Archive for category Letter Of Marque

Legal News: Italy And Norway Produce National Regulations On The Use Of Armed Guards For Maritime Security

Jul 27

Posted by Matt in Italy, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, Norway | 3096No Comments2011-07-27+21%3A04%3A50Matt

Right on, and this is great news that countries are now starting to wake up about this stuff. I also think that this move to put armed guards on boats and backing that up with legal authority to do so, is actually helping to fuel the opinio juris of the world body that armed security is a good idea on these boats. If Italy or Norway thinks it’s a good idea, then other countries might be more inclined to do the same thing. I have also seen this change in attitude with places like the UN, Germany and the UK.

Now will armed guards on boats, eventually lead to states granting Letters of Marque? Who knows, but as armed guards on boats present certain unavoidable situations (like taking prisoners after sinking a pirate boat, killing pirates, killing innocents, clashes with other navies or armed guards, etc.) then further legislation might lead countries to just go back to the tried and true license called the LoM. In other words, if the sum of all of the laws created over time add up to being just a basic LoM, then why not just implement the LoM?

The Declaration of Paris (DoP) is old and outdated, and as we put more private armed guards on boats and states continue to pass laws allowing for such things, then why hold to the DoP? Especially as pirates continue to flourish, and navies continue to fail at stopping this virus. Stuff to think about, and bravo to Italy and Norway for doing the right thing. -Matt

National regulations on the use of armed guards
July 22, 2011
Italy

The Italian Decree no. 107, dated 12 July 2011, (Italian only) states the general principles of the deployment of military forces or private security guards onboard Italian Ships.
—————————————————————
Norway

On 29 June 2011, the Norwegian Government announced a new framework on the use of armed guards by amendments to Regulation 972/2004 on ship security and amendments to Regulation 904/2009 relative to arms. The changes came into force on 1 July 2011.
The new framework follows the IMO guidelines, and allows Norwegian owners to have armed guards onboard in a certain geographical area within the legal limits laid down. An owner wanting to place armed guards onboard must apply for authorization with Norwegian Police Authorities and provide necessary documentation to the Norwegian Maritime Directory. However, the owner is required to conduct an independent risk evaluation to prove the need for armed guards. In addition the owner must be able to show the Security Company’s documentation on procedures for training, qualification and storage and use of weapon.
The simultaneously issued Provisional Guidelines the use of armed guards offer practical guidance on the interpretation of the new framework.
The minister of Trade and Industry states in a press release (Norwegian only) that the amendments do not imply an encouragement to have armed guards onboard Norwegians ships. The purpose is to control the selection and use of security companies to ensure the safety of Norwegian ships and their crew. He emphasizes that all other efforts to protect the ship and its crew must first be fulfilled before armed guards are used.
Link to post here.

Tags: Armed Guards, Italy, Legal News, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, Norway, piracy, security

History: The Privateers Of The Texas Revolution

Jul 25

Posted by Matt in History, Letter Of Marque, Texas | 30642 Comments2011-07-25+20%3A20%3A30Matt

This is some cool history that yet again, you just don’t hear about. I had no idea about this history, and after reading about it, I tried to collect as much as I could that talked about this little known subject. Just to set this up, here is an excerpt from wikipedia about what led up to this revolution or war of independence between Texas settlers and Mexico:

The Texas Revolution or Texas War of Independence was a military conflict between Mexico and settlers in the Texas portion of the Mexican state Coahuila y Tejas. The war lasted from October 2, 1835 to April 21, 1836. However, a war at sea between Mexico and Texas would continue into the 1840s. Animosity between the Mexican government and the American settlers in Texas, as well as many Texas residents of Mexican ancestry, began with the Siete Leyes of 1835, when Mexican President and General Antonio López de Santa Anna abolished the federal Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed the more centralizing 1835 constitution in its place.
The new laws were unpopular throughout Mexico, leading to violence in several states. War began in Texas on October 2, 1835, with the Battle of Gonzales. Early Texian Army successes at La Bahia and San Antonio were soon met with crushing defeat at the same locations a few months later. The war ended at the Battle of San Jacinto where General Sam Houston led the Texian Army to victory over a portion of the Mexican Army under Santa Anna, who was captured shortly after the battle. The conclusion of the war resulted in the creation of the Republic of Texas in 1836.

