BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sanctions are indiscriminate

The problem with sanctions is that they are almost always indiscriminate; Iran’s sanctions today are an example where the international community’s concerns are entirely with the government, over nuclear weapons, not the people yet the result has been a doubling in the price of staple foodstuffs and rapidly rising unemployment.[1] This will equally be the case here. While sanctioners will try to target the sanctions the fact is there is nothing to target with sanctions that would not affect everyday lives. Hackers are ordinary people so clearly sanctions will affect others like themselves.  The most obvious reactions involve the internet but blocking access to internet services, or penalising ISP’s, or cutting off technology transfers, harm everyone else as much as hackers. Often this harm is in the form of simply making the internet less safe for people in that country because they will have to turn to pirated versions of software. IDC and Microsoft estimate the chances of being infected with malware when using pirated software at one in three[2] so it is no surprise that the Chinese government in October 2012 launched a campaign to have government and companies purchase legal software.[3] [1] The Economist, ‘A red line and a reeling rial’, 6 October 2012, http://www.economist.com/node/21564229 [2] IDC, ‘White Paper: The Dangerous World of Counterfeit and Pirated Software’, Microsoft, March 2013, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/download/presskits/antipiracy/docs/IDC030513.pdf p.3 [3] Xinhua, ‘Chinese gov’t says no to pirated software’, People’s Daily Online, 26 April 2013, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8224829.html
Sanctions won't work

The problem with sanctions is that they almost never work so all they do is provide punishment and damage relations without ever resolving the issue. Numerous studies have shown that sanctions don’t actually change the policy of the country that is being sanctioned.[1] Robert Pape suggests that sanctions are only effective in achieving policy change about 5% of the time because states can take substantial economic punishment before they give up on anything that might be considered to be a national interest, and because states are good at shifting the burden of the sanctions onto opposition groups,[2] or else use the sanctions to rally domestic support against the outside actor.[3] Instead there need to be renewed cooperation on cyber security. Fundamentally as with things like drug smuggling, and people trafficking this is an international problem that needs to be tackled by law enforcement authorities. To that end there needs to be more cooperation not more recriminations.[4] [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.30, Issue 2, June 1986, pp.153-170, http://www.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/lindsay_86.pdf, p.1 provides a list of some of them [2] Pape, Robert A., ‘Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work’, International Security, Vol. 22, Issue 2, Autumn 1997, pp.90-137, http://www.stanford.edu/class/ips216/Readings/pape_97%20(jstor).pdf p.106 [3] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991 [4] Dingli, Shen, ‘What Kerry Should Tell China’, Foreign Policy, 11 April 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/11/what_kerry_should_tell_china
Sanctions won't harm the hackers

Sanctions are typically used as a response to the actions of another state, not the actions of a private actor. Much cyber espionage is not carried out by government entities such as the army or intelligence services. It is also not encouraged by government regulation. Rather it is carried out by private actors whether this is criminal organisations or businesses seeking to undermine their rivals and learn their secrets this is usually with a financial motive (75% of data breaches)[1], or else by individuals motivated by nationalism and patriotism to attack those they see as their nation’s enemies. It is difficult to see how sanctions against the nation as a whole affect these groups and individuals. This is certainly the case in China where many such as the ‘China Eagle Union’ admit to hacking for nationalist reasons rather than being told by the government.[2] A response such as sanctions are simply likely to breed more resentment that the other power is attempting to bully their nation. The hackers only possible response is then more hacking. For those sponsored by companies if their company is hit by sanctions it simply becomes all the more necessary to find methods of getting ahead to offset any harm by sanctions. [1] Verizon RISK Team, ‘2013 Data Breach Investigations Report’, Verizon, 23 April 2013, http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2013/ p.6 [2] Beech, Hannah, ‘China’s Red Hackers: The Tale of One Patriotic Cyberwarrior’, Time, 21 February 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/02/21/chinas-red-hackers-the-tale-of-one-patriotic-cyberwarrior/
Sanctions are a proportionate response

How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009.[1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred. [1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html.html
Sanctions can be targeted

