I think anyone who wants to think on any remotely deep level about RPG game design, they should really become aware of the
Oberoni Fallacy (Yes, its a 1d4chan link, and it sucks that that is the only place that hosts a detailed rundown of the concept, but its so important you should power through).
"A GM who wants to ruin the game can use any rule" and "If you don't like it you can ignore it" are BOTH invoking the Oberoni Fallacy. Good rulesets can be abused by bad GMs and bad rulesets fixed, but there is an
objective quality to rulesets and systems. You can't imagine a hypothetical terrible GM or a good GM, you imagine what kind of GM behavior will naturally occur with the system.
This system naturally seems to create abusive Gm behavior because it encourages your Gms to try to catch out runners who forget admin details by pushing those rules to the forefront and creating a mechanized system to avoid them. Compare to 4e and 5e, which outright said 'runners just tag errase everything or own their tags' and DIDN'T push the idea that this would catch anyone. One of those 'naturally' creates bad behavior, one does not.
This, combined with the fact apparently HTR is now a 'deniable asset' and that 'a single drop of blood can catch runners out when the cops have a mage on the payroll' tells me quite strongly this game encourages "gotcha" GMing: There is a focus on having the GM look for ways for the runners to be screwed in the course of normal play, which... sucks. Like maybe those passages aren't real but I don't think the people who told me about em would lie.
Doesn't matter that a good GM will just realize this isn't good and will ignore that, because that indicates to a good GM the system sucks.
Doesn't matter a bad GM will do that anyway, because the system in this scenario TRAINS GMs to be abusive.
The reason this fallacy is dangerous is because it basically posits the entire concept of RPG design doesn't exist; like many fallacies it doesn't depend on the actual quality of the argument, it instead recontextualizes the discussion to make it so that there is no ability to come to any truth, and thus the fallacy can apply to literally any RPG system regardless of how good or bad it is. Ex: "Yeah, FATAL is a mess of design but bad GMs who want to be misogynistic creeps would be anyway and good GMs can just fix all the problems."
And yet it is very obvious that FATAL is a terrible RPG. This isn't to say this rule is on par with FATAL, but the exact same argument applies to FATAL's rules that encourage abusive behavior as this rule. If you accept this logic as true for SR, you have to accept it as true for FATAL, which is why this is a fallacy. It also is circular: It posits a problem isn't a problem because one will by default fix the problem, which in reality admits the problem exists while attempting to deny the problem exists. Obviously that is nonsense, a rule or mechanic is still broken even if the patch is easy.
You can argue how much something encourages bad GMing, or if it does or doesn't, but you can't just say 'the GM overrides my design anyway.' Which is the main defense that seems to be in play here: People aren't talking about how likely it is to encourage bad GMing, they are just saying bad GMs are going to be bad GMs and the design is independent of that.
I think the concept is fine, again, the idea that runners are unique in being untracable is cool. But the fact that the rules
and some people in the thread pushed it as a way to 'catch' players out kinda indicates that it isn't meant for that, which is sorta why its getting dragged. Good ideas can have bad implementation.