3 ms·
This also seems like it pretty unambiguously still breaks the law. Has it been tested in court yet? I wonder if it's kind of a "it's small fry, and these busin
by p1necone 6y ago
This also seems like it pretty unambiguously still breaks the law. Has it been tested in court yet?
I wonder if it's kind of a "it's small fry, and these businesses are getting their data back, we'll turn our backs to it unless it's actual violent terrorists receiving ransom money" sort of thing.
- mjevans 6y agoHaven't touched it at all, but I strongly suspect that the hired corporation is treated like a blackbox. Middleman: OK, hand us the encrypted data and 125% of whatever the ransomeware is asking. Middleman: Outcome A: Here's your data back. Outcome B: We were unable to get your data back, here's your full refund.
- gene91 6y agoIsn't that willful ignorance, and therefore on shaky ground legally.
- bobthepanda 6y agoYou do have to prove intent of willful ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt though, which is easier said than done. It takes legwork to establish intent, which is why justice is never carried out very quickly.
- throwawaygh 6y ago> Has it been tested in court yet? No. > I wonder if it's kind of a "it's small fry, and these businesses are getting their data back, we'll turn our backs to it unless it's actual violent terrorists receiving ransom money" sort of thing. 1. It's difficult to believe that organized crime isn't involved in at least some ransomware schemes. 2. Is it illegal to pay protection money?