Sanctions cannot be very finely targeted and will always hit other groups as well as the cyber attackers. The chances of knowing specific individuals who were responsible are next to zero so those individuals cannot be targeted directly. This is the whole problem with cyber-attacks; they are very difficult to pin down. In the best case then sanctions are applied against the right target and happen to hit others as well; for example hackers are not the only new who want advanced computer equipment. At worst the sanctions will completely miss their target; it would be a major embarrassment for a country to impose sanctions for a cyber-attack only for it to later be discovered that the sanctions are against an innocent party through whom the attack had been routed.
There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks

How can there ever be deterrence when the attacker believes they will not be caught, or that if they are the sanctions swill harm others not themselves? When the problem with preventing cyber-attacks is the difficulty of tracing the source[1] then deterrence becomes more and more difficult to apply. This is not like the Cold War where both superpowers could be certain that if they launched an attack there would be a devastating response. In this instance there is no certainly; the attacker believes they a, won't be caught, b, there will be no response and c, that the response won't affect them, and finally even if they are affected unless they are caught most times they will believe they will get away with it next time round. [1] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tracking-cyber-hackers
Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict

An asymmetric response to cyber-attacks in the form of sanctions may prevent escalation, but they could also simply encourage a cyber-attacker to do more knowing that sanctions cannot stop cyber-attacks. Sanctions in the past have rarely changed policy; Sanctions against Cuba did not result in overthrowing Castro, sanctions have not changed North Korea or Iran’s policy towards nuclear weapons, so there is little reason that sanctions would stop cyber-attacks.[1] Instead the country being sanctioned will find a way around and quite possibly escalate themselves much as North Korea has upped the stakes whenever new sanctions are imposed, most recently by cancelling a hotline to the South.[2] [1] Friedman, Lara, ‘Getting over the sanctions delusion’, Foreign Policy The Middle East Channel, 14 March 2010, http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/15/getting_over_the_sanctions_delusion [2] Branigan, Tania, ‘Expanded UN sanctions on North Korea prompt rage from Pyongyang’, guardian.co.uk, 8 March 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/08/north-korea-rages-un-sanctions
Sanctions require international agreement to be effective

This will clearly depend on the country engaging sanctions; sanctions from the US or EU will be much more significant than sanctions from the Philippines. Most countries however are a part of larger trade blocks; sanctions from the Philippines may not be much of a threat but sanctions from ASEAN would be much more compelling. Using such regional organisations can help nations get around the problems of agreement associated with broader UN sanctions. There have already been calls for groups such as ASEAN to work together against cyber attacks[1] and these groupings could be expanded to include other nations that agree with the policy on an ad hoc basis in much the same way as Japan is looking to join with ASEAN on such defence.[2] [1] Minnick, Wendell, ‘Malaysia Calls for ASEAN ‘Master Plan’ to Fight Cyber Attacks’, Defense News, 3 June 2012, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120603/DEFREG03/306030004/Malaysia-Calls-ASEAN-8216-Master-Plan-8217-Fight-Cyber-Attacks [2] Westlake, Adam, ‘Japan pushes to form cyber-defense network with other ASEAN countries’, Japan Daily Press, 8 October 2012, http://japandailypress.com/japan-pushes-to-form-cyber-defense-network-with-other-asean-countries-0814818
Sanctions are indiscriminate

The aim of sanctions does not have to be to directly affect the individuals doing the hacking, though in some cases this may be possible. Rather the aim is to change the attitude towards regulation and enforcement by the central government and possibly by the people as a whole. If the people of a country believe they are suffering as a result of the hackers in their midst they will be much more likely to demand their government make cracking down on such activities a priority.
Sanctions won't harm the hackers

Even taking it at face value that most of these hackers are independent actors not a part of a state policy there would still be solid reasoning behind sanctions. That most cyber-attacks have a financial motive implies that sanctions are the best response; as it is hitting them in an area that the attackers are clearly interested in. As for those who are attacking for ‘patriotic’ reasons if they are truly patriots they will stop when they see their efforts are really harming their country not helping it.
Sanctions are a proportionate response

