5 ms·

How much of a lowlife do you have to be to ransomware a Hospital? If these people put 1/5 of the work towards a productive software product they would probably

How much of a lowlife do you have to be to ransomware a Hospital? If these people put 1/5 of the work towards a productive software product they would probably make 10x the money.

fefe23 6y ago
They did not actually attack a hospital. They attacked a university which happens to have an attached hospital, and ended up on some servers used by the hospital. The ransom notice was targeted at the university. When the cops contacted them to tell them they had attacked a hospital, the ransomware people gave them the keys. The hospital has access to their data again. Looks like even criminals have a conscience. Or maybe they figured if someone dies they might be an actual effort by the police to hunt them down and put them in jail for a decade or two so they better cooperate.
markdown 6y ago
It was an accident. The intended target was a University next door. The ransom note was addressed to the University. The ransomers gave them the decryption keys the moment they realised what had happened.
- eggy 6y ago
  It's not an accident. It is a supposed unintended consequence of a criminal act.
  - markdown 6y ago
    > unintended consequence Yeah, we call that an accident. Just like hitting someone with your car can be an unintended consequence of driving.
    - Caligatio 6y ago
      This is a dishonest comparison. A more appropriate analogy would be you were deliberately trying to run someone over with your car and you ended up hitting a pregnant woman as well. Then your defense is "I'm not a monster, of course I didn't purposely hit a pregnant woman."
      - markdown 6y ago
        I think you're reading too much into my correct use of language. The fact that it was an accident doesn't make the people who did this good people. > Then your defense is "I'm not a monster, of course I didn't purposely hit a pregnant woman." The question of whether or not I'm a monster is irrelevant to the fact that hitting the pregnant woman was an accident.
    - eggy 6y ago
      You can argue the semantics or meaning of the word accident in this incident, but I think it is important to make the distinction that it was no accident in bringing down the system that both the university and the hospital depend upon. They consciously decided to do this. Their ignorance of the full network does not take away from the intent of the original crime. An IT staff making an update that has an unexpected and unfortunate effect of bringing down the system is an accident. It is why when someone dies during the commission of another felony crime the charge is murder for all of the original perpetrators involved. The rule of transferred intent. The others don't get off, and nobody argues it is an accident [1]. Actions and consequences. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
      - markdown 6y ago
        > The rule of transferred intent. Applying that to this incident seems barbaric. The "transferred intent" is stealing. Sure they're jerks, but don't make them out to be murderers. The fact that a woman died was an accident through and through. The very worst case scenario they saw when they initiated their crime was that some data would be lost. The transferred intent is that the data of another organisation was going to be lost. That a woman died was an accident.
        eggy 6y ago
        I guess in today's times barbaric is used a lot more freely than when I grew up. It used to mean savagely cruel, and brutal. Transferred intent is when a perpetrator intends to harm one victim but then "unintentionally" (quotes mine to point out it is in the defined legalese rather than "accident"). Yes, you can say they meant to steal, and not intentionally kill anyone. IANAL. If you want to put it in legal scope though, it is involuntary manslaughter. You haven't convinced me to call it an "accident" by any means.
        markdown 6y ago
        Seems like I won't convince you because your bias is too strong. Look up any dictionary and I assure you that you'll find the definition fits this case perfectly. Eg from the Oxford dictionary: "An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury." Death is unexpected when you hack a University server. Death was certainly unintentional in this case.

How much of a lowlife do you have to be to ransomware a Hospital? If these people put 1/5 of the work towards a productive software product they would probably make 10x the money.

fefe23 6y ago

They did not actually attack a hospital. They attacked a university which happens to have an attached hospital, and ended up on some servers used by the hospital. The ransom notice was targeted at the university. When the cops contacted them to tell them they had attacked a hospital, the ransomware people gave them the keys. The hospital has access to their data again. Looks like even criminals have a conscience. Or maybe they figured if someone dies they might be an actual effort by the police to hunt them down and put them in jail for a decade or two so they better cooperate.

markdown 6y ago

It was an accident. The intended target was a University next door. The ransom note was addressed to the University. The ransomers gave them the decryption keys the moment they realised what had happened.

eggy 6y ago
It's not an accident. It is a supposed unintended consequence of a criminal act.
- markdown 6y ago
  > unintended consequence Yeah, we call that an accident. Just like hitting someone with your car can be an unintended consequence of driving.
  - Caligatio 6y ago
    This is a dishonest comparison. A more appropriate analogy would be you were deliberately trying to run someone over with your car and you ended up hitting a pregnant woman as well. Then your defense is "I'm not a monster, of course I didn't purposely hit a pregnant woman."
    - markdown 6y ago
      I think you're reading too much into my correct use of language. The fact that it was an accident doesn't make the people who did this good people. > Then your defense is "I'm not a monster, of course I didn't purposely hit a pregnant woman." The question of whether or not I'm a monster is irrelevant to the fact that hitting the pregnant woman was an accident.
  - eggy 6y ago
    You can argue the semantics or meaning of the word accident in this incident, but I think it is important to make the distinction that it was no accident in bringing down the system that both the university and the hospital depend upon. They consciously decided to do this. Their ignorance of the full network does not take away from the intent of the original crime. An IT staff making an update that has an unexpected and unfortunate effect of bringing down the system is an accident. It is why when someone dies during the commission of another felony crime the charge is murder for all of the original perpetrators involved. The rule of transferred intent. The others don't get off, and nobody argues it is an accident [1]. Actions and consequences. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
    - markdown 6y ago
      > The rule of transferred intent. Applying that to this incident seems barbaric. The "transferred intent" is stealing. Sure they're jerks, but don't make them out to be murderers. The fact that a woman died was an accident through and through. The very worst case scenario they saw when they initiated their crime was that some data would be lost. The transferred intent is that the data of another organisation was going to be lost. That a woman died was an accident.
      - eggy 6y ago
        I guess in today's times barbaric is used a lot more freely than when I grew up. It used to mean savagely cruel, and brutal. Transferred intent is when a perpetrator intends to harm one victim but then "unintentionally" (quotes mine to point out it is in the defined legalese rather than "accident"). Yes, you can say they meant to steal, and not intentionally kill anyone. IANAL. If you want to put it in legal scope though, it is involuntary manslaughter. You haven't convinced me to call it an "accident" by any means.
        markdown 6y ago
        Seems like I won't convince you because your bias is too strong. Look up any dictionary and I assure you that you'll find the definition fits this case perfectly. Eg from the Oxford dictionary: "An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury." Death is unexpected when you hack a University server. Death was certainly unintentional in this case.