3 ms·
I 100% disagree. Sometimes it is the only way to get things back running. I understand its the organization's fault for not having backups. It would destroy som
by chelmzy 7y ago
I 100% disagree. Sometimes it is the only way to get things back running. I understand its the organization's fault for not having backups. It would destroy some businesses, hospitals, schools if they weren't able to pay the ransom.
- ikeboy 7y ago> Sometimes it is the only way to get things back running. I understand its the organization's fault for not having backups. It would destroy some businesses, hospitals, schools if they weren't able to pay the ransom. That doesn't change the game theory dynamics that I pointed out above.
- staticautomatic 7y agoI bet you'd be singing a different tune if the life of someone you loved was at stake.
- ikeboy 7y agoIf someone I loved was in a hospital that might get targeted by ransomware, I'd prefer we adopt the policies that reduce the prevalence of ransomware.
- gjs278 7y agook but now your mom is dead
- ironmagma 7y agoThis is assuming you can time travel. In reality, you have no idea what hospital your loved ones will end up at, nor whether they will (chances are they will not), nor what systems to protect in advance. On top of that, you would have to convince others that the investment is worth making.
- leetcrew 7y agosure, most people would. but the things a private individual would be willing to do under extreme leverage don't make a good basis for policy.
- austhrow743 7y agoThey surely would. However we generally try to treat being too close to a topic emotionally as a reason to distance someone from it, not to value their opinion more. Judges don't recuse themselves because someone they know wasn't involved in the case.