the phone system. Whoopie!

I guess this comes to that point where people start saying: gee, you like to make this stuff up on the spot don't you? That kind of crap sounds like the most inefficient method of data transit I've ever heard of in all my life, and you're talking about a massive series of gateways to transit and secure incoming and outgoing requests; if the two networks aren't connected and have no gateway between them, then you're talking a massive expenditure to duplicate a network of phonelines, data transfer, and satellites exclusively for internal communication. That adds how much to your infrastructure and military budget? No small wonder you jokers in Vastiva spend 26% on the military... if you didn't, you wouldn't have any left for the soldiers after you were done setting up the "internal communications network." Jesus, what an imagination you have. Try ciphoning some of that spending off into health care and being realistic instead of impenetrable like a good player, because if you understood jack about data transmission and server hops (as I'm an IT professional and understand the complexities within) you'd know you're realistically talking about duplicating a network that could handle something like this:

http://www.hdwindowswebhosting.com/images/map_uunet.gif

And those? Those are just the backbones for one major datacom. Two words: cost prohibitive.

My, you must be one of those who believes in Thirdgeek numbers... :rolleyes: Hint - they aren't sanctioned as "meaningful".

Even so, there must be a reason our economy remains better then yours, our taxes are far lower, and we have nearly double your GDP and exchange rate. We've also achieved more in our 'less than a year' then you have in over two - a fantastically higher post count at the very least.

But enough bragging to the masses. Let's pull apart your... points.


That kind of crap sounds like the most inefficient method of data transit I've ever heard of in all my life, and you're talking about a massive series of gateways to transit and secure incoming and outgoing requests;

Incoming to where and outgoing from where, dearheart? No one in my nation has any need to communicate with the outside world save through computers designed to do so through our satellite system or via business nodes - and again, computers designed to deal with the outside world. There is no need for anyone outside to penetrate - nothing there for them to be interested in legally in any case.

The outside world wants to communicate, it does so to businesses or those areas designed to do so. There needs to be no design at all inside the country to allow this sort of communcation from point to point in Vastiva - extraneous is extraneous.


That adds how much to your infrastructure and military budget.

Nothing. I'll leave it to you to figure out why, logically.



No small wonder you jokers in Vastiva spend 26% on the military... if you didn't, you wouldn't have any left for the soldiers after you were done setting up the "internal communications network."

We've already discussed your lack of intelligence operations skills and have no need to do this again.



Try ciphoning some of that spending off into health care and being realistic instead of impenetrable like a good player,

My, and we do enjoy a fantastic health care system, rather an envy of other nations. So sorry, but I am telling you something you don't know seeing as you haven't taken the time to know thyne enemy.



(as I'm an IT professional and understand the complexities within)

This is the Internet, bub. You can pretend to be whomever you want, and all claims thereon are taken as "unprovable". See The Most Glorious Hack if you have any more questions about that.


So, in essence, you've wasted a post, and not one but two others have shown your assumptions to be so much felgercarb. Ah, well, that's twenty minutes I won't be getting back.

All the civilian damages aside, because really and truly that was more of something along other whistful lines that don't really matter...

Irrelevant. As stated, even massive physical logistical damage does not stop an army from fighting if it's properly motivated. This is when the factories and railway lines are gone, not just frozen up a little because some computers have been knocked out.

Further, you're making the assumption that your technology will always be up to the task and the enemy's OS will always be compatible, neither of which are valid assumptions to make in the NS world.
You see, this kind of stuff is the most interesting and illegitimate kind of out to this very real possibility that I've read to date. Digital warfare holds a lot of possibilities because a) it keeps tacticians ahead of the information curve and b) can actually be used to disseminate disinformation through enemy networks if properly utilized, causing a massive breakdown in fronts and supply lines. You're talking about units breaking down to "pocket resistance" and that being enough to maintain a legitimate advance. Just because your nation's name has "Military Arms" in it doesn't excuse you from reasonable expectations regarding military strategy. "Pocket resistance" never held the line in any war of the digitzed twentieth century, and it won't in the NSverse either.

