good response to this with 2 references: A targeted State may lawfully use force against a civilian cyber volunteer who directly participates in hostilities during an armed conflict; however, this does not make them equivalent to the State itself. The full spectrum of actions against a State is broader. Civilians can be directly targeted while participating or prosecuted if captured, but they are not interchangeable with the State as a legal entity. The rise of "cyber volunteers" highlights a growing challenge in the application of international law to cyberspace. As the Tallinn Manual notes, some States have reportedly called upon private citizens to conduct cyber operations against foreign States or targets abroad (Schmitt, 2013, p. 31, Rule 6.9). Although these citizens may view themselves as patriotic contributors, international humanitarian law (IHL) imposes clear consequences. According to Rule 25.3 of the first Tallinn Manual and reinforced in Tallinn Manual 2.0, a civilian who directly participates in hostilities loses the protection from attack ordinarily afforded to civilians for the duration of their participation (Schmitt, 2013, p. 105, Rule 25.3; Schmitt, 2017, pp. 432-433, Rule 97). Once civilians cross the line into cyber hostilities, they may be lawfully targeted