Yes, and those sensors only provide one thing, the ability to mimic the surroundings. How is that, AT ALL, beneficial to someone else. Oh wait, it isn't.



So HOW do your Wired Reflexes tell someone else WHERE they are, exactly? Oh wait, they don't.

I'm not sure why those sensors (which have full spatial coverage, which cybereyes don't) wouldn't be able to feed the visual data they capture to the TacNet.

Not "where they are" as in GPS, what they're doing (by nature of transmitting nerve impulses) and the body's status (where each limb is located w.r.t each other). A bit like motion capture for video games.

Also: dude, you don't have to be aggressive, I'm not a professional designer and I asked for feedback, not sarcasm.

Honestly, don't see any real benefit for the WR/RE Cyberware, for the Tacnet. That is just not useful information. Especially since the 'ware does not provide such information to start with. Motion Capture covers sensors/transmitters on the body that another sensor might see, but it is very specific, and if you are trying to harvest data like that, you will be getting so much data that your processors will be overwhelmed completely, due to the sheer vastness of such data in the world around you at any given time. *shrug*
Apologies... Did not mean to be aggressive.

Yeah i don't think wire reflexes would give that useful info for the tacnet. I do think the full coverage chameleon suit sensors would give good info.

I think some of the Cyber ear options might also give good info. Same with Cyber eyes.

How would Cyberlimbs benefit?

As for Drones I think of them as all sensor platforms that would benefit the tacnet. But I think there should be a point of diminishing returns. Basically add too many sensors and you stop getting bonus dice.

Cyberlimbs can have some sensors implanted in them. Depending on those sensors they too can help provide info. Other than that, I don't think so.

I think you're going a bit fast in dismissing the contribution of these pieces of gear to the TacNet, and I'm going to explain why.

IRL, I do data analysis on particle physics and I have a background in control engineering. In both these fields (especially the former), a great deal of time and energy is spent getting more information out of sensor data than would seem obvious. Combining data from different sources, using correlations, calculations and a lot of clever tricks, we're able to get detectors or sensors to tell us a lot more than they were designed to tell.

Wired reflexes sending data to a commlink is quite conceivable. It could send status reports on the type of commands sent to the muscles*, and it could send data concerning the position of the wired reflexes nodes (the existence of those nodes is described in the book)** . Because you don't see how this could be immediately useful doesn't mean it wouldn't be - this is exactly the sort of data I see clever engineers and data analyst using to squeeze a lot more out of a TacNet that one would imagine at first, because those same people (my colleagues) do exactly the same sort of stuff on other instruments that exist today. If you factor in the processing power available to a commlink in 2075 to run correlation calculations, and model simulations, I think this is actually somewhat realistic. Is it technically feasible? I don't know, but I don't know if wired reflexes are feasible in the first place, so I don't see it as such a stretch.

As for the Chameleon suit, sensors are sensors. It stretch credibility a lot more to think that whatever data the suit's sensors are powerful enough to engineer invisibility, but can't be fed to the commlink and can't be used for anything else. This looks a lot like a "it's not usable because reasons" justification. I think that Chameleon suit is such an advanced and *smart* piece of equipment that using it for TacNets make sense.

That said, I'm not against removing these pieces of gear from the list (and perhaps having them left to the GM's taste), but don't dismiss them as necessarily irrelevant, because their inclusion is justifiable.

*If you can know what sort of action someone is going to undertake a few tenths of a second before it's visually obvious, an increase in coordination makes sense to me and I could see a +1 die to reflect that.

**Sure, nothing says these nodes send any information, but nothing explicitely forbids them too. And since there *is* a wireless bonus that already exists per RAW, it looks like wired reflexes were intended to actually send this sort of data.

To be honest, I haven't read deeply into this thread as about halfway through it I got hit by all the things I've always wanted Tacnets to be, all at once, and my excitement hurried me down the page to the comment section about as fast as I could skim through the posts. That said, I'm very interested to see where your ideas are going and I'll try my best to contribute to them-- Right after I get my fill of brainstorming, that is.

When I first head of tacnets, I envisioned a Tom-Clancy milspec piece of information-gathering equipment, a black box meant to interpret sensor information and distribute it across the battlefield. Early in the thread, I saw it compared to the Commander mode in Battlefield 4. I would rather argue that it is more like the 3D Spotting system. In case a few of the people reading this haven't played, the spotting system allows one soldier to hit a button to 'spot' an enemy soldier or vehicle. Once spotted, a bright orange symbol floats over his head and points him out to everyone else, adding a little bit of tactical gameplay that even the one Recon player who's sitting on a rock and firing aimlessly can contribute to. The sheer usefulness of it is substantial, and since it relies on a HUD that doesn't exist in real life (but does certainly exist in Shadowrun), it's a mechanism that I can definitely try and incorporate.

