How do I get my ex to move out?

Legally speaking, I cannot recommend you harass your ex or engage in any threatening or harassing behavior to remove them from your home. Engaging in such behavior may have negative legal consequences. However, there are legal ways to get your ex to move out.

Breaking up is never easy, and when you live under the same roof as your ex-partner, it can make a difficult situation worse. If you can no longer co-exist in the same space, finding a way for your ex to move out peacefully and legally is essential to maintaining your own well-being as you begin the next chapter of your life.

Is their name on the lease/mortgage/deed?

If the answer is no, they do not legally have a right to be there. However, this does not mean you can simply change the locks the next time they leave the house or throw all their belongings onto the front lawn. You must serve a written eviction notice and let them know they have thirty (30) days to remove themselves from the residence.[i] Make sure you keep a record of how the written notice was communicated to your ex.

If they still refuse to vacate the premises after the thirty (30) day deadline has passed, you will need to seek court intervention for an order of eviction. I will say this again, you cannot simply change the locks the next time they leave the house and throw all of their belongings onto the front lawn. If you choose to engage in such behavior, you may be liable for any damages sustained by your ex or their property, punitive damages (damages meant to punish you for your behavior), and reasonable attorney’s fees.[ii]

If the answer is yes, depending on the terms of your lease or housing agreement, you may still have options to remove them legally from the property. Carefully review the terms and conditions of your agreement. If there are provisions that address what would happen in the event of a breakup, be sure to follow those guidelines. If there are no such guidelines, consider discussing this matter with your landlord or a legal professional who can help you navigate towards a solution.

You may also want to consider offering a financial incentive for your ex-partner to move out.  Offering a financial incentive can include helping with moving expenses, covering their first month’s rent, or assisting with a security deposit. However, if both of your names are on the mortgage and/or title of the property, they will likely want a larger financial payout to incentivize them to be the party that moves out. Legal counsel can help negotiate a settlement offer and ensure all related matters are taken care of. You do not want to be in a situation where you gave your ex a large amount of cash and they refuse to take their name off the property.

While discussing moving out, it is also crucial to establish a clear and reasonable timeline for your ex to leave the residence. Being open to negotiation and compromise can help facilitate this process. Be sure to take into account practical considerations, like the time needed to find a new place. Having a set deadline can provide you with closure and leave a light at the end of this breakup tunnel.

My ex wants me to move out. Do I have to leave?

If your name is on the lease or deed, then you have a legal right to continue living at that property.

If your name is not on the lease or deed, you may not have a legal right to continue living on the property, and your ex may evict you. The answer may differ if you and your spouse entered into a cohabitation agreement prior to moving in. If this is the case, it may be worth seeking legal counsel to review the enforceability of your agreement.

If there is no such agreement in place and your name is not on the title to any of the property, a court will likely have a difficult time awarding you any of the “shared” property. However, this does not mean that you are necessarily out of options. If you have been the one making these payments, you might consider asking your ex to move out and transfer the property into your name. If they are financially dependent upon you, they may be willing to negotiate an agreement to sell the property or have you take over the lease. You should consider speaking with your landlord or an attorney to review your lease prior to solidifying any agreement.

We are still married… can I get them to move out?

Maybe.

Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to request the court enter an order for exclusive use of the marital residence while your divorce is pending. Courts generally do not like kicking a spouse out of their home prior to a marital dissolution agreement or final decree being entered. Why? Because parties have a tendency to want to move things along while forced to live with a spouse during a divorce. When one party is awarded the marital residence, it can disincentivize them to want to continue to work towards a resolution. This is especially true when the marital residence is the only major asset that needs to be divided.

However, in cases where you are able to show the court that there has been emotional or physical abuse, the court may be inclined to award you exclusive possession of the marital residence while the divorce is pending. If you believe this applies to you, you should consult with a knowledgeable Nashville divorce attorney.

Throughout this process, it is essential to respect your ex’s rights. Do not engage in any behavior that could even remotely be considered harassment or coercion. Be mindful of their personal space and privacy. Getting your ex to move out legally and peacefully is a challenge that requires open communication, respect for their rights and adherence to the law. The professionals at Cole Law Group have the knowledge and experience to guide you through this process and any questions you may have along the way. Please contact us at (615) 490-6020 to request a consultation.

[i]  T.C.A. § 66-7-109

[ii]  T.C.A. § 66-28-504

Cole Law is proud to announce that Managing Shareholder Andy Goldstein has been selected to the Super Lawyers 2023 Mid-South Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in Tennessee are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, visit SuperLawyers.com.

