4 ms·

Because getting mugged isn't a choice that somebody makes. A closer analogue is criminalizing paying kidnapping ransoms. Which is a crime in several developed c

Because getting mugged isn't a choice that somebody makes. A closer analogue is criminalizing paying kidnapping ransoms. Which is a crime in several developed countries, so as to disincentivize kidnappers.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Technically it is illegal in the US, at least if the kidnapping organization is labelled as a terrorist group. However, as far as I can tell, no one has ever been prosecuted under this law.
astral303 7y ago
If you think that getting hacked is a choice that somebody makes, you have your perspective way out of whack. Computers are hard.
- pasquinelli 7y ago
  No, paying the ransom is the choice.
- manfredo 7y ago
  I don't think my point way conveyed correctly to you. Getting hacked is not a choice and should not be criminalized. Paying ransomes to hackers is a choice and there are good reasons to prohibit that to disincentivize hacking.
  - dmoy 7y ago
    Giving a wallet over while being mugged is the analogy to paying the ransom here. Having the knife brandished in your face is the analogy to the hack. Not saying I agree with it either way, just pointing out that y'all appear to be talking past each other.
    - seer 7y ago
      Its not really a good analogy. If you get mugged you are coerced to give your wallet, on pain of _much_ greater punishment, usually the greatest there is - death. If your company’s data is cryptolocked, you are coerced to give money on pain of getting that data lost. The difference is that the punishment for non compliance is much different. If you made paying a ransom in this case illegal you would actually promote better backup/restore/security practices, at the cost of sometimes loosing data. If it was vital for that data not to be lost then not having adequate backups is a _much more_ serious problem as that data could be lost for different reasons. And you’re funding organized crime which has very bad downstream effects. If you had to make a more adequate analogy, imagine someone stealing your personal documents then demanding money to get them returned - you should have a strategy to restore those in other events like fires and stuff, so you might pay money, or not. But if you do you encourage future theft like that for you and others, and that money might be used for some other, usually nefarious stuff.
      - acd10j 7y ago
        That personal document could be life and death for some people. How do you determine what is the value of data being hacked. E.g. For a hospital if patient data is hacked it could mean life and death situation.
        cookie_monsta 7y ago
        I think the question then becomes if it's a life or death document why would you only have one copy and store it in a relatively insecure space?
        manfredo 7y ago
        Nobody's life is ended by the leak or destruction of any document. How does a hospital patient record getting leaked or destroyed kill anyone? A leak means private data is being divulged and that's not good but it's nowhere remotely close to murder. Deleting medical data means that the doctors need to get that data from the patient redundantly, which causes a drain on hospital resources but again it's not remotely close to murder. If, say, the mafia threatens to assassinate someone if a document is leaked and a hacker obtains and leaks it the hacker still didn't kill anyone - the hitman sent by th mafia is the killer. And regardless that this kind of situation seems very far fetched.
afiori 7y ago
As an example of nuances in Italy once there was strict law regarding ransom for kidnap cases that would immediately freeze all bank accounts of your close relatives. This did not make it illegal to pay ransom and also gave the victim family a reasonable justification for not being able to pay. Compared to just putting the victim between a rock and an hard place it looks like a nicer option.
- dwild 7y ago
  > As an example of nuances in Italy once there was strict law regarding ransom for kidnap cases that would immediately freeze all bank accounts of your close relatives. This seems so absurd. Freezing banks accounts cause so much issue to everyone involved, you just made an incentive not to declare a kidnapping and trying to solve it without interference from the police. For sure you'll see much less bar if you make drinking illegal, but believe me, they are still there ;).
  - afiori 7y ago
    > you just made an incentive not to declare a kidnapping and trying to solve it without interference from the police. the same as the other method proposed. > you just made an incentive not to declare a kidnapping and trying to solve it without interference from the police. agree, but this does not make it illegal to pay, it just forces the ransom to be delayed so that the police can investigate. If the family manages to get money in another way then they can choose to pay.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

Technically it is illegal in the US, at least if the kidnapping organization is labelled as a terrorist group. However, as far as I can tell, no one has ever been prosecuted under this law.

astral303 7y ago

If you think that getting hacked is a choice that somebody makes, you have your perspective way out of whack. Computers are hard.

pasquinelli 7y ago
No, paying the ransom is the choice.
manfredo 7y ago
I don't think my point way conveyed correctly to you. Getting hacked is not a choice and should not be criminalized. Paying ransomes to hackers is a choice and there are good reasons to prohibit that to disincentivize hacking.
- dmoy 7y ago
  Giving a wallet over while being mugged is the analogy to paying the ransom here. Having the knife brandished in your face is the analogy to the hack. Not saying I agree with it either way, just pointing out that y'all appear to be talking past each other.
  - seer 7y ago
    Its not really a good analogy. If you get mugged you are coerced to give your wallet, on pain of _much_ greater punishment, usually the greatest there is - death. If your company’s data is cryptolocked, you are coerced to give money on pain of getting that data lost. The difference is that the punishment for non compliance is much different. If you made paying a ransom in this case illegal you would actually promote better backup/restore/security practices, at the cost of sometimes loosing data. If it was vital for that data not to be lost then not having adequate backups is a _much more_ serious problem as that data could be lost for different reasons. And you’re funding organized crime which has very bad downstream effects. If you had to make a more adequate analogy, imagine someone stealing your personal documents then demanding money to get them returned - you should have a strategy to restore those in other events like fires and stuff, so you might pay money, or not. But if you do you encourage future theft like that for you and others, and that money might be used for some other, usually nefarious stuff.
    - acd10j 7y ago
      That personal document could be life and death for some people. How do you determine what is the value of data being hacked. E.g. For a hospital if patient data is hacked it could mean life and death situation.
      - cookie_monsta 7y ago
        I think the question then becomes if it's a life or death document why would you only have one copy and store it in a relatively insecure space?
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Nobody's life is ended by the leak or destruction of any document. How does a hospital patient record getting leaked or destroyed kill anyone? A leak means private data is being divulged and that's not good but it's nowhere remotely close to murder. Deleting medical data means that the doctors need to get that data from the patient redundantly, which causes a drain on hospital resources but again it's not remotely close to murder. If, say, the mafia threatens to assassinate someone if a document is leaked and a hacker obtains and leaks it the hacker still didn't kill anyone - the hitman sent by th mafia is the killer. And regardless that this kind of situation seems very far fetched.

afiori 7y ago

As an example of nuances in Italy once there was strict law regarding ransom for kidnap cases that would immediately freeze all bank accounts of your close relatives. This did not make it illegal to pay ransom and also gave the victim family a reasonable justification for not being able to pay. Compared to just putting the victim between a rock and an hard place it looks like a nicer option.

dwild 7y ago
> As an example of nuances in Italy once there was strict law regarding ransom for kidnap cases that would immediately freeze all bank accounts of your close relatives. This seems so absurd. Freezing banks accounts cause so much issue to everyone involved, you just made an incentive not to declare a kidnapping and trying to solve it without interference from the police. For sure you'll see much less bar if you make drinking illegal, but believe me, they are still there ;).
- afiori 7y ago
  > you just made an incentive not to declare a kidnapping and trying to solve it without interference from the police. the same as the other method proposed. > you just made an incentive not to declare a kidnapping and trying to solve it without interference from the police. agree, but this does not make it illegal to pay, it just forces the ransom to be delayed so that the police can investigate. If the family manages to get money in another way then they can choose to pay.