3 ms·

It hurts, but it’s the only way we can get the wealthy to take security seriously. Otherwise, to take an exaggerated example, only rich hospitals will be able t

• digging 3y ago
  Or instead of banding together to not pay, organizations/nations could pool money to help poorer hospitals pay. Maybe that, too, would make the rich think more about global security.
  • qup 3y ago
    So some asshat will be in charge of IT at [poor hospital], some rich people will foot the bill, and somehow that will improve...what? What is "global security?"
    • digging 3y ago
      Oh, I forgot the poor are meant to suffer. Global security meaning: Perhaps, if the rich found that the cost of supporting poor hospitals was high, they'd determine that they would prefer to invest in cybersecurity in poor hospitals. (Not likely, considering how few wealthy organizations care about cybersecurity in their own organizations.)
      • HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        There is no "the rich." Please be more specific about the people you're talking about.
• makeitdouble 3y ago
  Doesn't this lead to perverse incentives ? If they had to pay the ransom there would be a price set on security complacency, and that becomes the yardstick to use on further investments to harden their systems. In contrast, losing all patient data is now associated with a malicious attack, so they can hide behind the victim status, the actual damage isn't directly on their bottom line but on the quality of the care to their patient, and they can keep underinvesting in security as long as they have plausible deniability of wrongdoing in the next attack.