Welcome to this week’s edition of Cyber Motion, tailored for cybersecurity business leaders. In this newsletter, you’ll find practical strategies, cutting-edge insights, and fresh thinking designed to help your security-focused brand break through a crowded market. My goal is to equip you with the tools and ideas needed to thrive amid shifting threats, buyer skepticism, and evolving industry standards.

– Tobias

Not yet a subscriber? Sign up here.

It’s an easy sell: if cybercriminals attack you, hit them back. Congress is flirting with that idea through the so-called “hack back” bill, which would allow private companies to retaliate directly against attackers.

Supporters liken it to the “letters of marque” that once authorized private ships to attack enemy vessels. In practice, privateering was chaotic, hard to control, and often escalated conflicts. The harsh reality was a far cry from that “pirates of the…” movie franchise you’ve likely seen. We stopped doing it for a reason.

Now, policymakers are considering bringing it back. But digitally this time.

The current proposal, sometimes framed as the “Scam Farms Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act,” would give companies authority to disrupt or retaliate against attackers. Even Google has floated the idea of a “disruption unit” to prepare for this possibility.

On the surface, this looks like empowerment. In reality, it’s outsourcing offensive cyber operations to the private sector, but with no guarantee of control or accountability.

Proponents highlight a few appealing points:

These arguments have surface logic. They make hack back sound like a bold, no-nonsense strategy. But bold without precision is reckless.

However, I have a less flattering opinion on why this is broadly appealing. The real reason that hitting back sounds good is because it seems like something straight out of a movie or the video game Cyberpunk 2077. In short, this seems like the tough, sexy thing to do.

Here’s where the reality check comes in:

This isn’t targeted defense. It’s more like tossing grenades into a crowded room.

History offers a cautionary tale. Maritime privateers blurred the line between legal action and piracy. Ships went rogue. Neutral parties were attacked. International tensions escalated.

Digital privateering would be faster, harder to track, and even more difficult to control. Once normalized, it sets a precedent that undermines stability and increases risk for everyone.

Now, think about this. What happens when a major U.S. company knocks a university offline because its weak security made it a link in an attack chain? What if a small business becomes the target simply because its servers were hijacked? And what about your own home router, punished by an automated reprisal system while the real attackers walk away untouched?

Rather than deputizing corporations to fight their own cyber wars, we’d be far better off focusing on:

Hack back might sound tough and cool, but it’s a recipe for chaos. It risks legitimizing vigilante cyber wars, normalizing escalation, and putting innocent companies and people squarely in the line of fire.

As cybersecurity marketers and leaders, we have a role to play here: making it clear that real defense comes from clarity, collaboration, and resilience rather than from handing out digital letters of marque.

Privateering didn’t work on the high seas and it won’t work on the internet either.

Stay sharp,
Tobias