The study indicates that killing state-sponsored hackers is justified as an act against the aggressor State, not as an act against those individuals.
Attacking an individual in another State is itself a violation of that target State's sovereignty and would be grounds for legal retaliation.
The real legal problem in this comes from the grey area around where "terrorists" fit in these definitions [1] and who exactly gets to define "terrorist" [2].
But given how far US legal minds have already taken the escalation of executive power in these cases, it seems silly to think they'd feel particularly restricted in adding "hellfire missile" to their list of options, if not for some third party's supportive legal opinion.
Frankly, when the State can simply disappear a citizen without recourse, the question of whether they may decide outright murder is legal seems rather superfluous.
[1] Where it is precisely the lack of State sponsorship that brands one a "terrorist" and opens the door to extra-legal abuse.
[2] In the US, two administrations have asserted that a "terrorist" is anyone the executive branch claims is a terrorist due no particular evidential requirement and subject to no legislative restriction or judicial review.
Exactly some of the points I tried to point out, as well, in my comments. There is also the central issue that this document is a NATO handbook, not a doc focused on the US military or other governmental agencies.
NATO is trying to wrestle with how to understand and apply the Geneva Conventions to cyberwarfare.
Seems some people are missing that part and reacting as if this is another secret White House memo.
That's not actually true, but don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative.
Take for example the recent "cyber attacks" on South Korea. They first accused China, North Korea, before doing deeper investigation and finding that the attack originated from somewhere else. They could have very well killed the wrong people, starting a war with the wrong country.
And like the infamous "weapons of mass destruction" this can easily be used to attack a country under false pretenses.
IMHO much more resources should be spent on research and tools to make software intrinsically safer and more secure, instead of all the pooha about war and killing. It could lead to much more sustainable solutions that actually solve the problem of "we're much too vulnerable digitally".
Nowadays, people push buttons from great distances away and one keystroke could unleash havoc halfway around the world. Meanwhile the guy who pushed that button is off to pick up his kids from school (he may not even have known what he started since his code is one piece of a larger whole). At what point are you at war in that scenario? When can the guy who pushed the button be considered an aggressor? While he's behind the keyboard or at anytime during his life thereafter? If he's already part of his country's military, I guess this is different.
I suspect there's a lot of exaggeration in the headline and the actual document is more nuanced.
Indeed.
We are already in an era after the atomic bomb, after "total war". Now we are disturbed that in the future, civilians might be killed along with the countries they support in war? How about this happening constantly in war all the way back to city-states?
You might not like the message, but they're not going after Ruby on Rails developers. They're going after virus makers targeting military networks etc. Or Al Qaeda's social media manager.
This article is bullshit reporting sensationalizing the story. Here is an actual report on the NATO manual this article is about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfa...
(I'm not downvoting you)
see also: WMD
Moving hacking from play, to fraud, and then warfare has deep implications that are very important to discuss. Mainly what happens if play is confused with warfare. I can imagine (is happening indeed) witch-hunting in the name of security.
Since when did we start to believe that civilians are safe in wars? Is this not one of the worst and most ancient aspects of war, that it consistently kills civilians?
If you think about it, a cyber-hacker (normally) won't be much of a threat to the capturing force ... how many are trained warriors? And the amount of knowledge that might be gained is immensely more (again, how many are trained to withstand even mild torture)?
Where did you see that in the text?