Does 'stand your cyberground' stand a chance?

08.05.2012
Despite a public relations problem with the concept as it applies to people, a few voices in Internet security circles believe "stand your cybergound" laws have merit when it comes to fighting against cyberattacks.

So-called "stand your ground" laws -- which allow the use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat -- have been in the spotlight since George Zimmerman, accused of murder in the shooting of Florida teen Trayvon Martin earlier this year, invoked it as a legal defense. And like with that law, some experts say "Stand Your Cybergound" laws create more problems than they solve with cybersecurity.

Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics and Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University, made the recently in , writing that because the U.S. government is too constrained by international law to lead cyberdefense against foreign attacks, and with private companies having "been the main victims of harmful cyberactivities by foreign actors to date," we should weigh up allowing "commercial companies to fight cyberfire with cyberfire."

Lin includes a disclaimer that he is "not proposing that we adopt this solution, but only develop it for full consideration."

Self-defense, he notes, is a basic right: The Second Amendment authorizes citizens to bear arms -- he says it helped deter outlaws during the "Wild West" era; commercial ships under attack from pirates are allowed to shoot and kill them; bank security guards are allowed to shoot robbers.

And he says international laws governing armed conflict, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions and rules established by the International Committee of the Red Cross, make it difficult for government to respond to foreign cyberattacks.