Feral Jundi

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Legal News: Congress Legalizes Cyber War

In language discussing the bill, conferees say that because there is no historical precedent for what constitutes traditional military activities in cyberspace, “it is necessary to affirm that such operations may be conducted pursuant to the same policy, principles and legal regimes that pertain to kinetic capabilities.”

This is big news, and historical. The rules and laws of kinetic war now apply to Cyber War, and this brings up all sorts of ideas. For example, will we see more Cyber Lance type activities?  Maybe a US special forces team combined with civilian hackers to locate and kill/capture enemy hackers or whomever?  Who knows, and who knows how these new rules will apply?

Perhaps we will see the same issues that have popped up for today’s modern wars. Especially with the hybrid of private and public forces in conflict. I say this, because the US does not have the monopoly on ‘hacking force’. If they want the best, they can try to develop that capability internally, but inevitably they will have to reach out to private companies or individuals that are experts in these fields and pay them to do it.

Here is one quote below that really perked me up. Check it out:

Since the military cannot afford to pay enough to recruit qualified software and Internet engineers for this sort of work, it has turned to commercial firms. There are already some out there, companies that are technically network security operations, but will also carry out offensive missions (often of questionable legality, but that has always been an aspect of the corporate security business.)
Some of these firms have quietly withdrawn from the Internet security business, gone dark, and apparently turned their efforts to the more lucrative task of creating Cyber War weapons for the Pentagon. It may have been one of these firms that created, or helped create, the Stuxnet worm.

I read this and thought, why not just fire up the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and give these firms the legal authority and protections necessary to take part in offensive operations?  The LoM is sitting right there in the War Powers clause in the US Constitution, and it just seems to me that we are missing the boat when it comes to doing this stuff. We could be legally authorizing the companies to steal funds and intellectual property from all sorts of enemies out there, and label these companies cyber privateers. (which if the military helped at all, would those commanders or the US be entitled to a cut? lol)

My other thought about all of this is when will we see a Cyber Weapon used in such a way as to actually kill like a real weapon?  And with this public/private partnership we will have, we could potentially see IT Security companies build these weapons, and possibly even launch it. Just imagine if Stuxnet actually caused deaths in some weapons plant or nuclear facility? That would definitely put the ‘War’ in Cyber War. Very interesting….-Matt 

 

America Legalizes Cyber War
December 18, 2011
The U.S. Congress approved a new law on December 14th that allows the Department of Defense to conduct offensive Cyber War operations in response to Cyber War attacks on the United States. That is, the U.S. military is now authorized to make war via the Internet. The new law stipulates that all the rules that apply to conventional war, also apply to Cyber War. This includes the international law of armed conflict (meant to prevent war crimes and horrid behavior in general) and the U.S. War Powers Resolution (which requires a U.S. president to get permission from Congress within 90 days of entering into a war).
The U.S. Department of Defense has long advocated going on the offensive against criminal gangs and foreign governments that seek (and often succeed) to penetrate U.S. government and military Internet security, and steal information, or sabotage operations. Over the past year, and without much fanfare, the Department of Defense has been making preparations to do just that.

(more…)

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Industry Talk: Security Firms Threaten To Leave Afghanistan If Karzai Violates Tax Exemption

Now wouldn’t that be funny?  Every security company just packs up and leaves?….wow. But honestly, it is not funny because what Karzai is doing is having a severe impact on the quality and stability of security services in Afghanistan. If the coalition values those services, it would behoove them to apply the necessary pressure on greedy Karzai to end this ridiculous taxation plan.

The other concern here is that if Afghanistan plays this game of imposing taxes on companies providing services to diplomats and such, what about security companies operating elsewhere in the world providing such services?  Tax exemption for companies providing services to the US government has been a staple of foreign relations throughout the world. To standby and allow Afghanistan to tax these companies like this, sets a horrible precedence that will surely impact operations elsewhere in the world. If you lose this fight, the costs of doing business will skyrocket and contracts will have to be re-adjusted to deal with this new reality.