This leads to the part of my post that actually has to do with Tacnets. I envision two sides to it: The first, a sensor suite that picks up information from each soldier, vehicle, hacked camera and drone that it can find. The second, a piece of security hardware that allows the decker to treat his team's individual PANs as if they're slaved to his Tacnet. The first is the important one, and the one I'll spend my time talking about. The second is pretty straightforward, and I still haven't quite convinced myself that it doesn't stem from a misunderstanding of the Matrix rules.

The use of a tacnet as a sensor suite wouldn't be based on a dicepool or anything by my model. Instead, the only thing that matters to the Tacnet itself (and by extention the DM's struggle to keep track of it) is what it knows, and what it does not. If the tacnet knows the location of its enemies, then it can give that information to everyone connected, and they can get a hefty Perception bonus (or whatever, I'll talk about possible applications later). If it doesn't know, then it can't give a bonus. It's as simple as that. No need to give overarching dicepools to simulate in the abstract, no need to toss +1 and +2 modifiers at everything under the sun, in general, less bloat. Or at least, that's the idea. The Tacnet would exist as a way of preventing the team from needing to communicate such things as where enemies and important items are, how to navigate the area, and other things that are better done by a computer, leaving the team's mouths free to say more important things. It would have strictly gamist applications, too: By spotting the enemies, it could eliminate a bunch of Perception Tests and assist in the rest. By measuring ranges to the targets it could provide a bonus to long-range attacks. It could do the targeting for a drone, allowing it to bypass the Sensor Test and go straight to the "fire" stage of its plan. That isn't strictly the point, however. It would exist mainly as a tool of information. Information being the first and greatest tool of the decker, and the most revolutionary portion of the Internet and Matrix themselves, I think that fits the Decker's role very well.

On that note, it's time for me to lay down the list of things that I've envisioned a tacnet being used for. Some of these would be impractical, quasi-practical, or simply not as useful as I hope; I assume you'll tell me if they are. I also assume you'll figure out your own ways that a tacnet would be an advantage on a battlefield, and if you think that it's the kind of thing you can write in a rulebook or use on a run, I hope you'll post it. Even if nobody cares about my little pipe dream I've posted, I might use them in the houserule I've just now convinced myself to write. All of these rules are presented in the abstract, without any numbers or crunch to apply them to a game. That would be decided later.

Proposed bonuses/uses:

Spotting the enemy: By making enemies in the tacnet's view sufficiently obvious, the tacnet makes visual Perception Tests to see enemies unnecessary. Enemies are either marked by software or an operator (I haven't decided).
Virtual Rangefinder: By using visual cues and any other information it's gathered, the tacnet provides soldiers with distances to important markers and enemies.
Firing Through Cover: If the tacnet has enough data to infer an absolute location of an enemy who is obscured by cover, the enemy's location is marked so that the soldier can fire through the enemy's cover. Also applies to shooting through walls, doors, floors, and whatever else.
Mapping: With enough data, the tacnet can provide a three-dimensional virtual map of the location in question. An ultrasound sensor might be enough for this to work, or UWB Radar. A single trideo feed would probably not.
Trap Marking: Any security measures noticed by the tacnet or its operator can be marked to the soldiers. Tripwires and lasers would be clearly marked, cameras spotted (perhaps with a rough estimate of their field of view, if such information can be inferred). Passive security measures like locks could also be marked, with any other information the tacnet has, such as whether a door is locked.
Targeting: Targeting could be run through the tacnet rather than the drone, allowing for example one drone to make the active targeting Sensor Test and another to take the shot. This could help in situations where the drone taking the shot could not get a sensor lock, such as when your Fly-Spy has a clear line of sight and your Roto-Drone's is obscured by trees.
Flare Protection: If someone fires a flare and your whole team doesn't have flare compensation, the tacnet could turn the NV off in time to save the team's precious eyes.
Weapon/Vehicle ID: For those cases where it's useful to know whether the troll's carrying a squirtgun or an Assault Cannon, the tacnet could tell the soldiers what's slinging the bullets. It could work for drones and vehicles too.
Information-Gathering: Noting the license plate of the unidentified van driving off is the example I though of, but things like reading SIN chips, matching names to facial-recognition softwares, naming the song playing at the bar tonight, and anything else that relies on simple info would fall under the same idea.

