7 ms·
and say they do make it illegal for state entities to pay ransoms... then what? what is going to happen when a ransom attack does happen? they contact the fbi.
by thrownaway954 6y ago
and say they do make it illegal for state entities to pay ransoms... then what? what is going to happen when a ransom attack does happen? they contact the fbi... great... now what? how do they get their data back? what obligation does the fbi have to tracking down the gang and getting the data back? what's the time line?
see... the issue i see with making it illegal for state entities to pay ransoms is that you tie the hands of the victim without any guarantees that law enforcement will help and help in a timely manner. i see this as a lose, lose situation.
- landryraccoon 6y agoThe point is that there's no incentive for hackers to target state entities. Hackers can target state entities for other reasons, but no rational hacker would do it for the ransom, since there won't be any ransom paid. The FBI can simply say "We'll never catch the hackers, but if you pay them you'll go to jail". It accomplishes the same goal of reducing the reward for hacking to zero.
- vkou 6y agoThis works for targeted attacks, but doesn't work for untargeted, shotgun-ransom-ware attacks. Shotgun attacks aren't discouraged if some X% of their targets can't/won't pay the ransom.
- thrownaway954 6y agoah.... yeah... they still will. just cause they can't get a ransom, doesn't mean the data it's valuable as they can still sell it on the black market to carders and other gangs. it's very ignorant to think that just because you cut off one area of revenue for these gangs that the problems will stop.
- amelius 6y agoIt's losing the battle but winning the war ...
- nickff 6y agoWhich sounds better to a general at HQ than to a private in a foxhole.
- chrisshroba 6y agoSure, but to a general at HQ, 1 dead soldier is better than 10. The policy is devastating to that 1 soldier (and family), but that's not enough reason to adopt an opposing policy that would save the 1 but kill the 10. Similarly, I can appreciate the logic in making American companies less likely to be targeted by ransom hackers, even if it means some companies are hit harder in the short term.
- nickff 6y agoYou've made the implicit assumption that it is acceptable and desirable for the government to sacrifice some companies to save some others. I'm not so sure that's the government's business, and it sounds a lot like a taking to me. Perhaps it is acceptable in the era of Kelo.
- marcosdumay 6y ago> You've made the implicit assumption that it is acceptable and desirable for the government to sacrifice some companies to save some others. That's how governments operate. Every time a government "sneezes" is harms some companies and benefits others.
- nickff 6y agoNo, when governments provide public goods (their most widely-accepted role), they are not picking companies out for the gallows.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y agoIn that case I'm sure you won't mind if we repave all of the roads to my store twice as often and let the ones you rely on fall apart.
- tolbish 6y agoIt seems this law is intended to benefit those with the most resources to implement the best security, leaving smaller businesses to pretty much pound sand.
- ajsnigrutin 6y agoYou mean a pretty basic backup, that your grandma probably has enabled on her phone?