So I guess the thing that I wanted talk about with this particular piece of history, is the fact that privateering was the first act of the provisional government of Texas. They did not have a navy, so privateers was a quick and easy want to fire up a navy and put some money into the treasury by means of a prize court. Unfortunately at that time, Mexican commerce in the Gulf of Mexico was not that great, and thus a privateer industry or offense industry did not have the necessary elements to flourish.

It is also important to note that if Texas was not part of the US at the time, then this would be an example of another ‘country’ using the LoM. I could be wrong there, but I just do not know how to legally classify Texas at that time period? But either way, this is an example of a fledgling and resource strapped government, firing up the Letter of Marque as just one tool in their fight.

On a side note, the provisional government also handed out land to any soldiers who would fight for Texas Independence. This is an interesting concept, and I wonder if Somalia could do something similar? Hell, the TFG could fire up the LoM as well, and grant these licenses to foreign or local privateers to go after pirates on water and land. Meaning, if a company could seize by force the wealth of the pirate investors or pirates themselves, then that company would split that prize with the TFG. That puts money into the treasury of the TFG, it provides financial incentive to the privateer companies, and it creates an offense industry that profits from piracy’s destruction. To really fire it up, they could offer pirates amnesty if they become privateers for the government. Call it the Woodes Rogers solution. lol.

Either way, check it out and let me know what you think. I think that flag below would be a cool morale patch for today’s maritime security bunch too. And I know that Texas is not ‘legally’ authorized to grant LoM’s at this present time, but imagine if they were? That they created an offense industry to deal with the asset rich cartels that operate along the borders? Now that would be something else. -Matt

1824History: The Privateers Of The Texas Revolution

The flag that Texas Privateers were required to fly on their vessels.

Texas Privateers

(From the Texas State Library and Archives Commission)
Revolution broke out in earnest in Texas in October 1835 with the seizure of the Mexican cannon at Gonzales and the beginning of the Siege of Bexar. As these events unfolded, the Consultation, the first revolutionary assembly of Texas, came together in San Felipe on November 3, 1835. One of its first acts was to consider the protection of the Texas coast. It was impossible to create a Navy overnight, so the Texans adopted the time-honored practice of issuing letters of marque and reprisal to privateers. These privately owned war ships would protect the coast, harass Mexican shipping, and bring in prizes that could be auctioned off, with part of the proceeds going into the public treasury.
Texas issued a total of six letters of marque to privateers, including the San Felipe, the William Robbins, the Terrible, the Thomas Toby, the Flash, and the Ocean. Flying the “1824″ Texas Revolutionary flag, these ships not only patrolled the Gulf, but also pursued Mexican shipping on the high seas. The Thomas Toby was the outstanding privateer of the group, capturing several Mexican vessels and bringing them back to be adjudicated and their contents sold. Overall, though, the privateering effort was disappointing for Texas. Mexican shipping was not considered rich trade, so relatively few privateers were willing to take the risk.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: History, Letter Of Marque, privateers, Texas, texas privateers, Texas Revolution

Letter Of Marque: California Law Review–Structuring A Sustainable Letters Of Marque Regime, By Todd Emerson Hutchins

Jul 25

Posted by Matt in Legal News, Letter Of Marque, Publications | 3061No Comments2011-07-25+19%3A22%3A16Matt

Excellent paper and I recommend checking out the whole thing with the provided link below. The section that I was particularly interested in is the International Law portion. I continue to hear arguments against the Letter of Marque, and no one really has a firm legal foundation for their argument. Or at least that’s what it seems to me. It is just assumed or the ‘opinio juris’ is that issuing Letters of Marque is a no go, and this paper clearly identifies the counter argument to this belief.

So that is why I posted this, and I hope that the legal counsels of countries that are looking for arguments for firing up their LoM or introducing legislation for such a thing, will have some resource to draw from. And what is really nice with legal papers like this, is they are heavily sourced and footnoted, just so they can back up their arguments. The footnotes alone are worth reading, just because they indicate how much the LoM has been talked about in legal circles. Lot’s of opinions, and this is a good collection of them.

In this particular section I posted below, the author identifies two reasons why states believe they are prohibited from privateering and issuing letters of marque, based on their interpretation of the Declaration of Paris and of International Law. One is opinio juris and the other is state practice that influences this interpretation.

