My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities.
At the end of the day, the reason the government exists is to protect the people and their property.
I agree that it's alarming that the US is doing this. But my alarm is because there's no Constitutional declaration of war, or even any apparent invocation of the War Powers Act.
I always thought that the reason the government exists is to collect taxes and spend them in the most inefficient way. Governments go to war to protect their cash flow, i.e. taxes.
Well we just had a presidential election if not decided, certainly influenced by this same group, I can't think of a better thing to spend taxpayer money on than ensuring that elections are free from interference.
Cargo ships get attacked & hijacked all the time. There exist some shipping lanes where such risks are well known. In fact, US Navy ships regularly patrol such shipping lanes in an effort to curtail or stop piracy. At the very least, many pirates are turned off by the prospect of facing off against a heavily armed Navy ship.
This isn't the same thing as retaliation. This is the US government deploying its considerable resources to mitigate an obvious vulnerability. Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons, leaving them defenseless against even the shabbiest of pirates. The navies - US and allied alike - are out there protecting ships that cannot legally defend themselves. Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion.
Compare this with infosec vulnerabilities in the private sector. Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. I would even go as far as commend the government for subsidizing infosec consultants for companies that are considered important for the continued functioning of society.
> Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons
That isn't true. It's perfectly legal for an American ship in international waters to carry weapons aboard. Shipping companies hire armed security to protect their ships even though it's not common.
Depending on the country, a very heavily armed ship may have a problem in certain ports, but small arms kept aboard aren't a problem in most places. If you want larger weapons, companies could hire escort boats.
>Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems.
Sure companies need better security, but no security policy will stop a sufficiently motivated attacker. Expecting private citizens to be solely responsible for protecting themselves from foreign militaries is absurd.
>Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion.
Retaliation in this case would be the US launching cyber attacks and stealing trade secrets from private foreign companies. Instead they are directly attacking cyber combatants.