Red Cross lays down hacktivism law as Ukraine war rages on

New guidelines have been codified to govern the rules of engagement concerning hacktivists involved in ongoing cyber warfare. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the humanitarian protection organization responsible for promoting international law, has set out eight rules for hacktivists and another four for …

[Jellied Eel]

Nice idea, but.. wut?

"On a broader spectrum, it might be beneficial for the rule-making bodies to contemplate mechanisms that compensate the losses of parties adhering to these guidelines. The current construct may inadvertently favor those disregarding the laws, thus potentially incentivizing non-compliance.

WTF does that mean? Pay compensation in BTC for attacks that weren't made? Or compensate if hackers get arrested?

It's a nice idea from the ICRC, but only if it's followed by everyone. Especially as much of it is already being performed by Non-State Actors (NSA, heh) and hacktivists, who being NSA aren't protected by their own states, and the activities would generally be illegal anyway. So if I were to hack either Russia or Ukraine from the UK, I'd be breaking UK law, as well as Ukraine or Russias. Then the actual NSA would do this sort of thing and just deny it, but would have the benefit of state protection.

Also curious if this means there's a risk in formalising this and mentioning things like hacking hospitals could be considered a 'war crime'. So then hacking a military target could be considered an hostile act, and if it's not prevented by the hacker's own state, they become beligerents. Dear hactivists, would you like to play a game?

[Peter2]

Re: Nice idea, but.. wut?

WTF does that mean?

It means that at present the Geneva Conventions of Civilised Warfare, ratified and adhered to by all civilised countries recognises that warfare can no longer be confined to the battlefield, but does attempt to reduce the worst of humanities instincts by requiring that you not kill people not taking part in hostilities, and that you not bomb hospitals etc.

At present, Russia is systematically breaking every rule of warfare laid down by civilised countries, and Ukraine is mostly not, which will explain this sentence:-

The current construct may inadvertently favor those disregarding the laws, thus potentially incentivizing non-compliance.

Which means quite simply that if a nation breaks the rules then they gain an advantage and at present there is no disincentive to breaking the rules. The Red Cross is pointedly suggesting that mistreating, starving or executing POW's or civilians, bombing power grids offline (or hacking them to do the same thing) etc should really have some penalties applied.

Simply put, if the Russians are told that they will receive a strongly worded letter each time they commit a war crime then they obviously don't care. If they were told that for every breach of the rules Ukraine was getting a long range missile, fighter jet or modern tank then the Russians would suddenly start caring a very great deal. Likewise if a billion dollars suspended in sanctions were transferred to Ukraine per offence then it could be reasonably expected that the number of significant offences committed by Russia would rapidly diminish.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Nice idea, but.. wut?

At present, Russia is systematically breaking every rule of warfare laid down by civilised countries, and Ukraine is mostly not, which will explain this sentence

Yes, I know how international law is supposed to work, but I meant this part, which I helpfully put in bold-

contemplate mechanisms that compensate the losses

That could be something that got lost in translation, ie how countries that don't committ 'war crimes' are compensated by those that do. But the problem with 'war crimes' are they're mostly a bunch of guidelines that get routinely ignored. So you quote..

The current construct may inadvertently favor those disregarding the laws, thus potentially incentivizing non-compliance

Which is the problem with the current Laws of War. If 'war crimes' don't get investigated and prosecuted, there's no real incentive to obey those laws. Much has been written about how effective Ukraine's cyberwarfare teams are, with attacks on Russian systems. Fair enough, both countries are effectively in a state of war, or at least armed hostilities. Ukraine may permit official cyberwarfare, and as they're sovereign, that's their choice. If there's a Ukrainian hacktivist in the UK that attacks a Russian systems, they're breaking UK & Russian law, same as I or any non-Ukrainian citizen would be. If we got caught, and the CPS decided there was no public interest in prosecuting, could that make the UK a party to the conflict now that the ICRC has defined hactivism as part of a conflict?

It's much the same as traditional definitions of combatants and non-combatants, and how beligerents are expected to treat each category.

The Red Cross is pointedly suggesting that mistreating, starving or executing POW's or civilians, bombing power grids offline (or hacking them to do the same thing) etc should really have some penalties applied.