State practice refers to “consistent conduct,” while opinio juris means States follow the rule out of “belief” that they are legally obligated to behave in a certain manner.

One of the reasons why I started the Letter of Marque category is to remind states of the practice of privateering, and to remind those who are establishing a legal basis for the act, that countries like the US have a history of consistent conduct when using privateers(it was used in multiple conflicts). And because the US is not a signatory of the Declaration of Paris, then that is interpreted as an ‘objection’ to banning the practice. This is key if you are to prove a state’s ‘belief’, and the fact that the LoM still exists in the US’s most cherished legal document called the Constitution, then we can certainly deduct the US ‘opinio juris’.

The author made this legal argument very well. So if the US could care less about the Declaration of Paris, then why do these other countries continue to hang on to a ‘belief’ that they have to abide by this document? Especially as their navies continue to be downgraded by reduced budgets, or those navies get over extended with other commitments. And especially as piracy is attacking the very life blood of these countries or commerce. National interest should be focused on doing whatever it takes to stop this, and the LoM is just one tool to help with that endeavor.

Finally, I would like to also point out the fact that this was written by a ‘naval Surface Warfare Officer’ and a ‘Judge Advocate student at the Naval Justice School in Newport, R.I’. That indicates to me a paper influenced by naval military history and thought, and the legalities behind implementing the LoM in modern times. It is also a paper that can show the way for how to implement the LoM to help in the war against today’s virus called piracy. Very cool and check it out. -Matt

Structuring a Sustainable Letters of Marque Regime: How Commissioning Privateers Can Defeat the Somali Pirates
Lieutenant Todd Emerson Hutchins
June 9, 2011
(this is just one section of the paper)
THE PRESENT STATE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE
Many contemporary international law scholars contend that the Paris Declaration “by formal accession or tacit acceptance by all the powers [has become] an established part of the general body of [customary] international law.”273 Proponents of a broad prohibition on privateering allege that customary international law has formed since the Paris Declaration. “[I]nternational custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” is recognized as a source of international law under Article 38 of the International Court of Justice Statute.274 It “consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way.”275 The two key elements are state practice and opinio juris.276 State practice refers to “consistent conduct,” while opinio juris means States follow the rule out of “belief” that they are legally obligated to behave in a certain manner.277 Admittedly, the distinction is frustrating “because it is difficult to determine what states believe as opposed to what they say.”278

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: california law review, Legal News, Letter Of Marque, Publications, Todd Emerson Hutchins

Maritime Security: Anti-piracy Consultants In Search Of Asian Clients

Jul 18

Posted by Matt in Hong Kong, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security | 3025No Comments2011-07-19+04%3A53%3A08Matt

The move reflected growing interest by Hong Kong and mainland shipping companies to use armed guards to protect their ships and crews while sailing through pirate-infested waters in the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Gibbins said the firm had seen business grow 140 per cent so far this year compared with last year as the global shipping industry increasingly used armed personnel. “We’ve been working for two years and clocked up 1,000 transits. We’ve deterred 23 attacks, all of which avoided any lethal force,” he said.

Every once in awhile, an article comes up that is just full of interesting data. This article is short, but filled with some key points that have helped to identify a trend here. That the armed maritime security business is on the rise, and expanding.

The article mentioned a familiar company called PVI or Protection Vessels International. This company was identified as one of the top Maritime Security companies that guys wanted to work for in my last survey, and it is great to see a good company expanding and doing well.

What was also interesting is that the author identified a trade industry called the Security Association for the Maritime Industry or SAMI. This trade group is doing some good work, and namely trying to organize and hold it’s members to some standard. Which is great, because at this time, there is no one regulating the maritime security industry. A group like this can also help shipping companies to determine who the good companies are..kind of.

On the other hand, SAMI will run into the same problem that ISOA has when it comes to dealing with a member company that screwed up. Or how they deal with member companies when one of us contractors files a legitimate claim of abuse and violation of the code that the company signed on to follow. Will they truly punish one of their members when they do bad, or even take away their membership? What kind of teeth does SAMI have to actually police their own is the question, and that will be the indicator of it’s true strength as a group. Or is this just another club for companies to join, and say ‘look, we are members, so we must be good’.