“It was truly amazing to see the community come together to help build a home for Tereka Birdsong and her family. We proudly support Habitat for Humanity of Greater Nashville in all its work it does for the community”

A post shared by Nashville Lawyer | Cole Law (@colelawgroup)

How does arbitration work?

Arbitration is the process whereupon parties resolve their disputes via a private proceeding rather than in a courtroom. During arbitration, a neutral party known as an arbitrator presides over a case and issues a ruling, similar to what a judge or jury would do in the court system. An arbitrator is generally an experienced lawyer or retired judge with specific subject matter expertise in the area of the dispute. Unlike mediation, arbitration is a binding process, and the findings of the arbitrator are usually upheld and rarely overturned. Arbitration is favored by some litigants and disfavored by others.

What are the pros and cons of arbitration?

Proponents of arbitration generally prefer arbitration because it can offer a more efficient process and allow for a quicker resolutions than litigation, which can take years to resolve. However, arbitration awards tend to be more conservative than jury verdicts, so large corporations often prefer to have disputes against them resolved in arbitration. Unlike the court system, there can be substantial fees associated with arbitration.

Arbitrations are usually administered by a company such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) or Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) and these third parties require various filing and administrative fees that may be payable by an individual party or jointly. Furthermore, the arbitrator is also required to be compensated by the litigants. These fees can drastically increase the costs for litigants. If either party attempts to invalidate an arbitration agreement due to substantial fees, that party assumes the responsibility of proving that excessive fees will be incurred.

What types of contracts contain arbitration clauses?

Arbitration clauses are included in all types of contracts. It is common to find arbitration clauses listed in real estate contracts, construction contracts, employment contracts and any contract with a corporation or individual who prefers to resolve a potential dispute through arbitration rather than the court system. The Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act of the Federal Arbitration Act may be specifically invoked via contract.

Can litigants avoid an arbitration clause and pursue their claims in court?

The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that The Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act is “valid, enforceable and irrevocable save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.

As a general matter, Tennessee courts find that arbitration clauses are usually valid and enforceable. However, there are some narrow exceptions to this rule.

In a recent case decided by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Mankin Media Systems v. Timothy Corder. The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that an arbitration clause contained in an employee handbook was not enforceable because the handbook did not “constitute an enforceable employment contract.” As a result, it overturned an arbitrator’s award.

In another case decided by the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Brenda Gibbs v. Capitol Resort Group, LLC, et al.  the Court of Appeals refused to enforce an arbitration provision when the Plaintiff alleged that she was fraudulently induced to sign the contract for a timeshare in east Tennessee that included the arbitration provision. As a result, of the Court’s decision, the Plaintiff was allowed to pursue her claims in court.

Notably, these cases are the exception to the general rule that arbitration clauses included in contracts are enforceable. Therefore, consumers should keep in mind that if a dispute arises over a contract that includes an arbitration agreement and the Defendant chooses to compel the matter to arbitration, the dispute will very likely be compelled to arbitration. Furthermore, even if a litigant is able to successfully convince a trial court that an arbitration clause should not be enforced, then a Defendant has an automatic right of appeal that they can exercise during the pendency of the litigation.

Do I need a lawyer to represent me during arbitration ?

You are not required to have your attorney accompany you during arbitration. However, it is prudent to seek your own counsel if (1) the opposing party will have a lawyer present, (2) if a significant amount of money is at stake, (3) if the subject matter of the arbitration is important, or (4) if you believe that the arbitration clause might be invalid. It is always beneficial to have a lawyer on hand who understands the arbitration process and who can level the playing field.

If you need help with a contract that contains an arbitration clause, or if you are required to go to arbitration, call one of our Brentwood attorneys at Cole Law 615-490-6020 for a consultation.

I stopped studying the German language in 1987 after making a somewhat embarrassing semantical error.  As my college major required a language competency, I chose to switch to the Scandinavian language of my forebears.  This decision, in turn, led me to schedule my junior year abroad at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.  As part of that program, I studied Scandinavian government, economics, history and culture.  I was also, as a Danish university student, given the opportunity to travel behind the Iron Curtain and visit the countries of Poland, East Germany, USSR (Russia), Latvia, and Lithuania. 

I entered Poland in October 1989 from the sea.  Denmark and Poland had established a joint ferry service which alternated trips between the countries using Polish and Danish ferries.  As our vessel traversed the Baltic Sea, the weather began to worsen and, as the Poles could not afford stabilization systems on their ferries, the ship began to pitch back and forth, at times rather violently.  To my surprise, this did not detour the majority of the passengers from entering the duty-free shop below deck where they were tossed about while trying to purchase various consumer goods (cigarettes, liquor, cosmetics, etc). 

