I mean, the goal of the question is to start putting some meat on the idea
of what "harm" is and how that is reflected both from a policy and
technical perspective. But also: It's useful to put some real definitions
around what is required to make people comfortable with fully-automated
I don't think the idea that we are going to come up with and enforce norms
is as useful as figuring out what the norms really are sometimes, perhaps.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:39 AM Dave Dittrich <dave.dittrich(a)gmail.com>
Did any of them mention international humanitarian
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
So one of my new fav questions to ask policy teams is what they would do
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
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:
Dailydave mailing list -- dailydave(a)lists.aitelfoundation.org
To unsubscribe send an email to