Which this brings us to the road that I keep ending up on when we talk about this stuff. We can have associations and trade groups and clubs all day long, but unless we have legal authority or license to do what we are doing, then all of these self imposed regulations and policies are just kind of weak. A Letter of Marque is a license that comes directly from the highest authority of any country, and it is a license that is backed up by hundreds of years of use. If a country is willing to put it’s flag on a vessel, then why are they so afraid to put that same flag on an armed security team in the form of a comprehensive LoM that is backed by a bond?

I mean if I have to get the SSO, STCW 95, ENG1, TWIC, Yellow Fever and Seaman’s Kit Book for a job, I guess I will do it. But the ultimate would be an LoM. And even with an LoM, you would probably run into issues when dealing with other countries out there, but at least you would have a license of true significance.

On another note, if you look at that list of member companies at SAMI, you will have quite the list of maritime security companies to submit resumes and CV’s too. You can do the same over at the ISOA, and that is a great way of identifying those companies who are players out there.

Finally, another point to make here is the market of armed maritime security work is expanding quickly. Lots of countries are getting on the band wagon of armed security, which is great. But what I would like to see, are more of the larger companies getting into the game. Of course all of the government related contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan are the cash cows of these companies, but as the war winds down and there becomes less and less demand for armed security in the war zones, then it would make sense that some of these companies would look at maritime security as a potential market. I think there is room for a lot more entry into this market, and especially if companies like PVI have seen a ’140 percent increase’ in business just in this year alone.

As more vessels get armed security, the vessels that do not have security will get an increase in attention by the pirates as well. So the market will be expanding quickly as the ratio of unprotected vessels decreases–less boats, yet the same amount of pirates, and probably an increase in attacks against unarmed vessels. Remember, the pirates are using scouts and hacking emails and doing whatever they can to find out who has security, and who does not. It is this environment that security companies should examine, and understand that now is the time to enter the market if you are looking for other business.-Matt

Anti-piracy consultants in search of Asian clients
By Keith Wallis
Jul 17, 2011
One of the largest companies providing armed guards for shipowners is to open an office in Hong Kong next month to help develop closer business links with Asian shipowners.
Commenting on the move, Paul Gibbins, director of communications for Protection Vessels International, said: “We are looking for further opportunities in that part of the world.”
Shipping industry insiders said on Friday that the company’s executives would visit Hong Kong this week to meet shipowners before opening an office in the city early next month.
Gibbins said most of the firm’s clients are owners and managers in northern Europe and the company was keen to broaden its customer base. Ian May, who will head the Hong Kong office, would look for opportunities throughout Asia and allow the company to have a closer physical presence in Asia’s shipping community.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: asia, Hong Kong, Letter Of Marque, letter of marque and reprisal, Maritime Security, piracy, PVI

Al Qaeda: Closer Ties Between Somali And Yemeni Jihadists Threatens Oil Through Gulf Of Aden

Jul 18

Posted by Matt in Al Qaeda, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, Somalia, Yemen | 3018No Comments2011-07-19+00%3A24%3A49Matt

Well this was a no brainer, but at least folks are talking about it now. So if Yemeni and Somali jihadists are working together, and Al Shabab is taking a 20 percent cut in piracy ransoms, then I wonder what the Yemeni cuts are? I mean that is a lot of shoreline now that a pirate could call home, if they were backed by the jihadists. If they did not have the support of the jihadists, then I would imagine they would come up against some problems.

The other way to look at this deal is the drug trade in Latin America. If you are a drug dealer in Central or South America, do you think you can set up your own shop and not get hassled by any of the large cartels? Of course not. If you did not cut them in, they would kill you. Or they would kill your family, and then tell you to sell more drugs for them! lol

So if Al Qaeda moves to control this corridor called the Gulf of Aden, then why wouldn’t they want to control these pirates? They could make money off of operations and they would disrupt western and middle eastern interest (oil flow, commerce). Jihadist privateering is a logical conclusion.