This is a fight worth fighting, and Karzai needs to be put in his place. Perhaps taxing his consulates overseas, or freezing some Karzai family assets in overseas accounts would be one way to send a message that this is uncool? If greed is what fuels him, then greed is his weakness. –Matt

Security Firms Threaten to Leave Afghanistan
APRIL 6, 2011
By MARIA ABI-HABIB
KABUL—Some private security companies guarding diplomatic and aid missions and critical infrastructure facilities in Afghanistan are threatening to withdraw from the country if President Hamid Karzai’s government follows through on its plans to impose on them hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes.
Many of the more than 30 security companies targeted by the Afghan tax authorities say they are supposed to be tax-exempt because they support diplomatic missions, such as the large U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
Executives at these companies say Western diplomats are encouraging them to hold off on paying the taxes so as not to set a precedent for U.S. and European diplomatic missions around the world. (more…)

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Industry Talk: War, Fickle Clients, A Corrupt Government… And PSCs In Afghanistan Press Forward

     It looks like this government is doing all they can to make life very difficult for these companies to operate. It is so bad, it looks like the very air that companies breath will be regulated and taxed, and if not, the companies will be fined for even thinking about breathing. Ridiculous.

     The other thing here that is important to note is that even under all of this pressure by such a corrupt government, or the constant media and congressional pressure, or fickle clients, or the toils of an active war zone, that these durable companies are still operating and overcoming adversity. Imagine an Apple or Toyota operating in such an environment?

     Private security companies like these not only have to protect a client’s life and reputation, but must also work hard to protect their own operations and people.  Talk about pressure and adverse operating conditions?  Either way, this industry will overcome all and any obstacles, just like it always has, and continue to provide vital security services in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Just as long as governments like Karzai’s do such a terrible job of governing or providing adequate security for locals and foreigners, the services of my industry will still be in high demand. –Matt

Security firms face possible fines in Afghanistan

Afghan government accuses 16 security firms of violations

Security firms face possible fines in Afghanistan

Feb 10, 2011

Private security firms operating in Afghanistan will in future face fines for breaking their operating rules, President Hamid Karzai’s office said Thursday, the latest tightening of measures against them.

In August, Karzai ordered that all private security firms — many of which are foreign-owned and provide guards for embassies, NGOs and businesses in violence-hit Afghanistan — be banned.

But he later rowed back on this under pressure from his Western allies, who said the firms were necessary to provide adequate security in the country, whose own police and military are still being built up.

“The interior minister presented a plan regarding fining private security companies that unlawfully recruit foreign staff, unlawfully import armoured vehicles from outside the country, or distribute illegal weapons,” a statement from Karzai’s office said, after a meeting of the National Security Council.

(more…)

Monday, December 6, 2010

Industry Talk: Karzai Abandons Plan To Scrap Private Security Firms

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 11:06 AM

     Thanks to James over at DVM for sending me this one.  Finally, this stupid plan is dead and everyone can go back to work. lol. –Matt

Karzai abandons plan to scrap private security firms

6 December 2010

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has abandoned plans to scrap private security firms in the country by mid-December, the interior ministry says.

Fifty-four private security firms have been dissolved in recent weeks in a drive to clamp down on the industry.

But interior ministry officials said most of the 52 mainly Afghan firms remaining would retain their licences.

Private security firms provide guards at everything from diplomatic missions, aid agencies and supply convoys.

Correspondents say that some security firms have been mired in controversy ever since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

In October a US Senate report found evidence that many Afghan security personnel paid with US taxpayers’ money to guard American bases were hand in glove with the Taliban insurgents intent on killing coalition troops.

In August, President Karzai gave private security companies four months to end operations in Afghanistan following concerns that some contractors empowered warlords and power brokers operating outside government control.

But recently aides to the president have advised him that the move to disband the network completely was ill-advised, as the security forces could not fill the gap.

(more…)

Powered by WordPress