Debating the Active Defense Law.. Because Arguing is Fun

This piece critiques a proposed “hacking back” law, supporting limited attributional technology for identifying attackers while warning that provisions enabling defenders to disrupt attackers and continuously monitor behavior (e.g., sections 3-2-bb and 3-2-cc) risk legal overreach and collateral damage; it urges removal of these elements and advocates for middle-ground active defense approaches that respect existing laws and third-party safety.