E-Business
In Absence of Rules, Cyber Terrorists Attack Nations
The systematic crash of the computer systems of banks and TV broadcasters in South Korea — reportedly the result of an attack that was widely speculated to have been launched by North Korea — raises questions about what international laws, if any, govern the new and unexplored area of cyberwarfare.
“The answer is there’s nothing and there’s everything,” said Michael Schmitt, professor and chairman of the international law department at the U.S. Naval War College.
Schmitt, who was asked by the NATO Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence to look into these issues, chaired a three-year project that brought together 20 academics and practitioners from around the world.
CBC, the leading Canadian media reported that the culmination of their efforts was the recently published Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare.
“If you’re looking for cyber specific law, a law that says ‘a cyberattack that causes these consequences in an armed attack to which you can respond,’ you will find nothing,” he said. “But it was our unanimous consensus among the group of experts that the existing international law applies to cyberspace and to cyberweapons.”
This means that, as international law permits a country to defend itself and retaliate if attacked by conventional weapons, a country that is the victim of a cyberattack that causes damage or death, may also retaliate, either through cyberwarfare or conventional weapons.
“Hack into a control system of a dam and release waters downstream. Those waters are going to cause significant damage, physical damage, people will drown. In my mind that’s clearly an armed attack,” Schmitt said.
“And if someone did that to Canada, you could resort to force, not only cyber but armed force to defend yourself.”
Other examples of cyberwarfare that are grounds for retaliation by force could include hacking into a water treatment plant and causing chemicals to flow into the water, thereby poisoning the population, hacking into air traffic control systems and causing planes to crash, or hacking into a hospital and changing people’s blood type, causing harm to patients
But the attack on South Korea, if in fact North Korea was responsible, is different, Schmitt said.
The attack is certainly a violation of South Korea’s sovereignty and a violation of international law, he said, but not grounds for the use of force in response.
“We would call that a below the threshold operation that certainly would permit a response from South Korea but the response could not include armed force,” Schmitt said.
The retaliatory options for South Korea would include countermeasures. These are actions that can be taken by the aggrieved state that would normally be unlawful under international law but are considered acceptable because the aggressor state violated international law first.
“If state A attacks state B’s banking system, state B may then respond proportionally against state A’s banking system to compel state A to knock it off,” Schmitt said.
His group also looked at issues surrounding cyberattacks on civilians. Under international law and the principle of distinction, when on the battlefield, operations may only be directed against military objects and combatants and not civilians.
“We asked the question ‘when is a cyber operation a forbidden attack?’ There are all sorts of things you can do in cyberspace against civilians during an armed conflict that doesn’t physically harm them and doesn’t injure them,” he said. For example, erasing personal data or messing with their banking records.
“What we said is that this is a very hard question. Not unanimous, but the majority said that an attack, in the law of war, means you physically harm someone, you break something, you cause physical damage or you interfere in the functionality of an object such that it needs to be actually repaired.”
Ashley Deeks, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and an expert in international law, said many of the scenarios are case by case.
“Even in the kinetic world, there is no real definition of what an armed attack is,” she said, adding that states look to past practices.
For example, the Stuxnet computer virus, reportedly launched by the U.S. that attacked and destroyed hundreds of centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Iran, raised these issues.
“I guess I would just characterize it as the closest thing we’ve seen to a cyber action that produces real world effects, not dissimilar from what a kinetic attack would do. But I’m not prepared to say it was an armed attack.”
That’s why a lot of people are starting to devote a lot of attention to cyberwarfare and trying to sort out where the lines are, Deeks said.
“There are a lot of question marks. If you took out a banking system, and it caused massive instability in the country … that could be construed as an armed attack by some states. But it’s really an open question,” she said.
“There would be other states that say, ‘No, unless people die, things blow up, not an armed attack. We want to set a high threshold.’ Others say, ‘That ‘s crazy. You want to start deterring these things. You want to call lower level things armed attacks.”
However, Schmitt said he believes all these thresholds will evolve over the next decade.
“I anticipate that we’ll see a lot of thresholds coming down that will allow states to respond more vibrantly to cyber attacks that might not be possible under the law as we found it.”
Mallam Kashifu Abdullahi, director-general, National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), has reaffirmed the importance of collaboration in advancing Nigeria’s digital transformation agenda.
L-R: Mallam Kashifu Abdullahi, director-general, National Information Technology Development Agency, with Brig. Gen., Abdulrahman Idris, team lead of the Senior Executive Course 46 2024, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Kuru, Jos during a strategic tour visit to the agency headquarters in Abuja.
Abdullahi disclosed this during a strategic engagement with participants of the 2024 Senior Executive Course 46 from the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), a delegation led by Brigadier General Abdulrahman Idris.
Abdullahi emphasised that no organisation can achieve its goals in isolation, stressing the need for collaborative efforts to harness ideas, experiences and insights for national development. He highlighted the potential of collaboration between NITDA and NIPSS to leverage technology and digital innovation for driving economic growth, creating job opportunities and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI).
“At NITDA, we have re-imagined our social contract with Nigerians, focusing on improving service delivery and fostering the swift growth of the ICT sector,” said Abdullahi. He emphasised the agency’s commitment to serving Nigerians and outlined the strategic direction outlined in NITDA’s Strategic Roadmap and Action Plan (SRAP 2024-2027) 2.0. The SRAP is structured around eight pillars aimed at fostering digital literacy, building a robust technology research ecosystem, strengthening policy implementation, promoting inclusive access to digital infrastructure, enhancing cybersecurity, nurturing innovation and entrepreneurship, forging partnerships and cultivating a vibrant organisational culture.
