Should Private Companies Get Permission to Hack Back?

AI-created, human-edited.

On this episode of Security Now, Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte dig into an escalating debate: should private companies, like Google, be authorized to launch offensive cyber operations against international hackers? The introduction of "letters of marque"—government-sanctioned licenses for digital retaliation—could reshape global cybersecurity policy, but also brings major risks

The concept of "letters of marque" dates to maritime law, allowing privateers to legally attack enemy ships on behalf of a nation. Applied to cybersecurity, the idea is that companies could receive government authorization to proactively disrupt or retaliate against hostile foreign attackers.

On Security Now, Steve Gibson explained that this proposal isn't just theory: recent discussions in Washington, increasing cyber offenses from rivals like Russia and China, and new moves by Google to form a "cyber disruption unit" all reveal genuine momentum in this direction.

According to Gibson and Laporte, the U.S. has traditionally favored defense, restricting both governmental and private action to strictly defensive measures. However, with growing threats—such as ransomware attacks on hospitals, school closures due to attacks, and nation-state hacking—pressure is building for more aggressive responses.

Recent U.S. policy discussions indicate that Congress is considering the idea of giving official sanction, or "letters of marque," so that trusted companies can take direct action against hackers' infrastructure. Google’s announcement of a "disruption unit" is one of the clearest signs this may move from theory to law and practice.

Security Now highlighted several reasons for caution:

• Risk of Escalation: If U.S. companies retaliate, enemy nations might respond in kind, with unknown consequences.
• Legal and Ethical Uncertainty: U.S. law currently prohibits "hacking back." Changing this would need careful oversight, and many policy experts warn of unintended consequences.
• Potential Collateral Damage: Offensive operations could accidentally impact innocent third parties or essential services abroad.
• Deterrence vs. Recklessness: While some say it’s time for deterrence, Gibson warned that cyber retaliation isn’t as clear-cut as traditional military deterrence because attack capabilities are harder to quantify and mistakes are easy to make.

Google’s move to establish a cyber disruption unit is a major development. By seeking "legal and ethical disruption options," Google is preparing not just to defend its own infrastructure, but to actively interfere with the operations of attackers.

Industry and government leaders at recent policy conferences have debated where the line should be drawn. While some argue for decisive action, others urge extreme caution, noting that the United States remains deeply dependent on digital infrastructure that is itself vulnerable to reprisals.

The idea of "letters of marque" for cyber offense would give private companies extraordinary power with government backing.

This marks a sharp policy shift from passive defense to potentially aggressive, pre-emptive action.

There are major legal, ethical, and practical uncertainties about escalation, oversight, and effectiveness.

Experts warn that the risks may outweigh the rewards if not managed with tight controls and clear accountability.

Google’s creation of a disruption unit signals private sector interest and preparation for such a policy shift—whether or not official authorization is granted.

Security Now hosts Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte made clear that the potential move to authorize private-sector cyber offense is perhaps the biggest shift since the dawn of the cybersecurity era. While it might help deter cyber adversaries, it also introduces significant risks of escalation, collateral damage, and legal confusion. Anyone interested in the future of cybersecurity—and the evolving relationship between private companies and national security policy—should be paying close attention as these debates unfold.

Listen and subscribe for more expert security insights:
https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/1042