Keir Giles’ wrote a good paper that you really should read on the Russian view of the information warfare/operations (cyber warfare) legality. This is a fairly neglected aspect of information warfare studies and is completely ignored by cyber warfare experts in the West, who consider the Western view to be the sole view. It is because they are largely WEIRD. The West is largely in introspection around diversity, where diversity now means that everyone has the same values, shares same culture and is working towards the same goals in the similar fashion.
TL;DR: African Union’ draft Cybercrime Convention: Majority of the Convention is spent defining legal protection for entities and persons using the internet and other electronic means to do business. A whole section of the Convention is reserved to define rights of persons and protection from “strong men”. [Council of Europe’s ETS 185](http://au.int/en/sites/default/files/AU%20Convention%20EN.%20%283-9-2012%29%20clean_0.pdf) – Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention): Assumes legal environment exists where rights and obligations of persons and entities are clearly defined and protected. Provides a framework for law enforcement and legal actions for fighting crime done by electronic means.
Repeat a lie three times and someone is bound to use it and reference you as a source of truth. Especially if the author of the unsubstantiated claim is from any intelligence agency. For some reason they are beyond fact-checking by news agencies. The quote that got my attention this time? Cyber attacks can be expensive: one unidentified London-listed company incurred losses of 800 million pounds ($1.29 billion) in a cyber attack several years ago, according to the British security services.
I promise not to go through the whole “it’s not identity theft, it’s identity fraud” discussion here. The article misses that point, but that’s to be expected. What really got my goat, though is the following: McClelland tells us that […] “The survey also revealed that the majority of identity theft or misuse occurred […] through the loss of a credit or debit card (30 percent). Stolen identify information was primarily used to purchase goods or services (55 percent) […]”