Did any of them mention international humanitarian law, specifically discrimination, respecting territory of neutral ("green") actors and their infrastructure, and avoiding harm to neutral third parties and non-combatants? The problem with most worms is the inability to accurately discriminate targets and resulting harm. This is an area where technical experts need to be balanced with operators and policy makers to ensure that non-technical operators and policy makers fully understand what it is that they are talking about. And where use of *all* of the levers of sovereign power, in partnership with other nations, to establish and enforce norms, is crucial. Should we really consider unconstrained damage and instantaneous global chaos as "fun?" ;)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 8:45 PM Dave Aitel via Dailydave dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org wrote:
So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would do if they were told to switch their offensive team entirely to worms. Nothing else. Just worms. What needs to change to make that happen - from op tempo to supply chain to personnel to policy and technological investment.
And how would their defensive team need to change strategically if they were facing such an offensive team.
It's a fun thing to see people wrap their minds around. :)
Also, if you missed it, yesterday's CYBER HOT TAKES are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzcmfIgvj7A&t=2s&ab_channel=DaveAite...
-dave
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave@lists.aitelfoundation.org To unsubscribe send an email to dailydave-leave@lists.aitelfoundation.org