5 ms·

One thing I don't quite get... Say I've kidnapped someone and the ransom has been paid. I could release the hostage but then there would be someone with knowle

by billpg 8y ago

One thing I don't quite get... Say I've kidnapped someone and the ransom has been paid. I could release the hostage but then there would be someone with knowledge of my operation out there walking about. If I killed the hostage instead, I'll have eliminated that risk and I can keep the ransom. It's not like anyone is going to sue me for not keeping my side of the contract. Maybe I'm going to get a reputation for killing hostages and people stop paying ransoms, but then I'll just throw away that identity and give myself a new name. Any game-theorists wish to comment?

verytrivial 8y ago
Not a game theorist, but this is probably the same reason "ransomware" actually does unlock your data if your provide the BTC -- if it didn't, people would not pay. It's market forces at play and is what distinguishes organised criminals from garden variety criminals. (Sorry if that is stated in the article, but there is a pay-wall.)
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  But that assumes the kidnappers have a long-term game to play, and need to worry about their reputation, no? That will be the case at least some of the time, I suppose. Also, some 'ransomware' never unlocks, even on payment. 'NotPetya' is the famous one, perhaps there are others. A sufficiently spooked victim might behave irrationally and fail to research the ransomware's track record before paying up.
  - richjdsmith 8y ago
    It's not so much as worrying about their personal (gang, group, person) reputation, but rather the reputation of kidnappers in general. Kidnapping is a business. I would assume people who kidnap others do it more than once. If you want your industry (kidnapping) to continue to exist/be profitable, then would-be-payers must know that they are likely going to get the person(s) back.
    - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
      Then you have a prisoner's dilemma, no? To the individual gang, wouldn't it be safer to 'defect'? Edit or would it be more a tragedy-of-the-commons?
      - jacobush 8y ago
        Don't you think that a big chunk, say a majority, of kidnappers would rather not kill anyone and also hold themselves in rather high regard, like "a man of my word" and such things. Maybe we could call "honor" a built-in game theory heuristic we humans have? After all, we are hardwired to be social.
        MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > kidnappers would rather not kill anyone and also hold themselves in rather high regard, like "a man of my word" and such You're assuming a certain value-set here. If instead their highest value is to appear ruthless to their peers (think prison, or for that matter the Dothraki), then no.
        jacobush 8y ago
        Still, that could work out. "I'll kill anyone - if I said I will."
        verytrivial 8y ago
        Well, I think the only value-set they are disclosing here is their desire for money. Assuming nothing "goes wrong", taking the money then reneging on the deal will not get them any more money, and may attract the interest of other kidnappers who have a longer term view.
        MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > taking the money then reneging on the deal will not get them any more money Unless they reason that killing hostages is safer than releasing them, on account of 'no loose ends'. > may attract the interest of other kidnappers who have a longer term view Assuming a highly chaotic environment, this seems unlikely.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  From https://www.aig.co.uk/insights/cyber-ransomeware-disrupts-business https://www.aig.co.uk/insights/cyber-ransomeware-disrupts-bu... > There is no longer a guarantee that insureds will get their data back, even if they pay the ransom.
achamayou 8y ago
If you do get caught however, for whatever reason, you’ll be looking at a much harsher sentence if you killed your hostage. There’s also more of a chance law enforcement will continue to look for you if you make the news for murder than if you return the hostage (one can easily imagine it won’t be top priority for them then). With that said, not all criminals are excellent game theorists...
simonh 8y ago
Kidnappers are still part of a community and a society. Often they even have political or social goals beyond just greed, or there are others that may get affected by their actions. For example Somali pirates don't each operate completely independently and the actions of one group can very directly affect other groups. So if one bunch of pirates kidnap the crew of a commercial vessel, take the ransom and then kill them, there will be a lot of very upset rival or allied pirates who's chances of getting a ransom payday themselves just got hurt. Then there's the fact that while the authorities will put in an effort to track down kidnappers and bring them to justice, they'll put in an awful lot more resources into tracking down murderers.
martin-adams 8y ago
What this makes me think is that the motivation is money, not murder. They may not enjoy the murder, but if it's what gives you a reputation that you should 'pay up', then it's a messy means to and end.
tomtimtall 8y ago
Your doing the right thing by doing a cost-benefit from their perspective, but your completely misjudging the costs of releasing a hostage vs. murdering someone.
sah2ed 8y ago
Well, that's because you are not thinking criminal enough :) The modus operandis of commercial kidnappers is to always blindfold the victim in transit to and/or from the hideout, and after a ransom has been collected. Then of course the victim enjoys very limited freedom to go outdoors while in captivity. Depending on the gang's methods, the hold house could be in the middle of nowhere, or if they are sophisticated enough to buy off the police, in the middle of a busy town. The key to not getting unravelled is to use multiple hold houses and to routinely transport the victim to a different location by bundling him/her inside the trunk of a vehichle at night.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  > The modus operandis of commercial kidnappers is to always blindfold the victim in transit to and/or from the hideout, and after a ransom has been collected. The fact that kidnappers take measures to minimize a danger is evidence that the danger exists, not of the opposite.
conanbatt 8y ago
An actor involved in the kidnappings is the police, that actually does create a 'relationship' with the kidnappers in the long run. This means that killing the hostages reduces the future chances of successful kidnappings. Kidnapping is a repeat business also. Second, killing the hostage could make the pursuit a lot more intense: releasing the hostage might put it dead on its tracks . Police has limited resources, and successfully resolved kidnappings are way below murders. And then, there is actually a human decision of not killing someone. Criminality is not a switch that turns you into a sociopath.
hinkley 8y ago
Why would dropping an identity be easier than dropping a physical location? If you change your identity but hang out at the same places you are going to get caught. Wouldn’t it be much much easier to use a new location for every kidnapping than to do the Hollywood ending?

by billpg 8y ago

verytrivial 8y ago

Not a game theorist, but this is probably the same reason "ransomware" actually does unlock your data if your provide the BTC -- if it didn't, people would not pay. It's market forces at play and is what distinguishes organised criminals from garden variety criminals. (Sorry if that is stated in the article, but there is a pay-wall.)