The hotel that the university program had booked for us was the Grand Hotel Warsaw.  If the hotel had truly been “grand” at any point, by 1989 its time had come and passed.  In order to raise hard currency, the Polish government had opened a state-run brothel on several floors of the hotel.  For those of you who are not familiar with the terms “hard” and “soft” currency, let me just say that in a socialist utopia where everything is theoretically free, money has no meaning (or value) because no one needs or wants it.  This situation created astronomical exchange rates between eastern and western currencies, particularly on the black market, and it was easy for anyone to become a “millionaire for a day” if they were willing to exchange a few deutschmarks for an unbelievable quantity of (virtually worthless) zlotys. 

On my last day in Poland, a colleague and I were taking a brief walking tour of Warsaw and came upon a young girl, maybe 8-10 years old, staring at a toy store’s front window.  At first we thought that the store was out of business, but then realized that the girl was staring at the ONLY toy in the window, a small doll that was possibly homemade and reminiscent of an American toy circa 1910.  After studying this sad spectacle for several moments, my colleague finally exclaimed, “I just can’t take this anymore,” and ran into the toy shop.  Minutes later, he returned with the doll inside a very plain paper wrapper which he handed to the girl.  A look of disbelief, followed by utter joy, crossed her face before she turned and ran off into the distance.

In an additional bid to raise hard currency, the Polish government had also established casinos.  Several other students and I decided to visit one of the casinos before we departed Poland.  Although somewhat austere and minimalistic by Las Vegas standards, inside the casino we once again had access to Western capitalistic comforts such as liquor, champagne, and tobacco.  I approached a blackjack table where a young Polish woman was the dealer.  After I had won several times, the young woman was replaced by an older, obviously more experienced dealer.  I decided to return to my companions at that point who were enjoying themselves at the casino bar.  Later that evening, I saw that the young woman had returned to a blackjack table.  I chose to try my luck again and was rewarded with another winning streak.  Suddenly, I saw a large burly male, presumably the pit boss, come from the right side of the table. He gave me a challenging look and proclaimed, “You have new dealer now,” as he pushed the young woman aside.  I saw a tear form in the corner of her eye as she turned away.  It became clear to me that she would be punished, not for her job performance, but because of my luck that evening. I collected my friends and immediately left the establishment (with a considerable amount of the casino’s hard currency in hand).            

My first memory of East Germany was, well, that it was grey; really, really, grey (the buildings, the clothes, the weather….).  Unlike Poland, East Germany also decidedly had a more “police state” vibe.  We were immediately assigned two “watchers;” an older, heavy-set man (who I will call “Carlos”) and a younger woman (“Paulina”) who was a college student at the local university.  As our group got on the bus to continue our tour, Carlos asked one of my colleagues, “Is this seat taken?”  Whereupon my colleague replied,“It’s a free country.”  Carlos’ subsequent double-take in response to the expression “free country” is something I will never forget. 

Later that evening, Paulina invited me to go out with her to a nightclub in East Berlin.  On the way to the Metro, we passed a group of young East German women singing.  Although the accents were heavy, I eventually recognized the song as one from the American hit movie, “Dirty Dancing.”  It crossed my mind at the time that the Berlin Wall, if not effective in keeping out Hollywood, would not be standing for much longer.  Racing to catch our train, I was slightly ahead of Paulina and attempted to hold its departure by sticking my arm in the still open door.  “Stop!!!”  Paulina shrieked and I quickly withdrew as the door closed and the train proceeded to leave the station.  “Our trains do not have the same safety mechanisms as yours as we cannot afford it,” Paulina explained.  “The door would have closed on your arm and you would have been killed.”  The nightclub we arrived at was for communist party members only, and a card proving such affiliation was required for entry.  For the first time, I saw Eastern Europeans (all party members) openly consuming the same products Polish citizens had struggled to obtain when we crossed the Baltic Sea.  John Kenneth Galbraith’s observation appeared to be absolutely true in 1989 East Berlin: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.”

By the time I returned to my classroom in Copenhagen in November, the collapse of the Berlin Wall was already underway.  In the months that followed, the other remaining communist dictatorships across Eastern Europe would collapse.  This caused our Professor of Eastern European Studies a dilemma, as his entire curriculum had been based on a world which no longer existed.  When we finally asked in December what to expect on the final exam, our Danish professor replied, “I don’t know because it is all gone.  But, I am so happy for all of these people I just don’t care.” 