Now on to solutions, besides just putting armed guards on boats or squaring away those countries on land. I personally like the Q-ship idea. It is the ultimate zheng and qi strategy, and it would be one that pirates would have a very difficult time countering. The basic scheme is that you use a tanker or whatever boat as bait, and make it look like an unarmed vessel. You could even make it look like it is in distress. Then if it attracts a pirate crew and they go into attack mode and show their guns, an anti-piracy force outflanks that pirate crew and takes them down. You would have a force on the ship open up with the big guns, and a force on water that could attack. Whatever a team wants to use to get the job done. The cool thing is that there is no terrain for a pirate to hide behind, and you actually want the pirates to attack.

This idea though, would need a license by whatever country the vessel is flagged under, and there must be rules identified for killing and capturing pirates. There must be incentive as well, because if you want everyone to get involved with destroying piracy, you need to make it a venture or offense industry that ships would want to get involved with. Ideally, you would also want to capture the pirates and collect information from those detainees so networks can be studied and dismantled. So there must be a mechanism that supports the legal capture of pirates, if possible. Especially if an anti-piracy team wounds some pirates and those poor fools are in a sinking vessel. Do we let them die, or do we have a responsibility to capture them and care for them until those individuals are delivered to a detention center.

I believe all of these details could be hashed out in a Letter of Marque, much like they were in the past. As it stands now, we have armed security teams on boats that are great at repelling the assault, but they have no authorization from anyone to capture/detain or even care for wounded pirates? What sense does it make to have shoot out’s with these guys, but have no means of legally detaining them and taking that pirate crew out of the system?

Now of course this tactic would have multiple legal issues to overcome before it would ever be considered. But honestly, something has to be done because the problem is only getting bigger and it is morphing into an animal that is certainly a threat to the global economies and innocent people. I also fear the day that pirates decide to capture a vessel and outright hand it over to Al Qaeda. Something like ramming a natural gas tanker into a heavily populated port or sinking the thing in gut of the Straits of Hormuz is a frightening thought. Believe me, if you can think it up, the other side has probably thought of it too.-Matt

pirate attacks.jpg.scaled500Al Qaeda: Closer Ties Between Somali And Yemeni Jihadists Threatens Oil Through Gulf Of Aden

Closer ties between Somali and Yemeni jihadists threatens oil through Aden Gulf
Monday, 18 July 2011
By JAMES M. DORSEY
Affiliates of Al Qaeda operating on opposite shores of key oil-export routes through the Gulf of Aden have forged closer ties in what could emerge as a substantial threat by a group that has been dealt severe body blows by the Arab revolt sweeping the Middle East and North Africa and the killing in May of Osama Bin Laden by US Navy Seals. ?The closer ties between Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Shabaab in war-shattered Somalia is sparking concern among intelligence and counter-terrorism officials who suggest that AQAP may be the driving force behind closer cooperation between the two groups.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Al Qaeda, jihadist privateers, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, piracy, pirates, Somalia, Yemen

Maritime Security: Pirate Attacks At Sea Getting Bigger And Bolder, Says IMB Report

Jul 14

Posted by Matt in History, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security | 2981No Comments2011-07-14+19%3A52%3A24Matt

I have to say it. Today’s naval strategies to counter piracy is a failure. We also have the moral high ground in this fight, and yet the piracy industry flourishes. Amazing. It also points to the amazing power of a naturally occurring offense industry. Not one country has given these pirates Letters of Marque or licenses to do what they are doing, and it is an industry that has naturally evolved and expanded. Kind of like a naturally occurring virus, versus a lab manufactured virus.

To take that thought a step further, if a government wanted to manufacture an artificial offense industry, then they could probably learn a lot from this naturally occurring virus called modern piracy. Of course you could also study the history of piracy and privateering, and find consensus from that.

Probably a good starting point would be to study Sir Henry Morgan, a very effective and intelligent privateer that did very well in the Spanish Main. Another privateer I liked was Christopher Newport, just because the guy was an amazing privateer that dominated in the Caribbean. He was also the go to guy for the Virginia Company of London, for transporting colonists to the Virgina Colonies in the new world. Christopher was a stud, and of course there are other famous privateers I am missing. The common theme here is that they were ‘authorized and given license’ to do what they did, and this public/private partnership was mutually beneficial.