I'll stop there for fear of running out of steam and edit this post if I get enlightened later. It should probably be noted that this would likely end up being a fairly high-end piece of equipment, not available at chargen and with a price tag prohibitive up until the point where the team can buy military-level gear. With that in mind, it won't do much to solve the problems of deckers being left helpless in certain missions until the team can actually obtain and use it. A tacnet, under this system, would serve as a comprehensive and complete network of sensors in combination with a powerful piece of hardware, made with the sole purpose of leaving nothing unknown to its user. Then again, it could be priced competitively, since it would largely depend on how much a decker is willing to spend on sensors in order to be more useful. Coincidentally, that would make the Decker/Rigger duo very powerful indeed if they both spent money in the right place. If the runners' enemies use tacnets to boost their surveillance capabilities, it would certainly make infiltrators' job difficult and a decker insanely useful to have on heist jobs. And on that note, if the runners end up fighting 2075 military teams with money on their side, it can be assumed that a to-of-the-line tacnet and sensor array would be a significant part of the enemy's tactics.

[EDIT: I posted this and immediately realized that I'd forgotten to weigh in the current argument over what a tacnet can and cannot use as a sensor. I believe that it goes both ways. There is no reason a chameleon suit wouldn't be able to give some sorts of data to the tacnet. It might even have certain camera angles that prove extremely useful to a tacnet's operator. However, using things for uses other than those they were designed for tends to have its hiccups. The suit, for one, might not have the processing power to both use and send the data it has at the same time. For another, the sensors would almost certainly be specialized, and changing the purpose of those sensors would probably show that. The sensors wouldn't be as good as a decent camera for doing simple trideo recording, for the same reasons you probably can't slap together a ball of trid sensors onto a RP coated suit and call it a day. This could be reflected by a -1 or -2 penalty in gamist terms, although I'm not yet familiar enough with the 5th edition crunch to say what number is more or less fair than another. In the end, the tacnets you see in-game would probably tend to be a mix of high-end sensors and those jury-rigged from smartguns and chameleon suits, because on the one hand, deckers like reliability, while on the other, runners tend to be just a little less wealthy than they desire.]

[EDIT: As for the initial subject of the thread, I don't have a seething hatred for the wireless bonuses as many of you seem to. While some may try and rules-lawyer about the meaning of it all, it's a generally regarded concept that common sense comes before RAW. In the case of wireless bonuses, that means that rather than bonuses requiring an active Matrix connection no matter what, it makes perfect sense for a character to be able to use the wireless Smartgun mag ejection & fire mode bonuses if he has any sort of link to the gun. The only problem I have with the bonuses that I've seen so far is the induction-charging bonuses on shock gloves and the shock baton. Magnetic induction doesn't work via wi-fi, after all. That's a simulationist problem for simulationists to complain about, however.

I like most of what you said. I would say a user or software can mark potential targets.

How would you implement it? as a dice pool seems to be a good way to do it.

The reason I don't like wireless bonuses. Is not because the concept is bad. but because what worked before with out the matrix now requires the matrix. Which is stupid. Now if their was new functionality that it actually made sense for the matrix to be needed I would be fine with it. I also would run your cyberware through your comlink. Because just like to day you don't stick your computer straight into the net if you have a brain. you don't stick your cyberware straight on to the net. you use a datajack to your comlink.

It should be made perfectly clear that based on what we've been told, that has nothing to do with the wireless bonuses. That functionality was removed at a stage of development that preceded the concept of wireless bonuses. I do not think it was a good idea to restore that old funtionality with wireless bonuses (make a damn decision and stick with it already), but if that wasn't done there would be, for example, no way under the rules to get bonus dice from a smartlink or to have WR/RE stack.

Sure there would. DNI them together and let them share processing power (after all, that is the logic of the wireless bonus as presented, just sharing Matrix processing power, rather than their own onboard processing). Just like Before. Problem Solved. WITHOUT the stupidity of non-sensical Wireless Bonuses.

... You've missed the point. If the Smartlink wireless bonus didn't exist or didn't' offer bonus dice, there would be no way in the SR5 rules to get bonus dice from a Smartlink.