As I look back on my memories from Fall 1989, I cannot help but conclude that physical walls, such as the Berlin Wall, are doomed to fail, because humanity craves contact and communication with each other, and that innate desire will erode a physical structure over time as surely as the elements will eventually reduce the most ambitious constructions to rubble.  Of potentially far greater, and more far reaching, harm are the economic walls artificially imposed by governments to divide their people and ultimately restrain their liberties.  Our American Constitution has, for over two hundred years, acted as a bulwark against such divisions, and thus the integrity of that document, and all the protections it affords American citizens, must be protected.

The Travel Ban prohibits entry into the United States as an immigrant for nationals of the following countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. For those seeking to enter the United States as nonimmigrants, the Travel Ban prohibits the issuance of certain business and tourist visas from the following countries: Chad, Libya, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Importantly, for nationals of North Korea and Syria, the Travel Ban prohibits entry into the United States regardless of whether the individual seeking entry is attempting to enter as an immigrant or a nonimmigrant. As for Venezuela, the Travel Ban’s entry restrictions only appear to apply to certain Venezuelan government officials.

However, the Travel Ban does contain exceptions. The Travel Ban does not prohibit entry of the following categories of individuals coming from the countries listed above: lawful permanent residents of the United States, foreign nationals who have been granted asylum by the United States, refugees who have already been admitted to the United States, or individuals who have been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In any event, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”), Congress has given the President the broad authority to limit the entry of any class of foreign nationals when he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). This authority, combined with the latest Supreme Court decision upholding the Travel ban, grants the President extraordinary power to control the entry of foreign nationals into the United States. In this rapidly changing environment within Immigration Law, it is more important than ever before to make legally informed choices regarding immigration and travel to and from the United States. If you or a family member believe that the Travel Ban may affect you, it is crucial to seek the advice of an Immigration Attorney today.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew Goldstein is currently a law clerk at Cole Law Group. He recently graduated from Belmont University College of Law and looks forward to joining CLG as an associate when he is admitted to the Tennessee Bar. Andrew will focus his practice in the areas of Immigration Law and Family Law. Cole Law Group clients will benefit from Andrew’s passion for the law and dedication to serving them well.

Disclaimer: The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this article should be construed as legal advice from Cole Law Group, P.C. or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.

If you are involved in an intellectual copyright dispute, you are certainly not the first. There is a long history of complex and contentious disputes involving intellectual property, from Barbie dolls to Sir Isaac Newton. Here, we will examine ten of them.

1. Tyson tattoos

In the popular flick The Hangover II, one character wakes up with a facial tattoo identical to that of boxer Mike Tyson. The tattoo artist who created the tattoo, S. Victor Whitmill, sued Warner Bros. Entertainment for copyright infringement for using the design without his permission. The case was settled out of court in 2011.

2. Intellectuals’ intellectual property

Sure, maybe you are involved in a dispute over who invented a certain product. But can you claim to be in a dispute over who invented an entire field of mathematics? The brilliant mathematicians Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz can. In the 1700’s, the two were locked in a bitter debate over who invented the study of calculus. Ultimately, the two are now generally credited as the field’s co-inventors.

3. Barbies, Bratz and business

Good thing one of Barbie’s many jobs was as a lawyer: In 2001, she was involved in a whiplash-inducing lawsuit. The iconic toy faced some competition from a line of dolls called Bratz. The Bratz’ dolls owner, MGA Entertainment Inc., sued Mattel when the company developed a similar-looking line of toys. Mattel then countersued the Bratz dolls’ inventor for allegedly inventing the dolls while still employed by Mattel. A court initially ruled in favor of Mattel, but court of appeals later ruled in favor of MGA.

4. Star Wars and actual wars

In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defensive Initiative, or SDI, was given the moniker “Star Wars” after the popular film franchise. LucasFilm Ltd., the production company of Star Wars inventor George Lucas, sued two public interest groups that had publicly referred to SDI as “Star Wars” in the media. A federal district court ultimately ruled against Lucasfilm.

An additional perceived menace to our society that has been the impetus of recent public dialogue is cyberwarfare, and I am persistently disillusioned and annoyed when listening to reporters and pundits discuss “hacking” and “leaking” and what, if any, impact foreign actors may have had on the 2016 presidential election.

