3 ms·

Nope, no point banning the thing the criminals use, because they don’t follow the law anyway. Ban paying ransoms, the corporations are much more likely to foll

by mnd999 5y ago

Nope, no point banning the thing the criminals use, because they don’t follow the law anyway. Ban paying ransoms, the corporations are much more likely to follow the law.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
They don't have to ban BTC, they will just squeeze any company that provides a fiat off-ramp for BTC. The government has done this for decades, just ask the legal MJ business or sex adjacent workers.
user-the-name 5y ago
If the victim has no way to pay the ransom, there will be no point in trying to blackmail them. If you ban paying ransoms, desperate people will just do it in secret, something bitcoin works hard to enable.
- meltedcapacitor 5y ago
  For large companies "paying in secret" is pretty difficult given public accounts. The typical CFO would rather get a new job elsewhere rather than risk prison because his CTO colleague did a poor job securing the IT. They just work there. A ban on ransomware payment also has the nice side effect of banning ransomware insurance, which has been making the problem worse so far.
OminousWeapons 5y ago
I don't think this is going to work. Time is on the side of the attackers. All the attackers have to do is wait and repeatedly restate that they will fully restore operations if the victim pays a small fee and when losses grow large enough investors / shareholders will apply enough pressure to management to make it happen, whether it is legal or not. No one is going to eat massive losses for the greater good. There are plenty of policies against negotiating with kidnappers and terrorists, and yet people still do it for this exact reason. Banning crypto exchanges is actually a much more effective solution to the problem because it at least forces someone to show up in person to collect the money.
meowface 5y ago
Of the three most common ransomware-combating suggestions I've been observing over the past few months, I'm strongly opposed to the first two (banning cryptocurrencies or banning ransom payments) and would instead strongly advocate for the third: reinstitute letters of marque for privateers. Enable activity instead of futilely trying to ban activity. Instead of focusing on punishing the victims and unrelated third parties, focus on punishing and disrupting the perpetrators. Or if not letters of marque, they could at least just issue a notice that certain activity will have a blind eye turned towards it, to mirror the policy of some of the governments that bear most of the responsibility for ransomware activity.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  So your answer to the problem is to encourage more ransomware attacks? You don't think ransomware itself is bad, you just take issue with the idea that you may be the victim? Training more people to use it's probably going to backfire on you then.
  - meowface 5y ago
    No, I'm definitely not suggesting deploying ransomware or legalizing deployment of ransomware. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my post. By "enable activity" I just mean "instead of taking a general approach of trying to ban things to solve a problem, take a general approach of trying to enable certain other kinds of things to solve a problem". Not "enable ransomware activity".

by mnd999 5y ago

Nope, no point banning the thing the criminals use, because they don’t follow the law anyway. Ban paying ransoms, the corporations are much more likely to follow the law.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

They don't have to ban BTC, they will just squeeze any company that provides a fiat off-ramp for BTC. The government has done this for decades, just ask the legal MJ business or sex adjacent workers.

user-the-name 5y ago

If the victim has no way to pay the ransom, there will be no point in trying to blackmail them. If you ban paying ransoms, desperate people will just do it in secret, something bitcoin works hard to enable.

meltedcapacitor 5y ago
For large companies "paying in secret" is pretty difficult given public accounts. The typical CFO would rather get a new job elsewhere rather than risk prison because his CTO colleague did a poor job securing the IT. They just work there. A ban on ransomware payment also has the nice side effect of banning ransomware insurance, which has been making the problem worse so far.

OminousWeapons 5y ago

I don't think this is going to work. Time is on the side of the attackers. All the attackers have to do is wait and repeatedly restate that they will fully restore operations if the victim pays a small fee and when losses grow large enough investors / shareholders will apply enough pressure to management to make it happen, whether it is legal or not. No one is going to eat massive losses for the greater good. There are plenty of policies against negotiating with kidnappers and terrorists, and yet people still do it for this exact reason. Banning crypto exchanges is actually a much more effective solution to the problem because it at least forces someone to show up in person to collect the money.

meowface 5y ago

Of the three most common ransomware-combating suggestions I've been observing over the past few months, I'm strongly opposed to the first two (banning cryptocurrencies or banning ransom payments) and would instead strongly advocate for the third: reinstitute letters of marque for privateers. Enable activity instead of futilely trying to ban activity. Instead of focusing on punishing the victims and unrelated third parties, focus on punishing and disrupting the perpetrators. Or if not letters of marque, they could at least just issue a notice that certain activity will have a blind eye turned towards it, to mirror the policy of some of the governments that bear most of the responsibility for ransomware activity.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
So your answer to the problem is to encourage more ransomware attacks? You don't think ransomware itself is bad, you just take issue with the idea that you may be the victim? Training more people to use it's probably going to backfire on you then.
- meowface 5y ago
  No, I'm definitely not suggesting deploying ransomware or legalizing deployment of ransomware. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my post. By "enable activity" I just mean "instead of taking a general approach of trying to ban things to solve a problem, take a general approach of trying to enable certain other kinds of things to solve a problem". Not "enable ransomware activity".