Another point to bring up about these older privateers, is that these folks acted more like Marines, than seamen. That they boarded vessels, but they also conducted raids on land. So the captains of vessels or PMC’s had to be proficient in naval operations, and land warfare, to maintain their position of power. Because on these boats, they were extremely democratic and followed codes/rules. If a captain sucked, no one would follow him and they would vote for someone else on the boat to lead them to the prize. I would compare it to today’s modern fishermen in Alaska, and that if they are not able to find the crab, the crew goes home penniless and investors soon go shopping for another captain that ‘can’ find the crab. Everyone likes a winner in the world of offense industries. So privateer captains all had to know their stuff, if they wanted to keep their job. -Matt

Pirate attacks at sea getting bigger and bolder, says IMB report
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Pirate attacks on the world’s seas totalled 266 in the first six months of 2011, up from 196 incidents in the same period last year, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) Piracy Reporting Centre (PRC) revealed today.
More than 60% of the attacks were by Somali pirates, a majority of which were in the Arabian Sea area said the report, Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships. As of 30 June, Somali pirates were holding 20 vessels and 420 crew, and demanding ransoms of millions of dollars for their release.
“In the last six months, Somali pirates attacked more vessels than ever before and they’re taking higher risks,” said IMB Director Pottengal Mukundan. . “This June, for the first time, pirates fired on ships in rough seas in the Indian Ocean during the monsoon season. In the past, they would have stayed away in such difficult conditions. Masters should remain vigilant.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Christopher Newport, IMB, Letter Of Marque, Maritime Security, piracy, pirate code, privateers, Sir Henry Morgan

Letter Of Marque: Privateer Days…..A Canadian Holiday

Jul 4

Posted by Matt in Canada, History, Letter Of Marque | 2900No Comments2011-07-04+23%3A32%3A06Matt

What I wanted to do here is show a little history that folks in the US were probably not aware of. Especially during our celebration of Independence Day. In this town in Canada, they still celebrate the authorization (Letter of Marque) by the British to attack American privateers. To them, American privateers and the Continental Navy were the enemy and this was that town’s solution and savior. The Americans were also pirates in their eyes, and they felt totally justified to use their legalized privateers to attack and defend against such an enemy. (the Continental Navy could take prizes as well)

But it also indicates the effectiveness of privateering back then. This type of warfare did extreme damage on British related commerce, and to anyone that was an ally of the British, and privateering was a means of attacking the enemy’s pocketbook. It also had a great impact on the logistics of the British war machine. This artificially created offense industry, authorized via the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, is an industry that certainly left it’s ‘Marque’. lol

Cool stuff and check it out. -Matt

Tags: Canada, History, Letter Of Marque, privateer days

Letter Of Marque: Inching Closer To A World Of Cyber Privateering

Jun 21

Posted by Matt in Letter Of Marque, Technology | 2801No Comments2011-06-21+21%3A32%3A52Matt

Lately, there has been an increased intensity of hacking attacks on government and business. Of course, government is doing all it can to keep up and stop these hackers. And like the piracy problem on the high seas, hackers in the commons called cyber space are operating with virtual impunity.

To me, there are several areas of weakness that today’s hackers are exploiting. One is the shear enormity of the internet and cyber space, and all the potential targets that a hacker can attack. Like with the pirates of Somalia, hackers have plenty of ocean and are constantly searching for new hunting grounds and weaknesses to exploit.

Their rewards can be immense. Hack into a bank, steal information from a technology firm, or hack a government website and exploit that information. Or they do it because of the ‘lulz’ or the hell of it, just to prove they are the best. Or worse, they attack individuals. (companies or the government has done nothing to protect the little guys– like this blog, from attacks) And these hackers can do it all from a terminal at some random location in the world.

The other thing at play here is scale. Once folks see for themselves how successful one group or individual is, then others will copy them. They will borrow brilliance and follow a model of operation that works, all to achieve a goal. And like today’s example of piracy, hacking spreads because it is inspired by the success of others and by the rewards of the risk taking.

It also spreads when money or organizational influence comes into play. China or a cartel from Mexico can easily do things to add fire to the world of hacking and cyber warfare. All nations add to scale of such things. Just wait until ‘plomo o plata‘ comes to the world of hacking, and then that is when cyber lances will really become essential.

Which brings me to the point of this post. Because this problem is only growing, there must be measures that equal the size and scale of this global deluge. Legal tools like the LoM must be considered to even the scale between black hat and the company use of white hat hackers. Of course it would be nice if government and it’s law enforcement apparatus could be large enough enough to apply the rule of law to all corners of the cyber universe. But like with today’s modern day scourge of piracy, government cannot be everywhere and at all times.