Prior to attending law school, my background was in technology, and I am someone who knows a bit about cyber defense. I received computer engineering certifications from Red Hat Software (RHCE), Microsoft (MCNE+I) and Novell (MCNE). As a student at Brown University, where I received my undergraduate degree in International Relations, I also spent considerable time studying Russia (when it was a union of socialist republics and not a federation). While enrolled in International Business at the University of Copenhagen, I was afforded the opportunity to travel through several Eastern European countries (including behind the Berlin Wall just before it fell) and experienced honest and enlightening discourse.

There are two specific presumptions regarding the use of computer technology to disrupt the activities of another country that cause me consternation. First, the proposition that cyberwarfare is brand new and has suddenly become an imminent threat to America. The second, that somehow the Russian Federation “hacked” our November presidential election and influenced the result. I will focus this article on the current common perceptions of cyberwarfare and leave the issue of Russian hacking to a companion piece to follow.

The concept of cyberwarfare is not something new. It has been around almost since the first message was sent between computers on October 29, 1969. TCP/IP, the protocol used by all computers on the Internet today, was adopted by ARPANET in 1983, as it could dynamically route computer communications around areas devastated by an enemy attack (presumably nuclear). Wikipedia currently defines the term as, “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”

The Internet has obviously increased in scope and complexity since its genesis in the 1980’s, but the basic idea of throwing a major monkey wrench into your enemy’s infrastructure in a time of conflict has not. In fact, it could be argued that the first act of “cyberwarfare” occurred in France at the time of the Industrial Revolution when Luddite workers threw their wooden clogs (in French, “sabot”) into the gears of their employer’s machines to protest jobs lost to mechanization, an act that would eventually lead to the term, “sabotage.” Hundreds of years later, in the 1990’s, cyberwarfare became so prevalent across M.I.T.’s campus that the administration did the unthinkable — they removed all firewalls and relied on the doctrine of mutual assured destruction to restore order. Such a solution would, however, hardly be workable outside academia.

What is perhaps pertinent today in addressing cyberwarfare is the need for a basic framework of rules or laws similar to Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Principles of a Just War, or Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Once we have established such a foundation, it should be possible to build upon it to create an actionable strategy for better protecting America’s digital interests. Drawing from my own life experiences, and knowledge picked up from others along the way, I offer up for discussion the following ten laws of cyberwarfare and make a request for comments.

Law #1 – There’s always someone smarter than you.

I remember, not too long after the dawn of the Internet, being involved in a computer security project at a large consulting company. This particular project required my team to make changes to the networking configurations on several workstations. Unfortunately, a group of programmers were also, simultaneously, trying to rollout some homegrown proprietary software which turned out to be incompatible with our increased security. Frustrated with their program being rendered inoperable, one of the programmers walked up to the workstation I was working on and said, rather loudly, “You want a totally secure computer? Here you go!” and proceeded to rip the cable connecting that particular workstation to the corporate network out of the wall. Although dramatic (and a little violent), the programmer’s premise that once you connect a computer to a network it is no longer absolutely secure is correct. I have often cringed at statements such as, “our firewall is totally secure” or “our network is impenetrable.” Pride in the realm of cyberwarfare is definitely a deadly sin for, in making such statements, you are operating under the errant presumption that you have thought of every possible entre for a hacker into your private network. Given the complexities of current computer systems, to allow oneself such conceit is nothing short of delusional, as someone else in the world smarter than you will find the hole that you missed. Once you have connected a computer to the Internet, do not presume you are safe; assume that a hacker has already entered your system and safeguard your data accordingly.

Law #2 – Numbers mean everything…and nothing.

There is something to be said for numbers. Certainly, the failure of the Wehrmacht to achieve victory with Operation Barbarossa can be attributed to numbers. As German commanders discovered, it is hard to stop a million screaming Russians when you have run out of bullets. Does this military axiom translate into the world of cyberwarfare? Yes and no.

Having a large number of engineers, programmers, technicians, etc. in a cyberwarfare program is, to some degree, an advantage, particularly in the creation of malware or the decryption of an enemy’s communications. It is far less of an advantage when it comes to intrusion and counterintelligence if, a) the defender has created defined communication channels that can be carefully monitored (think Battle of Thermopylae here) and b) you accept the old Klingon proverb that, “a running man can slit a thousand throats in one night.” I would note in support of this proposition that the hackers who have posed the greatest threat / irritation to the U.S. government (at least publicly) have not come from Russia or China, but from Finland, a country with a far smaller populace.

