> The MIT Pirate Certificate is for entertainment purposes only and does not give the recipient license to engage in piracy or any pirate activities.
Jeez, what buzzkills.
Jeez, what buzzkills.
You’d want a letter of marque for an endorsement of being “allowed” to do pirate-y things. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
It's still a thing
Those would only be metaphorical (and even then not a particular apt metaphor) letters of marque and reprisal; a literal letter of marque and reprisal is to a private vessel to attack and seize property from enemy vessels, converting acts which would otherwise be piracy under international law into lawful armed combat.
Cyberhacking groups aren’t vessels, and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
> I can imagine the same has happened in the US.
Not under US law (even if it still wouldn’t make any sense under international law for the reasons described above), since Constitutionally that would require an active of Congress authorizing such letters, which has not occurred. You can imagine what you want, but its simply not a reality.
As we all know, the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal.
That’s irrelevant: the point of the letter is exactly to make it not illegal. If anything, it proves they didn’t have a (literal) letter of marque.
A letter of marque is a specific legal instrument.
If the US (or Russian) government is recruiting and employing private sector hacking groups as cyberwarfare agents (as both probably are), whehter or not they are doing so legally under domestic and/or international law, they aren’t issuing letters of marque.
It's like how the US hasn't officially been to war since World War II.
No.
A letter of marque makes you not pirates but lawful combatants under international law, where there has long been a norm that pirates (but not lawful combatants) are the common enemy of all humanity (hostis humani generis) and subject to summary punishment by any nation, for piracy against the shipping of any nation, without limit. Whereas privateers are, to other nations, of the same legal status as military forces of the sponsoring power.
A nonprosecution agreement gives you immunity from punishment under the domestic law of the country issuing it.
Not the same thing at all.
> It’s like how the US hasn’t officially been to war since World War II.
So, a popular myth? US Courts have long rejected the notion that any particular magic words are necessary for Congress to exercise its power to declare war, and that a Congressional authorization of military force that does not use terms like “declaration of war” (the earliest of which was issued in 1798, this is not a new practice) nevertheless is an exercise of the power to declare war. There are some statutes to which magic words are relevant, but that’s a choice of Congress to structure other statutes that way, not something inherent it what makes a state of war under US law.
Marque is "we'll take credit for you officially, such that other countries won't be allowed to hang you as pirates".
Big difference.
Well obviously the cyberspace and information superhighway metaphor needs to morph into the cybersea, and information ocean gyres, and...you get the idea.
But committing copyright violations is piracy, according to many legal experts apparently. How can there be much difference between cyberhacking groups and naval vessels, when there's really no difference at all between copying a floppy and attacking a merchant vessel on the high seas?
True, its hard to imagine a situation where privateers would add any measurable capacity to the US Navy.
> The US got a better thing called “sanctions”, which apparently allow US Navy to forcefully detain ships on the high seas and sell their stuff on the grounds of them being engaged in “illegal trade”, despite the ship having nothing to do with the US.
That kind of sanctions, don’t replace letters of marque (letters of marque are a way of getting private ships to perform functions for which you would otherwise need to use a Navy, which can include commerce raiding or, I suppose, enforcing sanctions – though the era of privateering and the kind of sanctions at issue don’t really overlap), enforcing sanctions is something you do with ships you have. If anything, the “new thing” of sanctions would increase, not decrease, the appeal of letters of marque.
What decreases them is having a professional Navy that overmatches the rest of the world combined, making adding private combatant ships, for any purpose, not really attractive.
Congress generally doesn’t seek to separately and redundantly authorize specific attacks once it has generally authorized the President to use military force, whether it was the bill passed in 1941 stating “the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan”, or the bill passed in 2001 stating “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Tax revenue on another countries brand of cigarettes, sure, hands-off.. agree
Actual piracy with weapons? how about losing a gun battle with US Navy and going to jail, yes.
In other words "it depends" .. a lot
You can't get one from Spain, France, the Netherlands, or Germany – all nations with a tradition of Privateering, but you could get one from the US — maybe in Trumps second term, all it needs is a pirate cryptocoin
Sure, but what about the preceding sentence?
> Non-MIT courses and life experience are not counted towards completing the certificate. (emphasis added)
YMMV
And that treaty was the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, which came about at the end of a war for…Crimea.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6869