5 ms·
First of all, it's not a nation who pays in case of a breach. It's some company. Nation as countries do not have anything to do with it, unless they create some
by zx8080 3y ago
First of all, it's not a nation who pays in case of a breach. It's some company. Nation as countries do not have anything to do with it, unless they create some laws denying payments. Which would tight control of any businesses in hands of politicians signing off indulgences (exceptions to pay as "too big to fail").
- InitialLastName 3y agoI would guess that the affected entities here are not companies, but public entities. Federal departments, the state governments, and municipal governments all run their own IT systems and have been affected by ransomware; if there is a top-down policy of "don't pay the ransom" it presumably affects policy for all of those.
- londons_explore 3y agoEven if there is a top down policy of not paying ransoms, the attackers still have an incentive to format the drives and leak the data to gain credibility for their next attack. Many types of attack don't actually know where they're breaking into at the time they break in. And once you're in, you might as well try running a ransom attack.
- pixl97 3y agoNations setting up financial regulations on who you can and cannot pay is a standard accounting practice these days. If you consider that a tight control, then we're already far past that.
- acdha 3y ago“These days”? Nations have been restricting trade for millennia.
- kube-system 3y agoEssentially all countries do this, regulating trade is a very basic governmental function.
- zx8080 3y agoIs paying ransom considered a trade in conventional sense?
- kube-system 3y ago"Trade" encompasses anything that involves the transfer of goods, services, and/or money between different parties. Those who do ransoming and racketeering are participating in a subset of trade more specifically called "illicit trade".
- DrThunder 3y ago[dead]