My recommendation for an American cyberwarfare force would be a moderately sized one, commanded by the military (or a civilian with a strong background in military tactics and strategy) with the best and brightest computer engineers and programmers money can buy. Put another way, in my opinion the country would benefit more from a smaller, highly paid force than a large, less competent, and moderately paid one.

Law #3 – Security through obscurity is a bad idea; security through diversity is a better idea.

For years, there has been an active dispute between commercial software and the open source community over who produces more secure products. Commercial software’s argument is simple; how can something be secure if you tell everyone about it? All of our products are compiled code and trade secrets that no one can figure out. The open source community counters with showing the world their code so that any defects (intentional or unintentional) are immediately identified and corrected.

The open source folks seem to have gotten the better of this argument in recent years as many security holes in commercial software have been identified and exploited, and commercial software companies have been slow at times to publish a correction or “patch.” However, the open source argument really does best when you consider a large number of computers connected publicly to the Internet. If a few hundred of those computers get “infected,” the immunity of the body kicks in and soon open source programmers have closed the security hole. The open source argument is not as good when you consider computers serving a strategic purpose and not generally exposed to the public via the Internet. In that world, having one or two computers being compromised could be catastrophic particularly if there is a delay in the exploits being closed.

With the foregoing in mind, my recommendation would be for the US government to require competing vendors to produce a matrix of “nodes” throughout strategic systems (such as the power grid) with proprietary operating systems that would still allow for data exchange between those systems. As an example of why this is a good idea, how many times have you seen a Mac user escape a virus because they were immune? Viruses and malware are usually created to attack a specific system vulnerability and have difficulty jumping between disparate systems similar to the problem a real virus has jumping species. In the model I am proposing, should a “node” fall prey the critical application systems would reroute through the unaffected nodes similar to the way the TCP/IP protocol was designed to reroute communication.

Law #4 – The slow blade penetrates the shield.

Generally speaking, there are two categories of hackers; amateurs (those who do it for fun, to be challenged, or from pure curiosity), and professionals (those who do it for money or as an agent of their government). Amateurs tend to be clumsy, destructive, immature, and are usually caught. The professionals know that they do not want to get caught; they want to silently move through the target system, collecting data, and possibly leaving bombs along the way to be detonated remotely at the worst possible time for the enemy.

In order for a true cyberwarfare program to be successful, it must be years in the planning. The enemy’s critical systems must be carefully identified and slowly compromised to avoid detection. Once compromised, a decision must be made as to how often the dormant code should “phone home” with information and whether the code should have a “self-destruct” ability to avoid detection and / or take out the enemy system.

One possible attack I have considered is the placement of hundreds of extremely small, low-cost, hidden computers in various locations across a country with public access Internet via WiFi (coffee shops, airports, restaurants, etc.). When activated, these small devices could “flood” a target system (creating a denial of service) anywhere in the enemy country. In order to stop such an attack, each of the devices would need to be located and deactivated from that country’s Internet segment. With some clever programming, the devices could also randomize their attack to make detection more difficult or go dormant for some period of time after attacking for several hours before restarting. An example of such a device that is commercially available appears in a photo to the right.

With enough time, and with physical access, to a country’s Internet infrastructure, electronic communications could be rather easily disrupted. All it takes is patience and a little dilatoriness on the part of your adversary.

Law #5 – Your best offense is a good honeypot.

A state-sponsored cyberwarfare program is an expensive proposition. For it to make sense to a country like China or Russia, it must also, therefore, be run efficiently. The worst result for a second or third world country engaged in cyberwarfare activity is to find the operation their agent has been engaged in for the last year yielded worthless information. The U.S. government’s best friend may, therefore, be the honeypot.

For those of you lost by the reference, Winnie the Pooh had a bad habit of sticking his head in a honeypot to get the last bit of honey only to declare, “Oh, bother!” as he found himself stuck and wasting time trying to escape. In the cyberwarfare world, a honeypot is something that looks too good to pass up, e.g. clintonemail.com (I can only imagine the look on the first foreign agent’s face to come across that domain name; sadly, it was legitimate and not a honeypot).

As an example, when I was a very young system administrator I had a Chinese hacker attempt to access my employer’s server. So that I could hold his attention while I traced his location, I created a file called “Financial Information.zip” which he tried for days to access and download. In the end, my Chinese friend found that he had downloaded a copy of an English dictionary and he had wasted both his time and his employer’s resources.

Honeypots are a great way to cause your enemy to expend unnecessary time and effort and something that I would strongly recommend the U.S. government deploy liberally, particularly when dealing with an adversary such as China, with superior numbers.