Beyond that, technology WILL always be up to the task of being compatible with enemy OSes because you're only talking about injecting or extracting a data feed from a transit line at some point, not having a full-on interface for every aspect of a particular operating system. Saying silly things like that makes you sound like you don't believe in the "fantasy" of emulation, GMC. Come on now, let's not be unreasonable. As a computer science major, I can fully guarantee that adequate OS emulation for the purpose of network infiltration is possible, just that in the NSverse it may take a bit more work because the entirety of the IT industry isn't divided between MacOS, UNIX, and Windoze. However, I don't think that kind of thing puts any sort of reasonable dampener on the possibilities for network infiltration in NS. It just requires the intelligence services of the nation in question to have access or information and specifications about the particular interface of a given nation's networks. Why oh why, then, do you think that there are such harsh restrictions regarding the export of 128-bit encryption software to what the US deems to be unfriendly nations? It's not because we think our networks are secure, I can assure you of that.

Even so, there must be a reason our economy remains better then yours, our taxes are far lower, and we have nearly double your GDP and exchange rate. We've also achieved more in our 'less than a year' then you have in over two - a fantastically higher post count at the very least.

You know, as for a case of know thyne enemy, this is the biggest lapse in sensibility I've ever seen. Your taxes are far lower because you aren't a federalist social commonwealth. We're lefties here in Galdago. The government takes all your money and gives you back what you need. Granted I want taxes back down to 80% but that was not an immediate objective until I'd secured exactly the ratings I wanted: World Benchmark/Powerhouse/World Benchmark. Why oh why would I ever NOT want a frightening economy? Well, I'm of the school of thought that subscribes to the idea that the top couple rankings in the NS UN rating system were designed to indicate overdoing it, i.e. Widely Abused doesn't have a positive connotation and neither does Frightening. Therefore, I try to keep Galdago at the rating of "Powerhouse" because a) it means sustainable growth and b) that's more sensible for a socialist economy anyway. To pretend a leftist nation can manage the GDP of a G8 nation is just puerile, and pretty unnecessary too in regards to GDP per capita given civil provisions by the government. As for my "exchange rate," another lapse in knowing the Commonwealth because the thennat is actually a continental currency shared between several nations, which is only reflected in GUSTO numbers if you need to see those. Beyond that, between posts on UNSC, UNCIAT, Lemuria, TNP, ASE, RLA, NorPac, and especially CACE forums, as well as what information I've tried to pour into the NSwiki in regards to my nation and its attendant international organizations, I don't think that my post count here is reflective of how big my NSwang™ is. What's wrong Vastiva? Size issues? Is that why you're trying to nitpick me with this BS? I glazed over it at first but good grief what a sorry excuse for a non-sequitur.

My, and we do enjoy a fantastic health care system, rather an envy of other nations. So sorry, but I am telling you something you don't know seeing as you haven't taken the time to know thyne enemy.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/nationdata.cgi?nation=Vastiva

Wonder how everyone got so envious of Vastiva's government healthcare system when there's no spending on it. Huh. Will wonders never cease?

Never mind the rest. I think your god moding speaks for itself.

:rolleyes:

I'm reminded of something Mark Twain said... "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig".

And I'm very much against wasting my time.


Back on topic: A repeal at this point will still fail - people haven't had time to properly forget their ideas of what it meant. Give it a few more weeks.

You see, this kind of stuff is the most interesting and illegitimate kind of out to this very real possibility that I've read to date. Digital warfare holds a lot of possibilities because a) it keeps tacticians ahead of the information curve

Try not talking in businessese. 'Keeping ahead of the curve' is a nonsensical term spouted by people who also do 'impacts' and say things like 'there's no 'I' in team.'

If you're talking about it as a means of gathering information, it's reasonably useful but requires that your enemy never figures out that his systems have been compromised, otherwise he can fill them with disinformation and you're back to where you started.

and b) can actually be used to disseminate disinformation through enemy networks if properly utilized, causing a massive breakdown in fronts and supply lines.

Unlikely. If your enemy is aware that this is likely, a lot of steps can be taken to counter it; a trivial example would be to have the first letter of each paragraph of a dispatch spell 'AUTHENTIC.' Unless you figure out such systems, no disinformation for you.

Also, if these orders are sent as hard copy only it's utterly useless trying to hack them. Paper is noted for being impossible to digitally access, and a commander faced with E-wank he couldn't handle would simply switch back to the systems that deployed millions of men during the World Wars.

You're talking about units breaking down to "pocket resistance" and that being enough to maintain a legitimate advance. Just because your nation's name has "Military Arms" in it doesn't excuse you from reasonable expectations regarding military strategy. "Pocket resistance" never held the line in any war of the digitzed twentieth century, and it won't in the NSverse either.

Except Stalingrad. And Berlin. And Vietnam. And Afghanistan. And former Yugoslavia, constantly. And spare me the snide little asides, you're absolutely terrible at it.