And you're assuming that your commlink has a lot more processing power going spare than is reasonable to assume - and while I would like to see them add an option to get some wireless bonuses to work locally later on (such as commlink programs - the trick being that you'd be limited in how many you can run and this limiter would be shared between Wireless Bonus Replacements, Sensor Software, and whatever else), without induction pads or skinlinks being in play (which under the present rules they are not) wiring your gun is completely impractical.

???
It existed before !
Why don't you want to give Smartlink in SR5 the same Bonus as in 4A ?
(Plus the heightened Accuracy )

with the same Dance as before
Medicineman

Reasons are not an element of the point. From what we've been told, smartlinks lost their dice bonus in favour of the Accuracy bonus much earlier in the development cycle than wireless bonuses even existed. Meaning that smartlinks not giving dice by default has nothing at all to do with wireless bonuses.

I'm not weighing in on whether this is right or wrong, but I am saying it is mistaken to blame wireless bonuses for things like the change to smartguns.

Never blamed them for the change to Smartguns. I have placed the onus of Blame upon them because Wireless Bonuses were so poorly implemented as to be asanine. Using the Smartlink to gain an increase in Limit works just fine, and does not need wireless, so the bonus dice are indeed irrelevent, as you say. And are incapable of being bricked when wireless is removed. My point being that the "Incentive" to go wireless is not hthere, and thus, many (if not most) will not even bother, because the bonuses themselves are lackluster and not even interesting enough to tempt the drawbacks of being online.

"Hmmmm... Lets see, I can get +2 Dice or be completely immune to the Decker screwing with my stuff. Really? That is a no brainer."
Especially since the design goal of limiting starting DP's did not really work out so well.

You mean, the same commlinks that could host AI-level stuff 5 years previously?

Yes, some of the old stuff was really dumb.

not 5 Years ,more like 5 Days or Weeks
SR4A ends in December 2074 and SR5 starts in January 2075

He who Dances for Years
Medicineman

Certainly the implementation could be much improved. However, the incentive IS there. You are free to decide it is insufficient. For the wireless bonuses to accomplish their goal, you are not required to decide that the incentive is sufficient for you, personally, to take the risk. The fact that you have to sacrifice for the security of going EM-dark is a good thing, design wise. And it's not just +2 Dice. You'd need to consider and weigh the totality of the wireless bonuses on the gear that you have. Do you want to get +3 dice to visual and audio perception, +2 to shooting, to be able to activate your various deployables as a free action, get extra dice to your Sneaking tests... And so on. At a certain point, you're either going to trust in your defenses or you aren't.

I think once we get more comfortable with the decking bits, then teams may use some items under the protection of the decker in certain circumstances.

It just seems to me there should be more cutouts. I mean its from Master to Slave devices, once you crack the master you are running amok. In the old hacking days, you had to bust in then you ran around inside(effectively mark /hack the master), but you still had to contend with various defences within the host depending on the level of data you were trying to lift. Still trying to wrap my head around it all and maybe this is covered by it, but devices and comms maybe need the capacity to carry their own added layers of protection/IC or even defaults that if certain alerts are raised by the master system they activate the added defences or drop out. Sort of a runner version of the old sheaf response for hosts.

That might not be a bad thing to put in for the Matrix book - though, it's worth keeping in mind that part of the goal was a pretty simple system overall, so they might be hesitant to add too much more complication.

I am wondering (and I haven't played 4E, but I did read through some of the splat books), how much harder is it to actually deck something?

Are the risks of running wireless on being exaggerated by the ease of hacking devices in SR4A in comparison to SR5? Or is it pretty much the same?

It depends on a pretty wide array of factors. It's all opposed tests now, though, and losing them SUCKS (either the target gets a mark on you, or you eat unresistable Matrix damage, which to make things worse goes directly to Stun for technomancers - also, if a decker fills his Matrix Damage Track, his deck is bricked). Plus there's the whole thing with Overwatch Score. If you're stuff is reasonably well defended, it's going to be difficult.

Thanks, I've gotten the PDF, but haven't gotten past the intro chapter still.

(damn you Metro 2033!)


So it seems having a team decker on defense makes things alot more difficult to hack, which maybe balances out the risks vs rewards for the wireless bonuses?

I need to read the damn book already but all the errata stuff really put me off.

Or dump the who wireless bonus idea entirely.

Which is effectively the same thing. If everyone (professional) goes Dark, there is no need for Wireless bonuses at all. *shrug*
Of course, they were only a meta-construct to give the Decker something to do with his unused time in combat... Never mind that I have YET to see a Hacker/Decker with Unused Time in Combat.