The brigadier-general provided insights into NIPSS’s role as Nigeria’s foremost policy think-tank, tasked with developing top-class technocrats to drive national development initiatives. He highlighted NIPSS’s contributions to policy formulation and implementation over the years, emphasising the institution’s mandate to address issues of national interest, particularly in the digital economy sector.
The collaboration between NITDA and NIPSS underscores the importance of synergistic efforts in harnessing technology and innovation for national development. By leveraging each other’s expertise and resources, both organisations aim to drive economic growth, foster job creation, and position Nigeria as a leading player in the global digital economy.
Through strategic partnerships and collaborative initiatives, NITDA and NIPSS are poised to chart a path towards sustainable development, leveraging digital innovation as a catalyst for socioeconomic transformation and inclusive growth.
Ivorypay, a blockchain-based payment and remittance firm, has teamed with Tether, the stablecoin pioneer, to improve crypto-based transactions across Africa.
Tether is the business that developed the stablecoin, USDT, and with this agreement, it will mint and issue USDT straight to IvoryPay.
According to the partners, this agreement would provide more dependable and economical digital transaction choices to businesses and consumers across Africa.
Ivorypay will leverage Tether’s widespread acceptance to provide a buffer against the typically unpredictable nature of crypto-currencies, increasing user confidence in using digital currencies for daily transactions as well as cross-border transfers.
“Partnering with Tether is a strategic move that aligns perfectly with our vision of simplifying and securing crypto transactions across Africa,” said Oluwatobi Ajayi, CEO, IvoryPay.
He added: “It gives us easy access to the liquidity we need to cater to more businesses and individuals across the continent and to do that cheaper and faster than anybody else, which we believe will significantly enhance user trust and increase adoption rates across our platforms.”
“This strategic partnership between Ivorypay and Tether represents a transformative step for digital transactions across Africa,” said Aly Madhavji, managing partner of Blockchain Founders Fund.
“By incorporating USDT into their payment systems, IvoryPay aims to increase financial inclusion and streamline cross-border remittances, establishing a new standard for stability and efficiency in the region’s financial services We are thrilled to assist Ivorypay as they endeavour to create new opportunities for businesses and consumers across Africa.”
The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) has revoked the certificates of incorporation of NIPOST Properties and Development Company and NIPOST Transport and Logistics Services Limited.
This revocation followed the discovery of an illegal transfer of N10 billion in restructuring funds released by the Federal Ministry of Finance to the agency’s subsidiaries.
The CAC, in a statement on Monday, said, “The General Public is hereby informed that the Commission, sequel to its powers contained in Section 41 (7) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act No. 3 of 2020, revoked the Certificates of incorporation of the below-mentioned companies because the same was improperly procured. These companies are:
“1. NIPOST Transport and Logistics Services Company Ltd RC 1673881 and 2. NIPOST Properties & Development Company Ltd RC 1673971.
“By virtue of these revocations, the Companies are deemed to be dissolved and their Assets and Liabilities transferred to the Nigeria Postal Services established under the Nigerian Postal Services Act Cap N127 LFN 2004.”
It was gathered that CAC records confirm that as of November 8, 2023, some top officials of BPE control significant shares in the subsidiaries.
Responding to these discoveries, the Senate passed a resolution on December 30, 2023, for a probe into the matter.
The resolution declared the NIPOST subsidiaries in question “irregular and illegal” and recommended their immediate winding-up and deregistration.
The Senate resolution goes beyond immediate action; it demanded a thorough investigation into the N10 billion voted by the Ministry of Finance for NIPOST’s restructuring and recapitalisation.
Should evidence of “injudicious utilisation” surface, the Senate said the committee responsible must recover the full amount.
In its resolution of December 30, 2023, the Red Chamber said it uncovered an alleged illegal transfer of Federal Government shares in two NIPOST subsidiaries to private individuals.
The discovered infractions sparked outrage, prompting the lawmakers to call for immediate action.
Some individuals in key positions within the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and NIPOST were listed as shareholders of the two NIPOST subsidiaries.
Former SEC Leadership Failed to Regulate, Develop Capital Market- ASCSN
Students Loans’ Beneficiaries to Start Repayment 2 Years after Graduation- NELFUND:
Kenya to Extradite Anjarwalla, Binance Executive Linked to Tax Evasion to Nigeria
GPA Raises Alarm, Says Malaria Vaccine Can Cause Meningitis
Abdullahi, NITDA Boss Harps on Partnership to Drive Advance Digital Transformation Agenda
See Full List of Fake Loan Apps Blacklisted By CBN
FIRS Files Tax Evasion Charges against Binance
AXA Mansard Empowers Female SMEs with Financial, Digital Skills
IFC Invests in New 4DX Ventures Fund to Support Tech Startups in Africa
NGX RegCo, FRCN Unveil Roadmap for SFRS Adoption
Telecom1 day agoABoICT Lecture 2024 to Focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) In A Digital Economy
Telecom1 day agoNCAIR Relaunch: Pantami, Tijani Fight for Credit
Telecom1 day agoTelcos Record N27Bn Loss from Damaged Fibre Cables
News1 day agoWema Bank Launches 5th Edition of Youth-Focused Hackathon, “Hackaholics”
News1 day agoFG to Secure Fresh $2.25Bn World Bank Loan
E-Financial1 day agoDimon, JP Morgan CEO Describes Bitcoin as Fraud, Ponzi Scheme
E-Business1 day agoForex Volatility will Not End Overnight- CBN Gov
E-Financial1 day agoAccess Holdings to Use Tech in Raising N365bn Capital