Talk:Scenario 02: Cyber espionage against government departments: Difference between revisions
Reviewer331 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Reviewer331 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
(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) "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)." |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 07:26, 5 November 2018
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. Believe it needs to be fleshed-out somewhat.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)."
(4)