Let them waste their time with me, hunting for Wireless signatures. They aren't going to find any.

Which is how they used to work. WR/RE worked fine with absolutely no wireless connection in the previous edition. The wireless bonus should be something new that never existed before and would actually make sense to need a network connection. The way wireless bonuses work now do not make any sense at all.

I also find it interesting that a device you are holding or last used magically somehow gets to use your Mental attributes in the opposed tests. Were the developers assuming that everyone and their grandmothers were using sim modules and trodes along with whatever wireless gear they have?

'Your Mama uses Trodes' sounds like smack talk

I think that the most mentally good you are the better you take care of your matrix security. Either that or Dwarf druids are just very concerned about their Matrix security.

except that a device that is completely unguarded uses it's own device rating... which in some cases can be much better than using your mental stats.

Heeeeyyy.. so when he said Joe was dumber than a box of wireless rocks, he wasn't kidding?

The assumption, I think, is that you've done something to deviate from factory defaults (even including slaving) that means that you've set up your own security. Of course, by that logic, it should be possible to get the hacker to set up your security for you and thus have it all use his mental attributes...

by that logic, it should also be possible to just leave your security settings on the factory defaults if that's the case. given the relative rarity of hackers with log/int/wil 7 compared to rating 7 commlinks (which probably shouldn't exist at all, given that *spaceships* aren't even rating 7), being able to choose to use the factory defaults is much better in most cases.

Can we get back to our Tacnet project? i like how it is shaping up. I was hoping to hear how Supine would do things mechanically. Because maybe they having something better than the dice pool option... So far the dice pool idea seems to work best.

Except not. At that point, for example, you don't get to slave anything to your commlink and it has only its own firewall to defend with, not the commlink's.

I wouldn't implement a single dicepool that applies to all tests of X variety, or whatever. It seems counter-intuitive to apply a physical bonus because the player knows something-- However, there are things that it would be able to do, in pure numbers. For one, if it's able to point out the location of an enemy you wouldn't otherwise be able to see (because he's behind a wall or obscured by smoke or whatever), then it could lower or remove the appropriate modifiers. I'd shy away from giving it many new kinds of statistics other than those we already have for Matrix gear, like a dicepool of its own, or something of that sort, because it would end up over-complicating the issue, and without a lot of care, it would assume a lot of false equivalences the same way statistics tend to do for everything else.
For me, though, the issue with wireless bonuses is firstly that many of them ignore in-universe and real-life science, and secondly because it assumes that the minor bonuses that it applies are actually worth keeping track of for game purposes, which I don't believe they are. I have a feeling I'll be messing with these rules quite a bit in the future.
In response to your later post, I think it would require quite a bit of effort, not that I'm not willing to put that effort towards it. There would be a number of programs that would only work for Tacnets, and there would be certain types of information that only certain types of sensors can gather, interpret, and relay. I'll definitely need some time to brew some ideas for all of it.

the device rating rule also applies if the device is absolutely 100% not able to be defended by it's owner at the time of the attack. so obviously the factory settings for security can still work just fine even when devices are slaved to it.

The dice pool method makes for a nice simple method of tracking things. Your way has you tracking all sorts of plusses and minuses and does not make for a tidy way of giving a method for hacking your opponent's tacnet.

So you'd have a tacnet be the tool used to hack other tacnets? I would think the cyberdeck keeps that job, while the tacnet gets a hardware firewall or something of that nature. My only issue with the dicepool method is that it tends to paint in broad strokes where it might not necessarily make sense to do so. Keeping track of the amount of sensors attached to it and applying a bonus isn't really that bad, no, but it's not a very intuitive way of doing RPG math, so I try my best to avoid it. It's easier to think in terms of "can the tacnet see that? Yeah, there's a drone right over there. Apply the +2 to perception of whatever" than to do that, at least the way I see it. I'm also all for streamlining the bonuses that are suggested, but at the same time this has the potential to be one of the decker's more important jobs, so perhaps the complexity should be there in the bonuses. I've also been toying with the idea of how to run software on it, but I haven't done too much thinking as of yet.

Sure... what about Marks on the Tacnet that increase the cost of using a die from the pool?

i.e. I get 2 marks onto the opposition's tacnet. Taking a die from the tacnet now costs 3 from the pool

or perhaps have this as a third option?

Have you been reading this thread at all? I suggest you start at the beginning because i don't think you are on the same page as the rest of us. I early on set some design goals. One of them that a tacnet be hackable by deckers thus giving deckers things to do in combat. Instead of using wireless bonuses which all do not make sense. .

