If not, it might be fun to create some software or a mobile app that would keep this going indefinitely. I imagine a "CrashNK" app would get alot of downloads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
here's a list of us cybercrime laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_cybercrime#U.S.
Protected system: "including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States"
I think taking down NK internet would be considered affecting foreign commerce/communication.
If so, would there be anything under the U.S. Code or otherwise that would supersede the CFAA; or are there exclusions in the CFAA itself?
Criminal law, except from a political standpoint, does not constrain the policy of the executive branch.
If so, we're effectively saying the same thing, with the exception that I do believe individuals are, and know themselves to be, technically liable for criminal conduct. As such, I believe that individuals and groups working within the USG (Executive or otherwise) do seek legal cover for their actions.
So, rather than haggling with dragownwriter over that bit, I went on to point out that I don't believe the USG would be constrained by it for different reasons than the outright impunity he suggested; that is, that they would find legal justification for it.
But, I do see that I may have misconstrued your comment by over-focus on the USG involvement bit. My bad.
I don't think that's really different; finding the legal justification to cite for it is responding to the political constraint (it also is a means of invoking the impunity, because reliance on such a legal justification provided by superiors within the executive branch itself creates a colorable legal defense against future prosecution without requiring an explicit pardon, even if the justification itself is flawed. This has been identified by many experts as one of the problems with actually prosecuting the people directly involved in torture in the US criminal justice system.)
The CFAA is so vague. It almost always is interpreted in a manner supportive of the USG's prosecution, go figure.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ccmanual.pdf
(I was going to quote some parts of this, but there are too many... giant wall of text.)
Edit: This is also useful: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-1025.pdf
And I'll quote this part (which is from a case cited in the footnotes):
A computer that accesses the Internet is a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce.
So there's your answer
We could consider an analogy: would Sony run afoul of US (or international) law if they knocked North Korea offline by launching highly-targetted ballistic missiles from their US offices?
My gut feeling is yes, that's illegal. If not, then the US is even more self-righteous than it appears!
That isn't remotely close to an analogy. Mere possession of explosive devices, or even the materials to make them, is a crime in the US. However, it isn't clear if attacking a remote network is a crime under US law. Normally it would be up to the victim country to prosecute and request extradition, but there would be no extradition from the US or any other country (except perhaps from China, one of NK's few allies) in this case.
If true, the backlash could be significant. There's already large portions of the world trying to de-centralize the internet from the US (routing around, etc) after the Snowden leaks and discoveries of egregious abuses of power over the internet by the US government. No single country should have the capability (or right) to knock an entire other country off the internet, North Korea or not...
We take down governments in our sleep and replace them with our own puppets.
Except for the fact that the Chinese protect that particular government, and that makes thing a lot stickier.
It seems to be quite the opposite actually:
> Any civilized world will oppose hacker attacks or terror threats. But a movie like ‘The Interview,’ which makes fun of the leader of an enemy of the U.S., is nothing to be proud of for Hollywood and U.S. society,” an editorial in the newspaper said. “No matter how the U.S. society looks at North Korea and Kim Jong-un, Kim is still the leader of the country. The vicious mocking of Kim is only a result of senseless cultural arrogance.[1]
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/sony-hack-triggers-diplomatic-tightwa...
China's general attitude over the last decade or two has been a gradually increasing private irritation with NK's behavior and while China still tends to defend NK in public, these defenses seem more and more perfunctory as time goes on. There's a sense that while they value NK as a communist buffer state, the Chinese government has little love for the NK regime in particular, and wishes they'd get their act together.