Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scenario 02: Cyber espionage against government departments"

From International cyber law: interactive toolkit
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
(a) under the keyword/concept of privacy: national/regional data protection law
 
(a) under the keyword/concept of privacy: national/regional data protection law
 
(b) under "sovereignty" (?) domestic/regional criminal law, legal assistance treaties
 
(b) under "sovereignty" (?) domestic/regional criminal law, legal assistance treaties
 +
 +
KEYWORDS
 +
hyperlink each of the keywords, linking them to concepts
 +
 +
Sovereignty
 +
Check whether publication of confidential information is violation of sovereignty.
 +
 +
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
 +
does the legal analysis cover the full range of potential violations of intl. law? if not, indicate that this is not a comprehensive list.

Latest revision as of 13:57, 8 February 2019

This is a sample comment. Kubomacak (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions in addition to text edits

The topic is an important one and the scenario is well-written. It does need to be fleshed-out somewhat in order to deepen the legal issues addressed. The legal issue of privacy rights (as part of international human rights law) was added. Corrections are in the text, comments and questions below.

(1) Keyword "privacy" added because of the personnel emails being hacked and personal details published: privacy rights are implicated.

(2)"an email server and several other servers belonging to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) have been infiltrated" - where are the servers located? If we're testing diplomatic law, important to note that the servers are both on state territory and in diplomatic / consular missions abroad.

(3) "Nobody claims responsibility for the attack immediately after the MFA's discovery of the incident and publication of the fact that it has occurred." - is the addition ok? Otherwise - why would anyone claim responsibility, if there's been no public acknowledgement?

(3)After this sentence, additional information is important to give the reader some sense of how critical the leaked information is, otherwise, perhaps not a violation of sovereignty or prohibited intervention: "However, a few days later, emails, procurement documents, and internal memos purportedly belonging to the MFA of State A are published on the Internet (incident 4)."

--The sentence that follows below seems to indicate that there's no coercion involved; it'd be helpful to have that specified at the first point (viz., "However, incidents 1–3 do not contain the element of coercion, because they are conducted merely with the aim to gather information, which does not compel State A to adapt the conduct of its external affairs.")

TRANSCLUDED TEXTS ON SOVEREIGNTY, INTERVENTION, AND CYBER ESPIONAGE See comments for 01- Election interference


Reviewer331 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Add a section pointing out other legal considerations/regimes that a national legad would likely need to consider: (a) under the keyword/concept of privacy: national/regional data protection law (b) under "sovereignty" (?) domestic/regional criminal law, legal assistance treaties

KEYWORDS hyperlink each of the keywords, linking them to concepts

Sovereignty Check whether publication of confidential information is violation of sovereignty.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS does the legal analysis cover the full range of potential violations of intl. law? if not, indicate that this is not a comprehensive list.