AI vs. AI: Forecasting the Ethical Dilemma Circling Law, Business and Technology
This article provides a discussion of the legal and ethical questions involved when private companies defend themselves and then retaliate as a result of a cyberattack—a so-called counterpunch known as the "hack-back."
May 13, 2022 at 10:00 AM
10 minute read
Cybersecurity
Should private, non-governmental companies be able to weaponize sophisticated, well-developed cybersecurity defenses to counter the cause of their own cyberattack? A cyber counterpunch of sorts, or "hack back," continues to raise all sorts of layered ethical and legal questions for technologists and cybersecurity professionals alike. It is also an especially complicated question for governments with no direct answer yet. Insert artificial intelligence (AI) into the equation and the complications increase exponentially. The keyword for lawmakers is of course cause. Something that if poorly understood ends up often being undefinable, unidentifiable, and largely consequential.
|The Study on Cyber-Attack Response Options Act
Introduced last year, the Study on Cyber-Attack Response Options Act is a bill directing the Department of Homeland Security to study and report on its findings of potential benefits and risks of amending "the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to allow private entities to respond to an unlawful network breach, subject to federal regulation and oversight." Many industry analysts and observers have derided the acceptance of the private sector onto the cyberwarfare stage as too risky while still some maintain such an introduction should be at least studied, particularly in light of the well-publicized ransomware cyberattacks of industry giants like SolarWinds, Colonial Pipeline, and JBS Foods. SolarWinds garnered added attention from legal watchers in the months following its cyberattack as a result of a group of investors filing a lawsuit that specifically named its former CEO and also its CISO at the time.
The text of this bill, referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, states that the report shall "address any impact on national security and foreign affairs" and include recommendations not limited to "which Federal agency or agencies may authorize proportional actions by private entities" and "what actions would be permissible," as well as "what level of certainty regarding the identity of the attacker is needed before such actions would be authorized."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
The Kids Online Safety Act Threatens Free Speech and Opens the Door to Political Weaponization
6 minute read
New Cybersecurity Regulations are Here. This Is What You Need to Know.
5 minute read
The Challenge of AI Governance: The Blessing and the Curse of Safeguarding Personal Data
13 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