So here is where I like to take the next step forward. Companies need the legal authority to effectively combat black hat hackers. That legal authority can and should come in the form of a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Or maybe a government can come up with a different title for this license. But either way, by giving companies the legal authority to do what they need to do to combat the problem, they in essence help to put ‘the armed guards on boats’. (another analogy with today’s piracy problem)

Here is some more food for thought. If the targets of hackers are companies, then is the government the best tool to use to protect all of these companies out there? Who would have more interest and incentive to protect a company’s infrastructure–a government or the the company itself? Of course a company would love for someone to do it for free, but the problem here is that there is too much at stake to put the security of a company simply in the hands of a burdensome, bureaucratic and highly inefficient government organizations. Government does not have the resources to watch over every company, and it does not have the personal motivation to defend a company’s assets to the fullest degree.

Yet again, the piracy analogy works for this example. All of the navies in the world have not stopped piracy, and if anything, the problem has grown. Likewise, the US government was not able to protect Sony, Google or Lockheed Martin from vicious hacking attacks, even though the government has cyber warfare units and tons of agencies tasked with monitoring cyber related activities.

So what is the solution? I say government should listen to what the companies have to say about how best to help them. The government would also have to re-evaluate what ‘help’ really means, in the context of this problem. If a company says it is legally constrained when trying to defend against black hat hackers, then what is the logical solution? Do you put the government’s police forces in charge of a company’s security anti-hacking units, or do we license a company to combat this problem? To me, issuing a license to companies so they can actually compete with these black hat hackers, is the equivalent of putting ‘armed guards on boats’ to defend against Somali Pirates. It makes sense, and it answers the problem of scale.

It also sounds like this is the natural progression anyways? The new DIB Cyber Pilot program sounds like another step towards empowering companies. With companies like Lockheed Martin, it behooves the government to help them because this company is very much a part of our national security. So will licensing companies be the next ‘natural progression’ as an answer to this world wide scourge? I know myself, and the Morgan Doctrine blog will be following this stuff, and we will see….-Matt

Tags: cyber privateering, Google, Letter Of Marque, Lockheed Martin, morgan doctrine, Sony

Letter Of Marque: Understanding Offense Industry– Law Enforcement And Asset Forfeiture

Jun 16

Posted by Matt in Law Enforcement, Letter Of Marque | 27812 Comments2011-06-16+21%3A08%3A55Matt

This is cool. I found this older article about how asset forfeiture is benefiting the law enforcement offices of the southern states of the US. These are the states that border Mexico and have the highest probability of drug money smuggling. But I also look at this practice from an Offense Industry point of view, and also from a privateering/Letter of Marque and Reprisal point of view.

Actually, if you look at what these officers are really involved with, this is just another form of legalized piracy. lol They are arresting a criminal, and taking a prize in the form of confiscated drug money or hard assets like planes and automobiles.

And get this, the states are giving these law enforcement agencies the license or legal authority to do so. Most importantly, the federal government is supporting the act nationally. In the article below this, I posted an excerpt from the US Marshal’s page about their Asset Forfeiture Program. It is a program where local police departments can help the Department of Justice and their various ‘crack downs’ on criminals, and if there are any asset seizures during those operations, that those departments get a cut of the loot or prize.

Matter of fact, the DoJ acts like an admiralty court here, and determines the amount that the departments get and if the seizure was ‘legal’. And then when that amount is settled upon, they use an electronic funds transfer program called ‘e-share’ to give the various departments their cut. Pretty slick, and this is an excellent model on how modern day privateering could work. E-share is a technological solution to getting the ‘sailors (police) their cut of the loot’, as opposed to them selling their ‘prize tickets’ on the dock.

Now I also wanted to point out that the very thing that gives concern to NPR with their study of law enforcement asset forfeiture. Here is a quote:

What are some of the rules of asset forfeiture? Federal and state laws, in general, say that a law enforcement agency that seizes assets may not “supplant” its own budget with confiscated funds, nor should “the prospect of receiving forfeited funds … influence relative priorities of law enforcement agencies.”
NPR has found examples, mainly in the South, in which both of these things have happened.

