Does hacking can be considered as act of aggression?

Post Reply New Topic

I recently read article about hacking and politic.

Recently I read an article by the way do not know whether it was authentic, how funds certain country have been frozen in accounts held in American banks, it went on to the US government entered this country in the list of countries supporting rogue states.

One day at the bank in which they were locked these funds crashed the computer system, and when the system is back online, it turned out that the accounts were gone substantial amount of money in the exact amount of which has been blocked by the US Department of State: D

Apparently, the government said the US government that such action can be seen as a declaration of war, I wonder how they know it all, since they found no traces.

I disliked terrorists or rogue states, but some measures America as well as Russia and other superpowers also I do not like, in my opinion, I would be similar is like If I borrow my neighbor in good faith to 1000 zł (because I am a Pole ) and this would then stupidly he or she smiled and refused to pay the debt, and said that no money, even though they know it would be that he was lying, that if I went to such a person, hit in a mug (although I myself do not act in this way) and collect debt what is rightfully me is I do not think it would be a crime

My point is everybody had right to it's own property.

Yes, but part of that right is taking care of your own property. Its down to you to be sensible with who you lend stuff to. Yes, there are such things as verbal contracts and written contracts, which hold up in a court of law. However, you cannot take the law into your own hands. Hacking is illegal, it falls under the Computer Misuse Act. The second someone hacks, they have become a criminal too. Committing any crime can be considered an act of aggression, especially hacking.

Why is that, why especially hacking in this particular case???

If someone take someone money whether do this other person or government it's theft.

And if someone lent money and not returning it's on appropriate time it's Fraud and theft, so trying to recover you property is good thing.

You're running at least two different issues together, and you're speaking in broken English. So I think that we should start this all over again ("take it from the top") and restate this problem again so we all clear as to what we are all are talking about.

A country hacking another country's computer system is just like a private individual hacking ...other individuals, or private institutions and corporations, or of governments. Its an act of criminal trespass. If the perpetrator is a government against another government then - why would it NOT be considered an "act aggression"?


The second of your issues is the practice of one country freezing (not seizing, or stealing just freezing) another country's assets in the first country's banks. Thats a common standard way countries retaliate against other countries violating treaties, or doing other hostile things. The US did that to Iran during the hostage crises of the Seventies. Countries dont freeze other country's assets for no reason. Its to punish the criminal country. They freeze assets temporarily until the issue is ironed out. And then they unfreeze the assets.





The third issue that you're talking about is: countries doing the first thing-in order to undo (or retaliate against) another country doing the second thing: A country hacking in order to (in effect) steal its own money back from funds frozen in banks in the other country.

If you're the government of country B (the country freezing the assets) you would view the act by country A of hacking into country B's banks to access country B's frozen assets as a criminal act of aggression. And such hacking would probably be viewed by the world community in general as a violation of international law. But if you're the government of country A you would view your hacking into the other country's banks as cyber guerrilla warfare in order to get back what is yours.

So it kinda depends upon with whom your sympathies lie.

But the act of freezing assets is a like a prison sentence (a response to a crime). So a nation hacking into those frozen accounts is like you breaking out of prison. You may claim that you were framed, and were wrongly convicted, so that gives you the right to bust out of prison. And some folks might sympathize with you. But busting out of prison is still illegal even if some folks think that it might be morally right in your circumstance.

With now some begin to understand
I'm sorry too for my broken English

I talked with my friends and also use the same analogy as before.
What if I lent money to someone and that person does not want to then pay the debt? Is such a person is not able to collect what legally belongs to him or her?

My friend told me that of course it can pick up the money, but it must be done through the appropriate channels, through mediation, and ultimately by the court that the unilateral taking someone's property on account of outstanding debt is under Polish law, a crime, because only the court can decide such matters.

It's the same thing as "two wrongs don't make a right", and "you can't fight fire with fire". If someone wont pay back their debt, they are a criminal. If you hack them, then you also become a criminal. The correct method, like your friends said, is to go to the law and let them handle it.

We're talking about nation-states. Since there is not overarching authority over nation-states it comes down to a matter of power, which is neither a legal concept nor a technical concept. Basically the nation with the most power will get it's way. If that nation is the one with frozen assets and they have the power to take them back, they will. If it's the nation freezing assets and they have the power to freeze them, then they will. Don't get bogged down in legalities when talking about nation-states, there is no such thing as "legality" only what one could get away with.

Also of note is that not all hacking is aggressive. The security field is full of what I term "defensive" hackers that hack institutions to test for vulnerabilities so the institution can fix the leaks. Most large companies actually give out "bounties" to these hackers when they find a vulnerability. I know that's not what we're talking about, but the word "hacking" has a negative connotation in lay speech that it shouldn't have, that's the only reason I make that clarification.

Exactly.

But beyond this phrase you're off topic.

