On March 12th, 2012, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. wrote for Aol Defense on Stuxnet.  The article presented the views of USAF Col. Gary Brown, CyberCommand's top lawyer.  Col. Brown was not speaking in an official capacity, but his thoughts on Stuxnet were still very illuminating.

First, Col. Brown said that Stuxnet represented a responsible cyber-attack.  In this sense, Stuxnet was carefully designed to limit collateral damage and "was set to expire" by erasing itself.  According to the Col., Stuxnet's careful design and adherence to the international law of armed conflict suggests that lawyers were somehow involved. 

The Aol Defense article goes on to cite Col. Brown's thoughts on whether Stuxnet constituted a cyber-attack under international law.  Specifically, the Col. found that the destruction of "a thousand pieces of pretty sophisticated equipment . . . something that most people who study international law would say rises to a 'use of force.'"  However, the Col. thought that Stuxnet might nonetheless be justified under principles of self-defense. 

Second, Col. Brown argued that China's stance of cyberspace is dangerous.  According to the article, China finds that the international law of armed conflict doesn't apply in cyberspace.  That stance, in contrast with the tightly drawn Stuxnet, "opens the door for indiscriminate online actions" so that the Chinese might avoid the obligation to limit collateral damage. 

There's more to the Aol Defense source article, I recommend checking it out here.

On March 12th, 2012, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. wrote for Aol Defense on Stuxnet.  The article presented the views of USAF Col. Gary Brown, CyberCommand's top lawyer.  Col. Brown was not speaking in an official capacity, but his thoughts on Stuxnet were still very illuminating.

First, Col. Brown said that Stuxnet represented a responsible cyber-attack.  In this sense, Stuxnet was carefully designed to limit collateral damage and "was set to expire" by erasing itself.  According to the Col., Stuxnet's careful design and adherence to the international law of armed conflict suggests that lawyers were somehow involved. 

The Aol Defense article goes on to cite Col. Brown's thoughts on whether Stuxnet constituted a cyber-attack under international law.  Specifically, the Col. found that the destruction of "a thousand pieces of pretty sophisticated equipment . . . something that most people who study international law would say rises to a 'use of force.'"  However, the Col. thought that Stuxnet might nonetheless be justified under principles of self-defense. 

Second, Col. Brown argued that China's stance of cyberspace is dangerous.  According to the article, China finds that the international law of armed conflict doesn't apply in cyberspace.  That stance, in contrast with the tightly drawn Stuxnet, "opens the door for indiscriminate online actions" so that the Chinese might avoid the obligation to limit collateral damage. 

There's more to the Aol Defense source article, I recommend checking it out here.

On March 12th, 2012, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. wrote for Aol Defense on Stuxnet.  The article presented the views of USAF Col. Gary Brown, CyberCommand's top lawyer.  Col. Brown was not speaking in an official capacity, but his thoughts on Stuxnet were still very illuminating.

First, Col. Brown said that Stuxnet represented a responsible cyber-attack.  In this sense, Stuxnet was carefully designed to limit collateral damage and "was set to expire" by erasing itself.  According to the Col., Stuxnet's careful design and adherence to the international law of armed conflict suggests that lawyers were somehow involved. 

The Aol Defense article goes on to cite Col. Brown's thoughts on whether Stuxnet constituted a cyber-attack under international law.  Specifically, the Col. found that the destruction of "a thousand pieces of pretty sophisticated equipment . . . something that most people who study international law would say rises to a 'use of force.'"  However, the Col. thought that Stuxnet might nonetheless be justified under principles of self-defense. 

Second, Col. Brown argued that China's stance of cyberspace is dangerous.  According to the article, China finds that the international law of armed conflict doesn't apply in cyberspace.  That stance, in contrast with the tightly drawn Stuxnet, "opens the door for indiscriminate online actions" so that the Chinese might avoid the obligation to limit collateral damage. 

There's more to the Aol Defense source article, I recommend checking it out here.