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
But that assumes the kidnappers have a long-term game to play, and need to worry about their reputation, no? That will be the case at least some of the time, I suppose. Also, some 'ransomware' never unlocks, even on payment. 'NotPetya' is the famous one, perhaps there are others. A sufficiently spooked victim might behave irrationally and fail to research the ransomware's track record before paying up.
- richjdsmith 8y ago
  It's not so much as worrying about their personal (gang, group, person) reputation, but rather the reputation of kidnappers in general. Kidnapping is a business. I would assume people who kidnap others do it more than once. If you want your industry (kidnapping) to continue to exist/be profitable, then would-be-payers must know that they are likely going to get the person(s) back.
  - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
    Then you have a prisoner's dilemma, no? To the individual gang, wouldn't it be safer to 'defect'? Edit or would it be more a tragedy-of-the-commons?
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Don't you think that a big chunk, say a majority, of kidnappers would rather not kill anyone and also hold themselves in rather high regard, like "a man of my word" and such things. Maybe we could call "honor" a built-in game theory heuristic we humans have? After all, we are hardwired to be social.
      - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > kidnappers would rather not kill anyone and also hold themselves in rather high regard, like "a man of my word" and such You're assuming a certain value-set here. If instead their highest value is to appear ruthless to their peers (think prison, or for that matter the Dothraki), then no.
        jacobush 8y ago
        Still, that could work out. "I'll kill anyone - if I said I will."
        verytrivial 8y ago
        Well, I think the only value-set they are disclosing here is their desire for money. Assuming nothing "goes wrong", taking the money then reneging on the deal will not get them any more money, and may attract the interest of other kidnappers who have a longer term view.
        MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        > taking the money then reneging on the deal will not get them any more money Unless they reason that killing hostages is safer than releasing them, on account of 'no loose ends'. > may attract the interest of other kidnappers who have a longer term view Assuming a highly chaotic environment, this seems unlikely.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
adrianratnapala 8y ago
From https://www.aig.co.uk/insights/cyber-ransomeware-disrupts-business https://www.aig.co.uk/insights/cyber-ransomeware-disrupts-bu... > There is no longer a guarantee that insureds will get their data back, even if they pay the ransom.

achamayou 8y ago

If you do get caught however, for whatever reason, you’ll be looking at a much harsher sentence if you killed your hostage. There’s also more of a chance law enforcement will continue to look for you if you make the news for murder than if you return the hostage (one can easily imagine it won’t be top priority for them then). With that said, not all criminals are excellent game theorists...

simonh 8y ago

Kidnappers are still part of a community and a society. Often they even have political or social goals beyond just greed, or there are others that may get affected by their actions. For example Somali pirates don't each operate completely independently and the actions of one group can very directly affect other groups. So if one bunch of pirates kidnap the crew of a commercial vessel, take the ransom and then kill them, there will be a lot of very upset rival or allied pirates who's chances of getting a ransom payday themselves just got hurt. Then there's the fact that while the authorities will put in an effort to track down kidnappers and bring them to justice, they'll put in an awful lot more resources into tracking down murderers.

martin-adams 8y ago

What this makes me think is that the motivation is money, not murder. They may not enjoy the murder, but if it's what gives you a reputation that you should 'pay up', then it's a messy means to and end.

tomtimtall 8y ago

Your doing the right thing by doing a cost-benefit from their perspective, but your completely misjudging the costs of releasing a hostage vs. murdering someone.

sah2ed 8y ago

Well, that's because you are not thinking criminal enough :) The modus operandis of commercial kidnappers is to always blindfold the victim in transit to and/or from the hideout, and after a ransom has been collected. Then of course the victim enjoys very limited freedom to go outdoors while in captivity. Depending on the gang's methods, the hold house could be in the middle of nowhere, or if they are sophisticated enough to buy off the police, in the middle of a busy town. The key to not getting unravelled is to use multiple hold houses and to routinely transport the victim to a different location by bundling him/her inside the trunk of a vehichle at night.

adrianratnapala 8y ago
> The modus operandis of commercial kidnappers is to always blindfold the victim in transit to and/or from the hideout, and after a ransom has been collected. The fact that kidnappers take measures to minimize a danger is evidence that the danger exists, not of the opposite.

conanbatt 8y ago

An actor involved in the kidnappings is the police, that actually does create a 'relationship' with the kidnappers in the long run. This means that killing the hostages reduces the future chances of successful kidnappings. Kidnapping is a repeat business also. Second, killing the hostage could make the pursuit a lot more intense: releasing the hostage might put it dead on its tracks . Police has limited resources, and successfully resolved kidnappings are way below murders. And then, there is actually a human decision of not killing someone. Criminality is not a switch that turns you into a sociopath.

hinkley 8y ago

Why would dropping an identity be easier than dropping a physical location? If you change your identity but hang out at the same places you are going to get caught. Wouldn’t it be much much easier to use a new location for every kidnapping than to do the Hollywood ending?