Amazon.com Widgets

Should there be an international treaty on cyberwarfare?

  • No proper framework is available as of now.

    As of now there is no proper framework to distinguish between an act of espionage and an act of cyber warfare. To create a distinction and at the same time making all countries work towards the so formed treaty, though not significantly, it will help the signatories to take better steps in order to create a more safer cyberspace. Sharing of methods to secure cyberspace between countries will become one of the consequential benefit.

  • Hackers Know No Boundaries

    Computer hackers don't recognize international boundaries. There should be international treaties for cyberwarfare as evidenced by a coordinated effort to hack into Iran's nuclear program with a computer virus. Security experts believe the virus came from a government source, perhaps from Israel. Just like regular military engagements, civilian targets should be off-limits in cyberwarfare. When hackers try to disrupt another computer system, only military software should be the target of such a devastating act.

  • Hell no and why any whys

    If you ask me the UN treaties are a piece of crap we do not have to follow them promises were made to be broken and who are other counties to tell us and us to tell them that we cant do something i hope if there is a proposes for this it is not signed

  • No.

    The thing about the internet is that it's unpatrolled, it's the wild west of our time. Putting legislation that restrains use is going to cause a huge backlash, regardless of the issues that it's trying to reign in. Also, with internet just now becoming prominent in lesser societies, it would be even harder to patrol and enforce. Leave it to the people that use it. Let it be free.

  • No there should not be an international treaty on cyberwarfare

    People are gonna do what they do regardless of the law anyway, so it would be a waste of time and money to draw up a document that isn't really gonna be followed by the masses regardless. There's not much point. Save the treaties for things that really matter and really can be controlled.

  • Why bother?

    Treaties in war are kind of an optional thing anyway, and something like "cyberwarfare" is so invisible and esoteric that it seems even more likely any treaty that is signed will just be broken by all involved. It's not like the NSA and the other top secret agencies that other countries have are going to change what they're doing one bit in the end.


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