I was saying that it shouldn't replace the entire idea of the cyberdeck-- Whether it's a seperate hardware tool, or a piece of software on the deck, it shouldn't change the rules of hacking. Yes, it would be hackable, but so is everything else. Perhaps with one or two marks on a tacnet, the decker could use the sensors available on the opposing net.

But Cyberware should not be on the matrix. Cyberware has no need to be on the Matrix. But if you are running a Tacnet you can run a datajack to your comlink that is running Tacnet software and share your feed.

The point being that some cyberware can contribute to the TacNet, but needs to communicate with the TacNet to do so. Thus, there is incentive for exposing you stuff.

Wrong. Wrong Methodology and thinking.

The tacnet is the target. Not the cyberware. The tacnet is where you can screw things over in a far more effective manner than bricking one members cyber arm. Screw the tacnet and you screw the whole team. Get them shooting at their own members etc. Much more useful than hacking one persons eyes.

The point is not exposing cyberware. As no one would do that. You hook your cyberware to you comlink via DNI or skinlink etc. The comlink acts as your firewall and tacnet node. Hacking that nodes tacnet software to trasmit bad data or hacking the Deckers deck with the master node makes much more sense.

Do you guys plug your computer straight into the internet? or do you use a router because plugging a computer straight into the internet is a stupid idea? Why would you treat your cyberware any different than you treat your computer? Or would you like your cyberware infected by a random virus? Does that sound like a good way to treat that expensive cyberware?

you seem to have misunderstood how the matrix works in SR5. it doesn't matter how many things you use in between a device and everything else. the entire matrix is based on the fact that you can bounce your signal through everyone else's stuff. it's just how the matrix works in SR5.

you can let your cyberware benefit from tougher security on your commlink (if you have one) or a cyberdeck (if you have one), or even someone else's commlink or cyberdeck, by slaving it (obviously, this requires some level of trust), but if it's talking over the matrix, it can be talked to via the matrix, without having to first hack anything else.

and frankly, given a choice between giving each member of a tacnet some minor penalties or largely shutting down some key member of the tacnet (say, a street sam who has crazy wired reflexes and a much larger dicepool and better weapons than the rest of the team) by bricking their eyes or something like that.

mind you, if they're not idiots, they won't put their eyes online to be bricked, whether it helps with the tacnet or not (the same benefits should be available from attaching a camera to your helmet or something like that), but if they do, i'd totally shut them down rather than worry about the decker.

and i would definitely strongly consider bricking a control rig if there was one, especially if the rigger is piloting a really scary drone or something.

i don't think it would be an always-obvious choice, and sometimes there wouldn't be any devices worth bricking connected to a tacnet (in fact, most often there won't be - people who use tacnets are generally people who need to worry about getting hacked far more than the average person). but if there was, i could definitely see beginning with shutting down whatever that device is.

Proof that the people who wrote the book know nothing about computer security. I don't care how they claim the matrix works. Only an idiot would design a network in that insecure method. What you are describing is less secure not more secure. Which belies the whole premise of the new matrix being more secure.

Neither should pacemakers.

the matrix has a 100% detection rate and a guaranteed boot to the head for anyone who doesn't get out soon enough as far as hacking is concerned.

that's pretty damned good.

and as far as designing everything to pass everything along, given the rate at which they're having to replace the matrix, i'd say a solution where your customers buy all the infrastructure probably sounds pretty good to them. it's less secure for anyone who puts something on the matrix that really shouldn't be. it's a heck of a lot safer for the corps, and for people who aren't crazy enough to have their cybereyes broadcasting 24/7 when they are in a profession that can expect to be targeted by malicious hackers.

no cybereyes connected to the matrix 100% of the time, no worry about your cybereyes being hacked. problem solved.

Unfortunately, the rationale for the way that the new Matrix is designed is so you can be hacked (which is counter-intuitive to having a secure matrix). They WANT you to go online so the Hacker has something to actually screw with. If you play the professional, who gives the middle finger to the corps by not putting their stuff onlne, the Hacker gets nothing to hack, and they are a sad panda. Never mind that there are other things that a Hacker can do other than screw with peoples cyberware.

And if you do not put stuff on the matrix, then their design goal has failed. Looks like they failed for any of my characters, as I see absolutely NO benefit to havig stuff online (especially since you do not even have to get online for communications, apparently). *shrug*