Cyber-attacks pose a distinct problem for international diplomacy in that they are difficult to prevent and difficult to respond to. Any kind of military response as the United States has threatened would be completely disproportionate against all but the very biggest of cyber-attacks (those that actually result in deaths),[1] diplomacy on the other hand is as good as no response, if the response is simply a tongue lashing then the benefits of cyber espionage will be far higher than the cost. The only proportionate, and therefore just, response to a cyber-attack is sanctions. The sanctions can be used to impose a similar economic cost on the offending state as that caused by the cyber-attack. This would be just like the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules. They allow for the imposition of trade sanctions to a similar value to the losses being experienced as a result of protectionist action, with the sanctions sometimes on differing sectors to those where there are unfair trade practices.[2] Alternatively sanctions could mean a proportionate Internet response; users from the offending nation could be prohibited from using Internet services, for example an attack by hackers on the US could result in people from that country being blocked from Google and other US internet services. [1] Friedman, Benjamin H., Preble, Christopher A., ‘A Military Response to Cyberattacks Is Preposterous’, CATO Institute, 2 June 2011, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/military-response-cyberattacks-is-preposterous [2] World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes’, 2013, http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm
Sanctions can be targeted

The big advantage of sanctions is that they can be as finely targeted as needed. If the sanctioning country only knows which country the cyber attack originated from then they can be broad brush sanctions, but if there is knowledge of which group initiated the attack then the sanctions can be more specific. For example in the case of unit 61398 Of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that Mandiant showed has been attacking US companies[1] the United States could target sanctions at the People's Liberation Army by tightening weapons bans. Alternatively if the hackers are private then banning the import of certain computer equipment into that country would be appropriate. If individuals are known then the sanctions can be even more targeted, for example by freezing any bank accounts held outside their own country as the US did against North Korea when it sanctioned Banco Delta Asia through which North Korea laundered money from criminal activities.[2] [1] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013, http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant_APT1_Report.pdf [2] Noland, Marcus, ‘Why Sanctions Can Hurt North Korea’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2010, http://www.cfr.org/north-korea/why-sanctions-can-hurt-north-korea/p22762
Healthcare has been recognised as a right

The two crucial dimensions of the topic of introducing universal health care are morality and the affordability. Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”[1] Analyzing the text, we see that medical care, in so far, as it provides adequate health and well-being is considered a human right by the international community. In addition, it also states, that this right extends also to periods of unemployment, sickness, disability, and so forth. Despite this, why should we consider health care a human right? Because health is an essential prerequisite for a functional individual – one that is capable of free expression for instance – and a functional society – one capable of holding elections, not hampered by communicable diseases, to point to just one example. Universal health care provided by the state to all its citizens is the only form of health care that can provide what is outlined in the Declaration. In the US the only conditions truly universally covered are medical emergencies.[2] But life without the immediate danger of death hardly constitutes an adequate standard of health and well-being. Additionally, programs such as Medicaid and Medicare do the same, yet again, only for certain parts of the population, not really providing the necessary care for the entire society. Further, the current system of health care actively removes health insurance from the unemployed, since most (61%) of Americans are insured through their employers – thus not respecting the provision that demands care also in the case of unemployment.[3] But does insurance equal health care? In a word: yes. Given the incredible cost of modern and sophisticated medical care – a colonoscopy can cost more than 3000 dollars – in practice, those who are not insured are also not treated.[4] [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, published 12/10/1948, http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Barrett, M., The US Universal Health Care System-Emergency Rooms, published 3/2/2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marilyn-barrett/the-us-universal-health-c_b_171010.html, accessed 9/17/2011 [3] Smith, D., U.S. healthcare law seen aiding employer coverage, published 6/21/2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/usa-healthcare-employers-idUSN1E75J1WP20110621, accessed 9/17/2011 [4] Mantone, J., Even With Insurance, Hospital Stay Can Cost a Million, published 11/29/2007, http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/11/29/even-with-insurance-hospital-stay-can-cost-a-million/, accessed 9/17/2011
Universal healthcare systems are inefficient