Beyond that, technology WILL always be up to the task of being compatible with enemy OSes because you're only talking about injecting or extracting a data feed from a transit line at some point, not having a full-on interface for every aspect of a particular operating system.

And how will you determine what that data is and how to use it?

However, I don't think that kind of thing puts any sort of reasonable dampener on the possibilities for network infiltration in NS. It just requires the intelligence services of the nation in question to have access or information and specifications about the particular interface of a given nation's networks.

You do realise that not all nations in NS even use digital computers, right? We're not talking small differences...

Why oh why, then, do you think that there are such harsh restrictions regarding the export of 128-bit encryption software to what the US deems to be unfriendly nations? It's not because we think our networks are secure, I can assure you of that.

It's because the US wants to read other people's secret stuff, methinks, and they know they can't do that if they have heavy encryption. So, in fact, a sign that the US realises that allowing it's enemies to have proper security technology renders their digital warfare plans useless.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

Suit yourself GMC. NO ONE CAN OMFG HACK ANYONE EVAR! Sorry tMGH. :(

This is the Internet, bub. You can pretend to be whomever you want, and all claims thereon are taken as "unprovable". See The Most Glorious Hack if you have any more questions about that.For what-ever it may be of worth, or not, I would vouch for Galdago on that, as it happens ...

We now return you to your regular programming ! :p

Ah, yes, being a delegate myself I'll wander over and take a look at it " on location " ... you'll see my decision on it depending on if my name gets tagged on to it or not, as the case may be, ;)

( Imagine, I lose my real interest in the U.N. and become a delegate. Irony, now will that be with sugar or cream ? )

Thanks, I suppose. I spent five years working for a networking firm out of Louisiana, http://www.cbmtech.com. I spent all day looking at that UUNet poster we had up in the corner and marvelling at the backbone lines running across the globe. Really interesting stuff; fascinates the hell out of me. Who are you again? Sorry, I don't believe I've met you is all.

Suit yourself GMC. NO ONE CAN OMFG HACK ANYONE EVAR! Sorry tMGH. :(

You misunderstand. I am not saying that digital warfare is impossible, simply that trying to present it as a magic bullet that can win wars by itself isn't right [much like I object to just about anything else being presented that way].

Like any other form of warfare, it's, well, a battle. It's dependant on your hax0rzly weapons being better than your enemy's defences and would be the subject of constant development and arms races as such. As a result, if anything the digital general would have his own objectives to fulfil as part of the larger battleplan, based on which systems are known to be able to be compromised and which ones appear to be airtight.

As a tactic, digital warfare is valid, but as a strategy it relies too much on factors beyond your control to be reliable. My objection was to the statement that it was some kind of military mandrake root that would necessarily reduce civilian casualties in any given situation.

You misunderstand. I am not saying that digital warfare is impossible, simply that trying to present it as a magic bullet that can win wars by itself isn't right [much like I object to just about anything else being presented that way].

Like any other form of warfare, it's, well, a battle. It's dependant on your hax0rzly weapons being better than your enemy's defences and would be the subject of constant development and arms races as such. As a result, if anything the digital general would have his own objectives to fulfil as part of the larger battleplan, based on which systems are known to be able to be compromised and which ones appear to be airtight.

As a tactic, digital warfare is valid, but as a strategy it relies too much on factors beyond your control to be reliable. My objection was to the statement that it was some kind of military mandrake root that would necessarily reduce civilian casualties in any given situation.
I'm most agreeable to that much. I hardly think it a panacea to sound military strategy but I think there's a lot of possibility inherent that this kind of resolution would make suspect under international law that I'd really really really rather the Commonwealth had at its disposal were I running the show in this hypothetical world. If nothing else, Svea Riga needs to be beaten around the head with a shilelagh on occasion, and we can't have SeOCC threaten their networks to keep them in check if we ever have a reason to, heh.

For what-ever it may be of worth, or not, I would vouch for Galdago on that, as it happens ...


Worthless. For all I know, you're a puppet. *waves*

Worthless. For all I know, you're a puppet. *waves*
Worthless; for all I know you're a sixteen year old with a God complex. *shakes head*

Actually, I am a puppet, Vastiva.

Of Komokom.

You can, errr, ask Hack about that yourself, if you'd like, ;)

Suit yourself GMC. NO ONE CAN OMFG HACK ANYONE EVAR! Sorry tMGH. :(
Actually, I have hacked into other nations. But, like everything else, it's been done with consent.

For-ever being the gentleman, eh ? :p