3 ms·

Why isn't paying ransom illegal? Points: * Anytime any ransom is paid it is in the most literal sense funding ransom, even more directly than funding terror i

Why isn't paying ransom illegal? Points: * Anytime any ransom is paid it is in the most literal sense funding ransom, even more directly than funding terror in the most direct way possible: when you send a check to ISIS that may or may not actually fund terror. Maybe whoever you sent it to is just good at making an ISIS recruitment page and doesn't do much real terror, just marketing. * But paying a ransom by definition directly funds ransom, far more directly than sending money to ISIS directly funds terror. * Whoever gets the money at ISIS might spend it at a brothel, there's no proof of terror. * But whoever gets your ransom when you are ransomed by definition engages in ransom. * You are funding ransom by definition. * Additionally, since all rich nations are generally pretty law-abiding, making paying a ransom strongly illegal means that the companies have no choice. They're simply not able to write the check or wire the funds. * Finally, another strong reason to make it illegal: anyone could claim falsely to be ransomed. If I wanted to fund ISIS I could literally write on a piece of paper which messages to send me in what sequence, and then I could send them money and claim falsely to be ransomed by them. * Paying a ransom should be strongly illegal. * Also note that this is a good analogy with "possession of stolen goods" - the fact that such is a crime largely destroys the market for stolen goods. The market would be much stronger if possession of stolen goods weren't a crime. * There is an argument made about direct consequences: "But if we don't pay they will actually kill my daughter!" The same argument applies directly to paying bribes: "But if we don't pay, we actually can't get a license to sell in that country!" Still, paying bribes abroad for routine administrative work is illegal. Companies can't do it. If they do it, they get fined. Result? 1) (immediately) companies stop doing it. 2) administrators stop requiring it. The world becomes free of bribery. This proves that making paying bribes illegal works. Why wouldn't it work for making ransoms illegal? UCSF just funded a ransomist $1M. That should be illegal. The going rate for a thug in a third world country might be $800 per month. UCSF just paid for one thousand two hundred and fifty man-months of abduction.

perl4ever 6y ago
It is true that making a law is how you deal with the conflict between self interest and public interest. However, if you make something illegal that people have a strong motivation to do, they may just keep doing it, only not as publicly. And in that case, the people who demand ransom will not be particularly discouraged. Their business may improve, because victims will have an incentive to keep the whole thing secret. Think about how people worry that enforcing immigration laws will lead to violent crime being ignored.
ineedasername 6y ago
>The world becomes free of bribery. This proves that making paying bribes illegal works. Have I misunderstood your tone here, or do you actually believe this? Because bribery is illegal, and happens all of the time. The few who get caught get in trouble. Heck, Goldman Sachs does it when it's needed to land deals! [0] I imagine the same would happen if ransom for ransomware was made illegal. Thieves would wouldn't care, what they do is already illegal. If someone they infect with ransomware can't figure out how to get them their money, what do they care? I'm sure their profits would go down, but it wouldn't stop. If anything it might just drive them to hit many smaller targets to get through volume what they can no longer get through big hits. [0] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-260 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-260
- logicallee 6y ago
  I don't think there are any countries left where international companies can't operate at all without paying bribes. Maybe they won't get their permits as fast, but they can still operate. The fact that GS acts criminally is on GS. The fact that you can do business without being criminal like GS proves that this works. See how I just shifted the conversation to the fact that GS is criminal? That's what we want. Not some routine transaction.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Sure, yes, bribes are criminal. But making them criminal didn't make them go away. Now you are shifting your claim from saying the world id bribe-free to simply saying it's not necessary. Which is also not true anyway: I know someone, in the US, who was unable to get a health-inspection sign off without making a separate "gift" to the inspector. The permit languished for months , with no apparent progress or response. Money was being lost. Finally the inspector showed up and made a reference to this "gift". The person I know said he might take his issue to the head of the health department. The inspector said "that's fine, you can do that. When you speak to him, tell my father that I said hello." Other areas of the same business were unable to get a certain supplier to either show up, or when they did, to provide usable product, until a kickback was given. Why not choose a different supplier? Because the type of supplier had to have a specific license to distribute the product, and suppliers had divide up territory so there was only one supplier in any area. Bribery is alive & well. All making it criminal has done is ensure that when it's discovered, it is punished.

perl4ever 6y ago

It is true that making a law is how you deal with the conflict between self interest and public interest. However, if you make something illegal that people have a strong motivation to do, they may just keep doing it, only not as publicly. And in that case, the people who demand ransom will not be particularly discouraged. Their business may improve, because victims will have an incentive to keep the whole thing secret. Think about how people worry that enforcing immigration laws will lead to violent crime being ignored.

ineedasername 6y ago

>The world becomes free of bribery. This proves that making paying bribes illegal works. Have I misunderstood your tone here, or do you actually believe this? Because bribery is illegal, and happens all of the time. The few who get caught get in trouble. Heck, Goldman Sachs does it when it's needed to land deals! [0] I imagine the same would happen if ransom for ransomware was made illegal. Thieves would wouldn't care, what they do is already illegal. If someone they infect with ransomware can't figure out how to get them their money, what do they care? I'm sure their profits would go down, but it wouldn't stop. If anything it might just drive them to hit many smaller targets to get through volume what they can no longer get through big hits. [0] https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-260 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-260

logicallee 6y ago
I don't think there are any countries left where international companies can't operate at all without paying bribes. Maybe they won't get their permits as fast, but they can still operate. The fact that GS acts criminally is on GS. The fact that you can do business without being criminal like GS proves that this works. See how I just shifted the conversation to the fact that GS is criminal? That's what we want. Not some routine transaction.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Sure, yes, bribes are criminal. But making them criminal didn't make them go away. Now you are shifting your claim from saying the world id bribe-free to simply saying it's not necessary. Which is also not true anyway: I know someone, in the US, who was unable to get a health-inspection sign off without making a separate "gift" to the inspector. The permit languished for months , with no apparent progress or response. Money was being lost. Finally the inspector showed up and made a reference to this "gift". The person I know said he might take his issue to the head of the health department. The inspector said "that's fine, you can do that. When you speak to him, tell my father that I said hello." Other areas of the same business were unable to get a certain supplier to either show up, or when they did, to provide usable product, until a kickback was given. Why not choose a different supplier? Because the type of supplier had to have a specific license to distribute the product, and suppliers had divide up territory so there was only one supplier in any area. Bribery is alive & well. All making it criminal has done is ensure that when it's discovered, it is punished.