Sure, but we do that a lot, eg when NATO bombed Sarajevo or Baghdad's power grids. ICRC might point out the civil consequences, but those aren't war crimes. Perhaps they should be, but then that's up to the beligerents. Bigger problem is the ICRCs largely toothless. It can investigate allegations and make recommendations, but it also has to remain neutral or lose it's protected status. Most of it's authority derives from other conventions, and not every nation has signed up to those, or complies with them.

Simply put, if the Russians are told that they will receive a strongly worded letter each time they commit a war crime then they obviously don't care. If they were told that for every breach of the rules Ukraine was getting a long range missile, fighter jet or modern tank then the Russians would suddenly start caring a very great deal. Likewise if a billion dollars suspended in sanctions were transferred to Ukraine per offence then it could be reasonably expected that the number of significant offences committed by Russia would rapidly diminish.

You might be missing an important point. For justice to be justice, it has to be applied equally, so all 'war crimes' should be investigated and prosecuted. But that's problematic because it needs some neutral party to investigate and prosecute. If it gets as far as prosecution, it needs a venue, and not all countries have agreed to bodies like the ICC. Compensation is also problematic, especially with the 'sanctions' you mention. Currently that might be around $5-600bn that originally belonged to Russia's central bank, businesses and individuals. Is the seizure of that money, especially from civilians not party to that conflict actually legal?

Or to pick another couple of examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty

Besides ceasing the production and development of anti-personnel mines, a party to the treaty must destroy its stockpile of anti-personnel mines within four years, although it may retain a small number for training purposes (mine-clearance, detection, etc.)

Ukraine signed this in 1999, deposited it in 2005 so by 2010, it should have destroyed it's stocks of landmines. It hasn't, and has laid a lot of landmines since. So has Russia, but then neither Russia, nor the US were signatories. One side can ignore the Ottawa Treaty because it never signed it, the other side has clearly broken it. But then.. so what? What are the consequences for non-compliance?

There's also stuff like this-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/67018505/page/2

A Russian strike in north-eastern Ukraine has killed at least 51 people, officials say

...More recently, a Russian attack on the eastern city of Kostyantynivka killed at least 17 people

There are claims from the NYT and others that the missile that hit Kostyantynivka was actually a Ukrainian Buk air defence missile. Ukraine also previously claimed that a missile that killed 2 people in Poland was a Russian missile. Poland's just completed it's investigation and determined it was Ukrainian. Within only a few hours of this latest strike, the Bbc has decided the truth. The reality may be a bit more complicated. It was allegedly a cafe with 300 people in it, 1 from every household in the village (decimation used sort of correctly?). It appears to have been a fairly small building, which means it must have been pretty tightly packed. Ukraine claims it was hit with an Iskander, which has a warhead of around 500kg and often a blast/frag effect. Why so few casualties? This is similar to a previous claim of a deliberate missile strike with another, larger missile on a 'packed' shopping centre that didn't even manage to break glass bottles or windows.

But there often isn't much time (or maybe inclination) for any real 'fact checking'. We have to take it on trust that there was not military presence that may have justified a strike. The village is very close to the active contatct line and has been shelled and bombed before. And Ukraine apparently ordered it's evacuation 6 weeks ago, so why were so many civilians (ie most of the village per last census) still there, and gathered in one place?

And before the angry thumbs stab their keyboards, this is just one of the very real problems with the 'Laws of War' in a conflct like this. Russia isn't supposed to deliberately target civilians, but civilians will likely get killed and harmed anyway when the conflict is happening in urban areas. Ukraine also has obligations to protect it's civilian populations by minimising risk, ie not placing military personnel or equipment where it puts civilians in danger.. Or where the danger level is high, evacuating them.

[Grinning Bandicoot]

It looked like blooming flowers

Also not considered is the civilian acting as a guerilla (in the mind of the hacker) where in physical war just a token of military organization moves the civilian into the Geneva Conventions. Maybe the Letters of Marquis will return. Since Ivan the Third a culture of smiling friendly handshaking with one hand while the other holds the knife waiting the plunging moment has existed in Russia. Uncle Joe feed that culture and his ideological son V has celebrated the old Soviet state. Since it only takes one to make a war the IRC must be smoking some very strong stuff to have issued what it did!

There exists another state actor that has and is playing fast and loose with the international rules of conduct. Their historical ethos suggests strongly that this too is non-operatrive. The idea of war is to establish your will upon your foe in the most economical manner consistent with your goals and if non targeted damage happens - so what!