13 ms·

At least at my company, ransomware payments are covered by insurance so it's always worth it to pay and have a pretty good chance at getting our data back.

waynecochran 6y ago
This is short term thinking .. most people think this way.
- heretoo 6y ago
  Are you saying that short term thinking has no utility? I am willing to bet that there are a multitude of circumstances in most peoples lives that require short term thinking, or their lively hood or lives will be destroyed. In a threatening situation, you solve the short term problem in order to have an opportunity to think long term, which will help to prevent these problems subsequently. If we were talking chess, you wouldn't ignore the immediate moves of your opponent, because their idea of how the game should be played doesn't fit with your long term desire of how you want the game to turn out.
  - waynecochran 6y ago
    Perhaps I am a little too glib. You are correct, often without the short term there is no long term -- especially for small businesses. But as a whole, if institutions pay ransom then there is an incentive for folks to carry out this kind of extortion.
tashoecraft 6y ago
The problem with the equation is it doesn’t include the individual who had their data stolen. If the school didn’t properly construct itself to code and I got hurt inside of it, I can sue. But if my data was stolen and my credit is destroyed I don’t have an option (I haven’t heard of anyone claiming this, but it could be true and idk). We need laws out in place to treat human data as someone’s property. If your data is mishandled with negligence and you experience provable hardship, there should be repercussions just like any other situation.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're just using building codes as an analogy or if you're recommending them as a model, so take this for what it's worth. I agree there should be some laws in place, but I think building codes would be a terrible model for software. If a building doesn't incorporate code changes until the owner modifies some system, the building doesn't become less safe. Fire doesn't look for ways to get around building codes. Largely, there aren't new threats, just new, better ways of dealing with those threats. The incentive is for building owners to not modify their buildings so they can put off and avoid those code change costs as long as possible. If the building was up to code when it was built/modified, and you get hurt, you might be out of luck. Software is nearly the opposite and it's faster. I think that makes it a more difficult problem to solve. The last thing you want is to make the entire world work like tech in the medical field...

waynecochran 6y ago

This is short term thinking .. most people think this way.

heretoo 6y ago
Are you saying that short term thinking has no utility? I am willing to bet that there are a multitude of circumstances in most peoples lives that require short term thinking, or their lively hood or lives will be destroyed. In a threatening situation, you solve the short term problem in order to have an opportunity to think long term, which will help to prevent these problems subsequently. If we were talking chess, you wouldn't ignore the immediate moves of your opponent, because their idea of how the game should be played doesn't fit with your long term desire of how you want the game to turn out.
- waynecochran 6y ago
  Perhaps I am a little too glib. You are correct, often without the short term there is no long term -- especially for small businesses. But as a whole, if institutions pay ransom then there is an incentive for folks to carry out this kind of extortion.

tashoecraft 6y ago

The problem with the equation is it doesn’t include the individual who had their data stolen. If the school didn’t properly construct itself to code and I got hurt inside of it, I can sue. But if my data was stolen and my credit is destroyed I don’t have an option (I haven’t heard of anyone claiming this, but it could be true and idk). We need laws out in place to treat human data as someone’s property. If your data is mishandled with negligence and you experience provable hardship, there should be repercussions just like any other situation.

cgriswald 6y ago
I'm not sure if you're just using building codes as an analogy or if you're recommending them as a model, so take this for what it's worth. I agree there should be some laws in place, but I think building codes would be a terrible model for software. If a building doesn't incorporate code changes until the owner modifies some system, the building doesn't become less safe. Fire doesn't look for ways to get around building codes. Largely, there aren't new threats, just new, better ways of dealing with those threats. The incentive is for building owners to not modify their buildings so they can put off and avoid those code change costs as long as possible. If the building was up to code when it was built/modified, and you get hurt, you might be out of luck. Software is nearly the opposite and it's faster. I think that makes it a more difficult problem to solve. The last thing you want is to make the entire world work like tech in the medical field...