Law #6 – Things are not always as they appear.

The protocol that runs the Internet, TCP/IP, is as flexible as it is resilient. Unfortunately, flexibility also means the identities and locations can be manipulated. This generally happens in two ways, a) the computer conducting an attack is behind another computer, known as a proxy, actually connected to the Internet (think of it as one computer controlling the other computer like Geppetto controlled marionette Pinocchio), or b) a computer connected to the Internet has come under the control of the enemy who is now using it to attack you. Tracing an attack back to the true source can be problematic under either scenario. I can remember being attacked once from a computer located in a public library in Southern California. In that particular instance, that computer had been compromised by a foreign actor attempting to penetrate my corporate network without being identified. Adding to this danger is the fact that a foreign attacker could use a computer in Greece to compromise a computer in Thailand to compromise a computer in California.

There are ways for this type of attack to be traced back to the source. One must certainly, however, be careful not to jump to any conclusions about which country could actually have been behind an attack without clear evidence. In the case I mentioned above involving the public library, I simply called the administrator of that network, notified them of the intrusion, and the attack was stopped (along with any further investigation on my part).

Law #7 – Always consider the flanking maneuver first.

In the 1990’s, a certain bank spent an extremely large amount of money to implement what, at the time, was a state-of-the-art “impenetrable” Internet firewall. Utilizing a high-level of encryption, the firewall was reportedly so secure it would take hackers using conventional PC’s hundreds of years to penetrate it. Within a much shorter time period, the bank’s network had been compromised. How did the hackers pull off such a seemingly impossible feat? They simply looked to history for the answer. When someone builds a wall too high to climb…go around it.

Using an auto dialer, the hackers scanned all direct dial-numbers assigned to the bank. Eventually, they came across a PC that someone had connected to the phone network via an analog modem. Even worse, the PC was running remote access software that was known for being insecure. The hackers were easily able to defeat that software’s security, take control of the bank’s PC, and launch an attack from behind the wall. Von Schlieffen would have been proud.

It should also be noted here that hacking is not always about taking information away. Sometimes, it is about inserting information that should not be there. The same hackers referenced above were once asked how they would attack a private individual; would they steal their social security number, their bank information, or…? Their response was that they would take nothing. They would just upload child pornography to the victim’s computer and call the FBI.

Law # 8 – By indirection find direction out.

One of my favorite stories from WW II is about how the United States discovered Midway Island was to be the next target of Japanese aggression. Unable to fully crack the Japanese code at first, American intelligence sent a fake message that Midway’s fresh water condensers had broken down. The message was picked up by a Japanese listening post and retransmitted in the clear as “AF” having trouble with its fresh water condensers. American intelligence had, in a matter of hours, cracked a code that could otherwise have taken weeks or even months to decipher. This revelation helped turn the tide of war in the Pacific and ultimately led to American victory.

The same type of clever thinking can be employed in the world of cyberwarfare. America should feed its enemies as much fake information as possible both to occupy the enemy’s resources and to increase the cost of its operations (see Law #5 above). By using indirection to find direction out, American intelligence can also, for little cost, manipulate and learn of enemy intentions.

Law # 9 – Humans are the weakest link.

Computers do not get hungry. They do not get tired. They do not get jealous. They are not greedy. Unfortunately, humans have all of these weaknesses and more.

I remember, on or after May 5, 2000, a worm was released called “I love you.” This particular worm successfully attacked tens of millions of Windows personal computers not because it was technically advanced, or unusually virulent, but because people, generally speaking, could not understand how a message that started with “I love you” could intend someone harm. There were only two individuals in my office who weren’t infected by 9:30 AM that morning, a colleague who had emigrated from East Germany and me. Around 9:45 AM, my German colleague came into my office and demanded to know if I had been infected. When I answered no, he replied, “Good….me neither. I knew if someone was sending me a message that said ‘I love you,’ something must be wrong.”

As another example, an organization bent on obtaining the client list from a private corporation placed several expensive USB thumb drives on the ground of the parking lot outside the target company. Within hours, an employee had picked up one of the thumb drives, thanked their good fortune, walked into their office and plugged the thumb drive into their corporate PC. Unbeknownst to the employee, each of the thumb drives had been infected with malware that infected Microsoft Outlook causing it to send a copy of the global address book to the attacker. The morale of these stories is that if a system looks impenetrable, look to human nature to open the door.

Law # 10 – Do not underestimate the power of the Phoenix.

