4 ms·

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

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.

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.