Or basically, the fear is that law enforcement agencies will care more about going after drug money, and less about the ‘other’ duties of law enforcement. Perhaps this is why asset seizure should be a private industry game, just so police departments are not entirely focused on asset forfeiture?

The other fear with police asset forfeiture is budgetary funding for those departments. If a police department gets less tax payer funding because they are extremely successful at asset forfeiture, then now that department becomes dependent on asset forfeiture as a funding mechanism. State and city budget offices will become less inclined to fund a wealthy department, and a police department’s success in asset forfeiture could easily be their downfall. It could potentially turn a police department into more of a privateer company, and the other less profitable crime fighting activities become a secondary priority next to asset seizure.

So that is why I think asset seizure or privateering should be left in the hands of licensed companies who do not have the extra duties of basic law enforcement. And if local police departments were somehow brought into the venture of privateering as either monitors or issuing licenses, or even allowed to moonlight in privateer companies, then that is how a local department could benefit. Or some kind of tax must be paid for every asset taken in order to make this a mutually beneficial industry. You want the local cops cheering on privateer companies, not bashing them–so give them a cut, or allow them to work in those companies.

So with modern day privateering for taking drug cartel assets, the local cop shop should benefit, the state should benefit, and the federal government should benefit–all by getting a percentage of the prize. But the privateer company should benefit the most, just because they are the ones that put in the hard work for finding and seizing those assets. I think the city/state/feds should split ten percent and enjoy the reduction in crime, and the companies should get ninety percent of whatever amount. Ninety percent fits in with the percentages of yesteryear. Anything less, and the risk of taking on these criminal elements becomes too great.

The rule with offense industry is the reward must outweigh the risks for it to work and flourish. With law enforcement, they are totally enjoying the rewards of their work, and that is great. But the risk of them being too focused on this kind of activity, and not enough on the other aspects of law enforcement in their communities is equally as great. Likewise, a department is not able in some cases to totally focus all of their efforts on asset seizure, because they do have other duties. Perhaps private industry is the better choice for this kind of activity? The overall point is this kind of offense industry is an excellent study for modern day privateering, and it is all food for thought. -Matt

Courtesy of the Kingsville Police Department Investigator Mike Tamez of the Kingsville Police Department shows off the $1 million he discovered in a hidden compartment of a Land Rover in January 2008.

Seized Drug Assets Pad Police Budgets
by John Burnett
June 16, 2008
Every year, about $12 billion in drug profits returns to Mexico from the world’s largest narcotics market — the United States. As a tactic in the war on drugs, law enforcement pursues that drug money and is then allowed to keep a portion as an incentive to fight crime.
As a result, the amount of drug dollars flowing into local police budgets is staggering. Justice Department figures show that in the past four years alone, the amount of assets seized by local law enforcement agencies across the nation enrolled in the federal program—the vast majority of it cash—has tripled, from $567 million to $1.6 billion. And that doesn’t include tens of millions more the agencies got from state asset forfeiture programs.
In Texas, with its smuggling corridors to Mexico, public safety agencies seized more than $125 million last year.
While drug-related asset forfeitures have expanded police budgets, critics say the flow of money distorts law enforcement — that some cops have become more interested in seizing money than drugs, more interested in working southbound than northbound lanes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: asset seizure, Law Enforcement, loot, Offense Industry, privateering, prize

Military News: Cyber Combat–Act Of War

May 31

Posted by Matt in Letter Of Marque, Military News, Technology | 26806 Comments2011-05-31+22%3A21%3A11Matt

To supplement my cyber lance post, this news, along with the attacks on L3 and Lockheed Martin or the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, all point to how important and dangerous this stuff really is. I will let the article speak for itself.

Also check out the Morgan Doctrine’s opinion about this story. The MD is a blog that promotes the concept of cyber privateers and tracks the world of cyber warfare and crime. -Matt

Cyber Combat: Act of War
MAY 31, 2011
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES
WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.
WSJ’s Siobhan Gorman has the exclusive story of the Pentagon classifying cyber attacks by foreign nations acts of war. – News Hub
The Pentagon’s first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country’s military.
In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” said a military official.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: act of war, article 1 section 8, cyber privateers, cyber warfare, Letter Of Marque, Military News, morgan doctrine