My tenth, and final law, is a reference in Greek mythology to a bird that can live for as long as 1,400 years before gaining new life by rising from the ashes of its predecessor. During the course of my career, I saw engineers and consultants spend hours trying to troubleshoot strange issues with a machine’s operating system or remove a piece of malware without causing greater problems than the malware itself had created. In some instances, particularly when there was a potential for data loss, the engineers had no choice but to go through this lengthy and costly exercise.

But, more often than naught, the problem could be much more quickly resolved by wiping the system and reloading the operating system software. Many of today’s PC’s do, in fact, come with a system “reset” feature in which the existing system installation can be, relatively quickly, replaced with a fresh copy. This functionality of being reborn from ashes is possibly one of the best defenses we have to a cyberattack. As long as our critical systems have the ability to be almost immediately restored if compromised, a cyberattack on the integrity of those systems can be rather quickly defeated.

Conclusion

While writing this article, an old Peter Gabriel song, “Games without Frontiers,” kept running through my head. In one line from the lyrics of that song, Gabriel sings “In games without frontiers-war without tears.” At the moment, cyberwarfare is truly a misunderstood game without a frontier, devoid of any structured rules of engagement. If the Russians had, in fact, “hacked” the 2016 presidential election such that it may have impacted the outcome….what then? Should we retaliate and, if so, how and to what degree? If cyberwarfare should ever break out on a large scale, how should we wage such a war? It is my hope that this article begins a dialogue that may eventually help answer these questions and position the United States not only as a force for good on the land, sea, and air but also in the realm of cyberspace.

In an effort to address this growing problem, Tennessee has taken a zero-tolerance stance and has implemented various laws addressing cyberbullying. Tennessee law defines cyberbullying as “bullying undertaken through the use of electronic devices.” It includes cell phones, computers, email, text messaging, and web sites. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-4502). In general, the policy behind laws against teen bullying and cyberbullying is the same – to protect young people from the scarring effects of being targeted by their peers for cruel treatment. However, several features unique to electronic media make cyberbullying potentially more harmful:

• Uncontained. Once a rumor, insult, threat, or image is sent or posted, it is potentially viewable by anyone with access to the Internet.
• Permanent. Data that enters the cyber media stream never really goes away, even if it is “deleted.”
• Immediate. A message can be sent or posted 24/7 and is instantaneously “published” to virtually anyone with access to the Internet, and
• Often anonymous. Because it’s easy to hide behind a fake persona, it’s difficult to identify and confront bullies or take action compelling them to stop.

Tennessee has taken two approaches to punishing cyberbullying:

1. Harassment

It is a misdemeanor in Tennessee for any person to transmit or send messages that “knowingly annoy or alarm” the recipient of the message. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-308.) A person engaging in such conduct is guilty of criminal harassment. And, anyone who posts or transmits an image to another person is guilty of harassment, if

• the person posting or transmitting maliciously intends to be perceived by the victim as a threat, and
• a reasonable person viewing the image would perceive it as a threat. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-308.)

So, sending an annoying or alarming text message, for example, is a form of harassment under Tennessee law.

A person convicted of harassment may face a jail sentence of up to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days, a fine not to exceed $2,500, or both. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111).

1. Stalking

In Tennessee, when an individual makes repeated contact with another person without that person’s consent, including contact through electronic communications or via the internet, they may be engaging in criminal stalking. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315).

If the victim was under the age of 18 and the stalker was five or more years older than the victim, the stalker may be convicted of a Class E felony (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315), punishable by a prison sentence of not less than one year and not more than six years, a fine not to exceed $3,000, or both. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111).

In addition, Tennessee has required that all public school districts adopt and enact anti-cyberbullying policies. (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-6-4503, 49-6-4505). The policies must

• define cyberbullying, harassment, intimidation, and bullying
• prohibit cyberbullying, harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students
• state the consequences to anyone who engages in prohibited conduct
• set forth the reporting procedure to be used by anyone experiencing or witnessing prohibited conduct, including anonymous reporting
• prohibit retaliation against anyone who reports prohibited conduct, and
• describe the investigation that the district will conduct following reports.

(Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-4503.)

While children must learn how to interact with others and deal with difficult situations, they do not have to tolerate being bullied or harassed. While Tennessee’s progress in this area of law is commendable, cyberbullying laws do not go without critics. Civil rights activists essentially view such laws as criminalizing speech protected by the First Amendment. Such Constitutional concern means there will likely be many court decisions and statutory amendments in this area of the law that will refine the scope.