Weak arguments against allowing cyber retaliation

The "Beltway Bandits" do not want to lose their source of lucrative government contracts, which is why the "stalking horses"have been tasked with killing the notion (see today's Computerworld article here). Here's argument from the article:

"This is a remarkably bad idea." said James Lewis, senior fellow and director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It would harm the national interest."

Adherence to my Cyber Privateer Code of Conduct mitigates against damages to innocents caught in the middle. Which is my comment posted at the end of the article:

Rick BennettCollapse

Consider the source of the recommendation against retaliation. And rather than looking at ways to protect/indemnify the innocent caught in the middle of retaliation, they look for reasons NOT to allow retaliation at all. A workable retaliation code of conduct is at www.cyberprivateer.com.

Iran's Letter to the New York Times

I'm sure glad I get to pick my clients, because I'd really hate to be the PR flack assigned to paint Iran in a good light. Take, for example, today's letter (read it here) from Alireza Miryousefi, the head of press office in Iran's mission to the United Nations. My advice to anyone having a meeting with Alireza is don't make any sudden moves, like to straighten your hair. It could cause the poor devil to flinch or even dive under a nearby desk. And to Alireza Miryousefi, you should remember what happened to Iraqi's foreign minister Tariq Aziz and ask for political asylum while you're here in the U.S.

What makes the Iranian letter to the NYT more laughable is a later story in today's Wall Street Journal (read it here) saying that "Iranian-backed hackers have escalated a campaign of cyberassaults against U.S. corporations by launching infiltation and surveillance missions against the computer networks running energy companies…"

Selah, Alireza!

New York Times Story: "U.S. Is Urged to Allow Counterattacks on Hackers"

Former ambassador to China Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. and Dennis C. Blair, Obama's first director of national intelligence, are both urging that the U.S. "…consider giving companies the right to retaliate against cyberattackers with counterstrikes of their own." The story was reported in today's New York Times (see the story here). The great quote of the article:

“China is two-thirds of the intellectual property theft problem, and we are at a point where it is robbing us of innovation to bolster their own industry, at a cost of millions of jobs,” Mr. Huntsman said, with a bluntness that would have been forbidden when he served in Beijing. “We need some realistic policy options that create a real cost for this activity because the Chinese leadership is sensitive to those costs.”    

With such a public policy, maybe my Cyber Privateer Code could be the basis for a real implementation of…The Morgan Doctrine.

Stay tuned.  

China: "We don't hack, but the USA is guilty, too."

I love it when the diplomats issue press statements. The very best sophistry, rhetorical manipulation, and what logician/author Lewis Carroll called "invalid syllogisms" are employed. Today's New York Times story is an excellent example (read it here). Instead of the headline, "China Blasts Hacking Claim by Pentagon," they really should have used a version my headline from above: "China Claims They Don't Hack, But That the USA is Guilty, Too."

Quoting H.L. Mencken,

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

The New York Times story would be an excellent exercise for dissection and analysis by high school classes.

Dutch Legislation a First Step Toward Cyber Privateering

Hey cybercriminals, do you hear footsteps behind you?

[What's that noise?]

Dutch legislation (see Computerworld story here) could open the floodgate of legalized "hot pursuit" in the cybercrime arena. Of two interesting paragraphs in the article, the first is reminiscent of my Cyber Privateer Code of Conduct (see here) and involves safeguards and oversight authority:

The bill foresees strict safeguards for the use of the new powers such as a the approval of a judge, the certification of software used and keeping logs of the investigation data.

The second interesting thought comes from opponents to the bill. They're actually right on the money. If the bill becomes law, their prediction is a vast understatement of the "viral" consequences:

Moreover, the pending Dutch legislation could set an example for other governments which could start an arms race between hacking governments, [said Simone Halink of Dutch digital rights organization Bits of Freedom]. 

Next step: Privatization of the process, which will start a high-tech gold rush the likes of which will relegate the dot-com boom to a mere blip in the history books.