He doesnt even understand the theory, so lets explain the theory first before we get to how it works in practice.

Lets walk before we start running.



The point is that my country freezing your country's assets in retaliation for your country: supporting terrorism (or whatever bad thing your country is doing), is not analogous to me (a private individual) stiffing you (another private individual, who is a citizen of the same country) by not repaying money you lent me. Not analgous morally, nor legally.

Not analogous for two reasons.

First

That is right that countries are the highest level that law can actually be enforced. International law exists but it runs more or less on the honors system. For exactly that reason a country cant arrest another country and throw another country in jail- like it can arrest an individual citizen within its borders. So short of one country attacking another country and starting a war you cant do much to retaliate against a criminal act by another country OTHER than to do things like freeze the assets that the other country has in your country. Its not theft. Its legitimate law enforcement in lieu of other means of law enforcement.


Second

Me (a private individual) stiffing you (another private individaul) money that you lent me is about my own greed. I pocket the money. Convert your assets into being my assets. So its me committing theft by stealing from you.

When the US froze Iran's asset- its just froze them- didnt pocket them. Finnally after four decades we unfroze their assets and gave them back to Iran just now as part of the recent nuke deal. So its not theft. Its more like holding property for ransom (though it isnt exactly that either because your not threatening to kill their dog or burn their paintings- you just wont let him have their dog and paintings until they do what want them to do).


So in theory if your country gets its assets frozen in other country then it is not a "wrong". That freezing act was rightful punishment for some wrong you did. So you retaliating against that by hacking would be a "wrong" in response to a right (not two wrongs).

Thats the theory.

Now it maybe not so clear cut in real life.
And that maybe where it gets interesting.

Maybe your country isnt really supporting terrorism, its supporting "freedom fighters",or maybe its not even doing that (maybe your country just said something nice about some nonviolent troublemaker in my country), and Im pissed off,and I'm just using the word "terrorism" as PR to justify me pushing your country around by freezing your assets. So your country might be justified in using "asymetrical means" because its a weaker country to fight back like using computer hacking, or whatever. But if thats the case then you have to show that (like you have to prove an inmate was wrongly imprisoned) if you're gonna argue about it.

So my point is that its not enough to complain that the US froze another country's assets- because there is nothing wrong with the US doing that in theory. You have to show how that other country is innocent,and doesnt deserve the sanction of having it assets frozen ( ie that it doesnt deserve to be punished).

Lol, no, I'm telling you the entire argument is moot, because the "legalities" are merely a game under the guise of power. The power will always overwrite what the "legality" is. If the US wanted to invade Uzbekistan on Friday, and the U.N. voted against it on Thursday, the U.S. would still invade on Friday-- the U.N. has no power to stop it. If the U.S. wants to freeze all assets held in the U.S. by South Africa because their elected leaders merely look "funny" they would do it-- even though "looking funny" is in no way a legal precedent. If we froze Uganda's accounts, and some hackers there hacked their way in and took the money back, there's nothing we can do about it. The world truly is run by "what you can get away with", the law is merely a loose framework for operating, it's not written in stone and many times fully disregarded with no consequence. The law extends as far as the police/military can enforce it. If we're arguing the morality of "freezing" and such, even that's moot because each power base (nation-state) is going to have it's own moral framework to interpret the event based on their own self-interest. Why philosophize about legalities/morality when you know power is just going to do what power is going to do?

He's my boss actually
We work for charity, making charity sales, i like that job because i can help disabled kids, he hired me because he once hired already hired someone with AS, he said that he was reluctant at first because it's stressful job he thinks thought that people with AS would have problem with it. But now he now like work with AS despite he is NT, because people with AS are very honest in his opinion and he hate dishonesty and duplicity

^ That's awesome, he sounds like a great boss. It's a shame that more employers don't see the perks of hiring someone on the spectrum. It's great that you're helping disabled kids too, very rewarding I imagine.

Unfortunately, people often take us crooks, moreover, did not surprised, he had at the beginning of resistance, often fakes under us at our masquerade, but also other foundations and deceive people

Sam, moreover, I came across these crooks, but they see people with a real foundation or police officers to quickly flee

At the beginning he had a slight resistance if all this is legal, just as I checked in the official court register of charities was sure that everything is legal.

Sometimes my police check if I am not a crook, as proven in the database my information, one police officer joked that I was a fraud he had to bonuses to salary

But then he bought me a crossword puzzle and coloring book, crossword puzzles are for adults and coloring books are of course for kids,

70% of the profits from the sale goes to the statutory objectives of our charities.

My boss says that usually fundraisers our foundation can sell about 60 pieces of our products, I unfortunately have poor sales of approximately 20 pieces. My boss said that the other autistic which once employed could sell 40 pieces and had no objections if I would have at least the same result at the end of the day.

I buying these crossword puzzles myself for my mom