One of the countries lauded for its universal health care is France. So what has the introduction of universal coverage brought the French? Costs and waiting lists. France’s system of single-payer health coverage goes like this: the taxpayers fund a state insurer called Assurance Maladie, so that even patients who cannot afford treatment can get it. Now although, at face value, France spends less on healthcare and achieves better public health metrics (such as infant mortality), it has a big problem. The state insurer has been deep in debt since 1989, which has now reached 15 billion euros.[1] Another major problem with universal health care efficiency is waiting lists. In 2006 in Britain it was reported that almost a million Britons were waiting for admission to hospitals for procedures. In Sweden the lists for heart surgery are 25 weeks long and hip replacements take a year. Very telling is a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court, another champion of universal health care: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”.[2] Universal health coverage does sound nice in theory, but the dual cancers of costs and waiting lists make it a subpar option when looking for a solution to offer Americans efficient, affordable and accessible health care. [1] Gauthier-Villars, D., France Fights Universal Care's High Cost, published 8/7/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html, accessed 9/17/2011 [2] Tanner, M., Cannon, M., Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets, published 4/5/2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2681638.story, accessed 9/18/2011
Universal healthcare is not affordable

No policy is created, debated or implemented in a vacuum. The backdrop of implementing universal health coverage now is, unfortunately, the greatest economic downturn of the last 80 years. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the recession to be over, we are not out of the woods yet.[1] Is it really the time to be considering a costly investment? With estimates that the cost of this investment might reach 1.5 trillion dollars in the next decade, the answer is a resounding no. Even the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – a left leaning think tank – opined that the Congress could not come up with the necessary funding to go ahead with the health reform without introducing some very unpopular policies.[2] Does this mean universal health care should be introduced at one time in the future? Not likely. Given that there are no realistic policies in place to substantially reduce the “riot inducing” US public debt[3] and the trend of always increasing health care costs[4] the time when introducing universal health care affordably and responsibly will seem ever further away. [1] New York Times, Recession, published 9/20/2010, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/recession_and_depression/index.html, accessed 9/18/2011 [2] New York Times, Paying for Universal Health Coverage, published 6/6/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07sun1.html, accessed 9/18/2011 [3] Taylor, K., Bloomberg, on Radio, Raises Specter of Riots by Jobless, published 9/16/2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/nyregion/mayor-bloomberg-invokes-a-concern-of-riots-on-radio.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=public%20debt&st=cse, accessed 9/18/2011 [4] Gawande, A., The cost conondrum, published 6/1/2009,  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande, accessed 9/18/2011
Universal healthcare stifles innovation

Profits drive innovation. That’s the long and short of it. Medical care is not exception, albeit the situation is a bit more complicated in this case. The US’s current system has a marketplace of different private insurers capable of making individual and often different decisions on how and which procedures they’ll choose to cover. Their decisions are something that helps shape and drive new and different practices in hospitals. A simple example is one of virtual colonoscopies. Without getting into the nitty gritty, they often require follow up procedures, yet are very popular with patients. Some insurers value the first, some the other, but none have the power to force the health care providers to choose one or the other. They’re free to decide for themselves, innovate with guidelines, even new procedures. Those are then communicated back to insurers, influencing them in turn and completing the cycle. What introducing a single-payer universal health coverage would do is introduce a single overwhelming player into this field – the government. Since we have seen how the insurer can often shape the care, what such a monopoly does is opens up the possibility of top-down mandates as to what this care should be. With talk of “comparative effectiveness research”, tasked with finding optimal cost-effective methods of treatment, the process has already begun.[1] [1] Wall Street Journal, How Washington Rations, published 5/19/2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html#mod=djemEditorialPage, accessed 9/18/2011
Health care would substantially reduce overall costs

While the idea that better access to preventative medicine will quickly and drastically lower general medical care costs is an incredible notion, it sadly is just that – a notion. As an aside, the same argument – lowered costs – could be made for simply improving the existing tactics of preventative medicine without the need to invest into universal coverage. Returning to this proposition though, while it might be realistic to expect some reduction in costs from improved prevention, those would very unlikely ever amount to a significant amount – and certainly not an amount that would make introducing universal health coverage a feasible strategy.[1] Universal health care will cause people to use the health care system more. If they are covered, they will go to the doctor when they do not really need to, and will become heavy users of the system. We can see in other countries that this heavier use leads to delays in treatment and constant demands for more resources. As a result care is rationed and taxes keep going up. [1] Leonhardt, D., Free Lunch on Health? Think Again, published 8/8/2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/business/08leonhardt.html, accessed 9/18/2011