Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Corporate entities, licensed by the government, should be permitted to hack back when attacked via the internet.
Corporate entities, licensed by the government, should be permitted to hack back when their clients are attacked via the internet.
Hacking back is the best form of deterrence since it is not about retribution or revenge.
Hack back is likely to be far less damaging and far more controllable than a kinetic response, which is permitted by NATO doctrine.
Relying on government to address hacking attempts is unrealistic.
Hacking back unmasks malicious entities hiding behind hop points.
Hacking back offers the opportunity to patch insecure networks that make it easy for malicious parties to operate.
Hacking back, if constrained to authorized entities, would greatly benefit the law enforcement and military communities.
Hacking back encourages greater security practices.
Adversaries often make use of insecure infrastructure used by innocent third parties. Hacking back may cause people dependent on that infrastructure to experience loss of service or be otherwise harmed.
Dishonest actors could stage attacks directed at themselves and then hack back on networks they're targeting.
Hacking back could it more difficult for authorities to enforce the law.
Hacking back entails "trespassing" on systems that one does not own.
Hacking back encourages lawless behavior.
Underage individuals should be permitted to watch pornography.
Should Election Campaigns only be Funded by the Government?
Free Speech on the Internet: Should Internet Companies Deny Service to White Supremacists?