The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.

That's patreon.com slash LawFair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath.

This is a constant problem actually in cyber security and the way that it's discussed

in the press.

We have the word cyber attack is used, you know, for really quite trivial things.

And of course, as lawyers know, the word attack has meanings.

Like words have meanings.

Treason is not a word that, you know, we get to define colloquially in this country.

It's sort of clearly, clearly defined in the constitution.

It's quite difficult to change its meaning.

So one of the difficulties I think with cyber security in particular though is that it's

quite difficult sometimes at the larger end of the scale to see where the lines are between

when you're doing an attack that is very big and we clearly object to and where that actually

tips over into actually having meaningful effects in, say, LawFair on conflict service.

I'm Matthew Khan and you're listening to the LawFair podcast April 3, 2018.

On Tuesday at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, the Federalist Society

invited LawFair's Bobby Chesney, Matt Tate and Steve Vladik to talk about legality and

warfare in cyberspace.

They discussed the technical and legal underpinnings of Russian interference in the 2016 election,

...