4 ms·
Laws that disincentive paying ransoms don’t seem to necessarily be that simple to implement and uphold, at least as long as cryptocurrencies are in the equati
by strogonoff 5y ago
Laws that disincentive paying ransoms don’t seem to necessarily be that simple to implement and uphold, at least as long as cryptocurrencies are in the equation.
Someone may have paid into that wallet, but who? Was it the attackers themselves, to make it seem to observers as if they succeeded? Did some consultant happen to keep a stash of crypto? Maybe the boss of the hacked organization wisely maintained a wallet for that purpose, funded by embezzling?
- kwhitefoot 5y agoPresumably someone had to buy the cryptocurrency in the first place so that should be traceable.
- strogonoff 5y agoOne might not need to buy cryptocurrency all at once after the hack nor do it with visible corporate money, CEO can own a crypto wallet not connected to them in any way, there are mixers/anonymizers, etc. The range of possibilities is much broader in that land.
- throwawaygh 5y agoThis is a great example of technologists underestimating the law. Juries, judges, and legislators are not complete dumbasses.