1. Make hacking from a foreign country an act of war.
2. Set up a relay in a foreign country.
3. ??
4. Profit.

Yes, yes, over 9,000 cruise missiles… very good sir, you don’t sound powerless at all.

I guess this is one really good way for the US to force the rest of the world to accept its draconian plans for control of the internet.
“Its a nice country, it would be a shame if some kid did something stupid online and we had to bomb it.”

Better plan – don’t hook “critical” systems up to the internet?

I wonder how it affects the definition of treason?

Since when are American institutions supposed to consider people in other nations the exact same as its own people? Guess what, guys – most people in other countries don’t place Americans’ welfare above their own either.

As for “hacking” considered an act of war, the more accurate term is cyber attack (like the Stuxnet incident) rather than plain old cyber exploitation (what 99% of hacking is).

But seriously, if a private individual in britain hacks the USA powergrid, are they going to bomb London?
What if it’s a private individual in Kyrgyzstan?

So, if Bin Laden’s successor wants to get the American war machine to a specific place he sends his buddy to that country to hack a US system using a known hack? “ACCCHHHHHH, the morals of those dirty (group of Muslims) has strayed too far from Allah. Let’s trick the stupid Americans into attacking them to show them the wrath of Allah”

or

“Mr. President. Craplakistan has a bunch of oil and other stuff we can mess around with. Should we send someone there to hack our systems so we have a reason to attack?”

And Stuxnet is a great example of that. It was indeed an act of war, and was much more effective than cruise missiles or troops.

I don’t like having more wars – and I lament the fact that this policy opens the door to massive retribution for simple attacks – but it seems obvious that digital attacks are already offer some of the best cost/benefit offenses out there and their use will only escalate. This policy is both realistic and an attempt by the Pentagon to scare any government considering such attacks.

http://www.stripes.com/news/official-no-options-off-the-table-for-u-s-response-to-cyber-attacks-1.91319

for friends. If you are familiar with the publication (and being from a military family – I am), you would have taken it as a serious indication of position even back in 2009.

Of course we’d retaliate, disproportionately if we could, and not necessarily with a cyber-attack in kind. And that retaliation would enjoy enormous popular support. Sure, things could go wrong: in particular, really truly demigod-level cyber-shenanigans could make us think it was Iran when really it was North Korea. But that’s the nature of the weapon, and of asymmetrical warfare.

Realistically, as long as there’s a Pentagon to issue press releases, the Pentagon is going to say this and it will always have been the official policy. Because the alternative is the Pentagon saying, “Boy, I hope nobody attacks us via the internet, because we are royally fucked if that happens. Enemies of freedom, please do not cyber-threaten us as that would leave us powerless to respond!”

• You betcha Stuxnet was an act of war. Iran would respond with missiles down our smokestacks if it could, and is probably working very hard on a more asymmetrical response, whether electronic in nature or otherwise. The question then becomes was it worth it in terms of slowing down their bomb-making calendar, and in terms of letting the rest of the world know that we could be lurking in their light-switches. That, I don’t really know enough to argue one way or the other.

• The nightmare scenario is indeed that a clever, apolitical teenager in Armenia shuts down LAX’s air traffic control tower for lulz. But think of it this way: a Russian MiG on a strafing run and a guy in a weather-balloon-lofted lawn chair with a machine gun could do similar amounts of damage. But you’d never confuse the one for the other. Stuxnet wasn’t just brilliant (and effective only because it was brilliant), it was the sort of thing where it could never have been cooked up by one person. FOR NOW, there’s a difference between state-funded crackery and what goes on for lulz. When and if that stops being true, well, you know, may you live in interesting times.

Do not begrudge us our snark cannons. We use them in order to cope in a world that is in practice without the rule of law. Our snark is analogous to gallows humor.