5 ms·

If some emoloyee thinks these scammers are going to give them their cut, they're going to be massively disappointed.

by tdeck 5y ago

burnished 5y ago
Criminals don't have the same cultural/legal pressure pushing them to scrape every dollar out of a transaction that corporations do. I think you're more likely to get paid generously or even favorably by a criminal enterprise than a 'straight' one.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Indeed, you think that - and that's greatly to their benefit. If they can screw you over without risk that the next person to come along has a different opinion then they will - and if they do screw you over what are you going to do... take them to court? Unless you can hire a private army to reclaim your funds there is no recourse for betrayal - you're dealing with blind faith.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Lol, criminals aren’t greedy now? There are countless stories of criminals turning on each other over the division of loot.
  - burnished 5y ago
    No, not some robin-hood narrative, just that in terms of self interest you'd want to pay accomplices, and perhaps a sense of gratitude or fair play. There aren't any share holders to appease or anything like that. That isn't to say everyone who chips in is going to get a cut and its all lollipops and sugar snaps in the extortioners guild! But if you're thinking Oceans 11 or something you've missed the mark.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > and perhaps a sense of gratitude or fair play. There aren't any share holders to appease or anything like that. That’s not a thing. Even non-criminals very frequently feel that someone didn’t fulfill an agreement and refuse to pay. Companies most certainly aren’t refusing to pay people to please shareholders. Shareholders hate companies that don’t pay their bills.
dmurray 5y ago
Why? Some ransomware gangs put great value in their reputation, as this isn't a one-time game for them. This is only becoming more so these days as the level of professionalism increases. You might as well ask why the group would bother providing the decryption key once the ransom is paid. It's a little trickier here - do you want to be in a position to call them out publicly afterwards if you were complicit in sabotaging your employer? - but the criminals arguably have more to lose.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Because a ransomware gang screwing a victim is public. Screwing a criminal that would implicate themselves by complaining is not.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  The idea that the criminals need to maintain a reputation doesn't make sense to me. Every negotiation is about the best alternative each party has to an agreement. If someone has a plausible alternative to a ransom, like restoring from backups, they will take it, regardless of the reputation of the adversary. If someone doesn't have a plausible alternative to a ransom, then they might as well pay it even if the chance is infinitesimal. Since in either case, the behavior of the victim is unrelated to the level of trust they have in the criminal gang, there is no incentive to be "professional" and trustworthy. This might not apply if the gang actually is tied to a nation state and/or has political motives. But if they are purely profit maximizing entities, then they should not be expected to concern themselves with a reputation for keeping their word. Somehow people forget that the victims don't choose who they are victimized by.

If some emoloyee thinks these scammers are going to give them their cut, they're going to be massively disappointed.

by tdeck 5y ago

If some emoloyee thinks these scammers are going to give them their cut, they're going to be massively disappointed.

Criminals don't have the same cultural/legal pressure pushing them to scrape every dollar out of a transaction that corporations do. I think you're more likely to get paid generously or even favorably by a criminal enterprise than a 'straight' one.

munk-a 5y ago
Indeed, you think that - and that's greatly to their benefit. If they can screw you over without risk that the next person to come along has a different opinion then they will - and if they do screw you over what are you going to do... take them to court? Unless you can hire a private army to reclaim your funds there is no recourse for betrayal - you're dealing with blind faith.
kortilla 5y ago
Lol, criminals aren’t greedy now? There are countless stories of criminals turning on each other over the division of loot.
- burnished 5y ago
  No, not some robin-hood narrative, just that in terms of self interest you'd want to pay accomplices, and perhaps a sense of gratitude or fair play. There aren't any share holders to appease or anything like that. That isn't to say everyone who chips in is going to get a cut and its all lollipops and sugar snaps in the extortioners guild! But if you're thinking Oceans 11 or something you've missed the mark.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > and perhaps a sense of gratitude or fair play. There aren't any share holders to appease or anything like that. That’s not a thing. Even non-criminals very frequently feel that someone didn’t fulfill an agreement and refuse to pay. Companies most certainly aren’t refusing to pay people to please shareholders. Shareholders hate companies that don’t pay their bills.

dmurray 5y ago

Why? Some ransomware gangs put great value in their reputation, as this isn't a one-time game for them. This is only becoming more so these days as the level of professionalism increases. You might as well ask why the group would bother providing the decryption key once the ransom is paid. It's a little trickier here - do you want to be in a position to call them out publicly afterwards if you were complicit in sabotaging your employer? - but the criminals arguably have more to lose.

kortilla 5y ago
Because a ransomware gang screwing a victim is public. Screwing a criminal that would implicate themselves by complaining is not.
perl4ever 5y ago
The idea that the criminals need to maintain a reputation doesn't make sense to me. Every negotiation is about the best alternative each party has to an agreement. If someone has a plausible alternative to a ransom, like restoring from backups, they will take it, regardless of the reputation of the adversary. If someone doesn't have a plausible alternative to a ransom, then they might as well pay it even if the chance is infinitesimal. Since in either case, the behavior of the victim is unrelated to the level of trust they have in the criminal gang, there is no incentive to be "professional" and trustworthy. This might not apply if the gang actually is tied to a nation state and/or has political motives. But if they are purely profit maximizing entities, then they should not be expected to concern themselves with a reputation for keeping their word. Somehow people forget that the victims don't choose who they are victimized by.