Amazon.com Widgets

Should a ban on cyber attacks be instigated through an international treaty?

  • Yes, a ban on cyber attacks should be instigated through an international treaty.

    Even though I do not think an international treaty that bans cyber attacks will do anything to prevent such things, I think it is still a good idea. Plus any country caught breaking the treaty will look like an enemy of the international world. Plus, hacking to another country's system is already illegal anyway.

  • Yes it should

    Yes, It would be a good idea to make sure that you do not have any of the cyber attacks that are happening right now across the world. I think that a international treaty would be a really good thing that would make the world a lot safer of a place.

  • Sure, it would be worthless, but why not.

    Yes, a ban on cyber attacks should be instigated through an international treaty. For no other reason than it would show how futile such a ban would be. Just because a denial of service attack or some other hacking attack is coming from a country, doesn't mean it was instigated by them.

  • Yes, great idea.

    A ban on cyber attacks should be instigated through an international treaty. This would be a giant leap forward as far as building toward peace. But, before we do this, we have to get rid of the nuclear weapons strewn throughout military super powers around the world. Even you, France.

  • It wouldn't work.

    No, a ban on cyber attacks should not be instigated through an international treaty, because most of the cyber attacks are not instigated by governments. After a treaty, when there are cyber attacks, one nation could blame the nation of the attacker, and that could start a full-on war. Blame needs to stay with individuals.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.