> Reportedly the Russian government has issued letters of marque to hacking and cybercrime groups.
Those would only be metaphorical (and even then not a particular apt metaphor) letters of marque and reprisal; a literal letter of marque and reprisal is to a private vessel to attack and seize property from enemy vessels, converting acts which would otherwise be piracy under international law into lawful armed combat.
Cyberhacking groups aren’t vessels, and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
> I can imagine the same has happened in the US.
Not under US law (even if it still wouldn’t make any sense under international law for the reasons described above), since Constitutionally that would require an active of Congress authorizing such letters, which has not occurred. You can imagine what you want, but its simply not a reality.
> Not under US law (even if it still wouldn’t make any sense under international law for the reasons described above), since Constitutionally that would require an active of Congress authorizing such letters, which has not occurred. You can imagine what you want, but its simply not a reality.
As we all know, the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal.
> As we all know, the US defense apparatus, particularly its clandestine branch, has never done anything illegal.
A letter of marque is a specific legal instrument.
If the US (or Russian) government is recruiting and employing private sector hacking groups as cyberwarfare agents (as both probably are), whehter or not they are doing so legally under domestic and/or international law, they aren’t issuing letters of marque.
If they're issuing "non-prosecution agreements" or "immunity agreements" (which is likely what they're actually doing) isn't that fundamentally the same thing? The difference is essentially just semantics.
It's like how the US hasn't officially been to war since World War II.
> If they’re issuing “non-prosecution agreements” or “immunity agreements” (which is likely what they’re actually doing) isn’t that fundamentally the same thing?
No.
A letter of marque makes you not pirates but lawful combatants under international law, where there has long been a norm that pirates (but not lawful combatants) are the common enemy of all humanity (hostis humani generis) and subject to summary punishment by any nation, for piracy against the shipping of any nation, without limit. Whereas privateers are, to other nations, of the same legal status as military forces of the sponsoring power.
A nonprosecution agreement gives you immunity from punishment under the domestic law of the country issuing it.
Not the same thing at all.
> It’s like how the US hasn’t officially been to war since World War II.
So, a popular myth? US Courts have long rejected the notion that any particular magic words are necessary for Congress to exercise its power to declare war, and that a Congressional authorization of military force that does not use terms like “declaration of war” (the earliest of which was issued in 1798, this is not a new practice) nevertheless is an exercise of the power to declare war. There are some statutes to which magic words are relevant, but that’s a choice of Congress to structure other statutes that way, not something inherent it what makes a state of war under US law.
>and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
But committing copyright violations is piracy, according to many legal experts apparently. How can there be much difference between cyberhacking groups and naval vessels, when there's really no difference at all between copying a floppy and attacking a merchant vessel on the high seas?
A better example might be North Korean hackers who are explicitly legal under their government and quite proficient at revenue generation on the cyber seas.
> Cyberhacking groups aren’t vessels, and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
Well obviously the cyberspace and information superhighway metaphor needs to morph into the cybersea, and information ocean gyres, and...you get the idea.
Those would only be metaphorical (and even then not a particular apt metaphor) letters of marque and reprisal; a literal letter of marque and reprisal is to a private vessel to attack and seize property from enemy vessels, converting acts which would otherwise be piracy under international law into lawful armed combat.
Cyberhacking groups aren’t vessels, and what they are doing isn’t something that would be piracy under international law without being under the umbrella of government war efforts.
> I can imagine the same has happened in the US.
Not under US law (even if it still wouldn’t make any sense under international law for the reasons described above), since Constitutionally that would require an active of Congress authorizing such letters, which has not occurred. You can imagine what you want, but its simply not a reality.