4 ms·

I am not a lawyer and entirely just guessing. I am probably wrong but if people are paying money to organized crime then perhaps it could be interpreted as ai

I am not a lawyer and entirely just guessing. I am probably wrong but if people are paying money to organized crime then perhaps it could be interpreted as aiding and abetting organized criminals using corporate funds and thus maybe possibly the government could use the existing Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970. Or maybe not. Maybe a question for lawyers that have litigated RICO cases. Maybe another angle could be proving that said funds were used in the acts of higher crimes that caused serious injury or death. Maybe additionally the SEC could also get involved in publicly traded companies that impact their stock value in the process of paying off organized criminals. I could see both sides of such a case as it could be argued that not paying off the ransom could cause the destruction of the company but the people responsible for putting the company in that position in the first place could probably be held to account. Or worst case maybe this just forces some companies to do more serious due diligence and have real audits vs. check-box audits and if they can't prove they performed their actual fiduciary responsibilities then serious action is taken against the C-Levels and board members?

chrismcb 3y ago
Nothing like blaming the victim. What's next arresting people for handing over their wallet at gunpoint?
- sneak 3y ago
  The victim fails to be just a victim when they actively contribute funds to a criminal enterprise. The gunpoint analogy is a poor one; being coerced by physical violence is one thing, being coerced because you lost your files (and don’t have backups) is another. It’s a horse of a different color.
  - ladzoppelin 3y ago
    What if people die and lose everything or groups of people get hurt because of the Ransomware? You could also say the person handing a wallet to a criminal is actively contributing and should of kept his money in the bank. The point is that its not always as simple as "backup your files".
- floxy 3y ago
  Seems like a matter of game theory strategy vs. tactics. If everyone were to fight back against muggers, it seems like there would be fewer muggings. But tactically, it might be best for an individual to hand over the wallet.
  - akerl_ 3y ago
    Sure. And it would be nuts to start trying to incentivize fighting back by prosecuting people who don't.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  Nothing like blaming the victim. The companies getting their customers data encrypted are NOT victims. At best they are incompetent and should never have been in business to begin with and most certainly should never have been anywhere near any of their customers data. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their customers and investors. If a company is letting phishers trounce all over my data then in a way I am glad that my data became encrypted so that the company can no longer hide the fact they were negligent not only to keep the thugs out but also neglected to properly back up my data. I am more concerned about all the companies that were popped and were able to hide it because they only lost my data to the phishers. Ransomware is exposing the incompetent businesses and embarrassing their leadership as it should. Securing data in an ever growing and large company can be challenging due to internal politics especially if being security focused from day one was not their priority. Backing up data is easy.

chrismcb 3y ago

Nothing like blaming the victim. What's next arresting people for handing over their wallet at gunpoint?

sneak 3y ago
The victim fails to be just a victim when they actively contribute funds to a criminal enterprise. The gunpoint analogy is a poor one; being coerced by physical violence is one thing, being coerced because you lost your files (and don’t have backups) is another. It’s a horse of a different color.
- ladzoppelin 3y ago
  What if people die and lose everything or groups of people get hurt because of the Ransomware? You could also say the person handing a wallet to a criminal is actively contributing and should of kept his money in the bank. The point is that its not always as simple as "backup your files".
floxy 3y ago
Seems like a matter of game theory strategy vs. tactics. If everyone were to fight back against muggers, it seems like there would be fewer muggings. But tactically, it might be best for an individual to hand over the wallet.
- akerl_ 3y ago
  Sure. And it would be nuts to start trying to incentivize fighting back by prosecuting people who don't.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
LinuxBender 3y ago
Nothing like blaming the victim. The companies getting their customers data encrypted are NOT victims. At best they are incompetent and should never have been in business to begin with and most certainly should never have been anywhere near any of their customers data. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their customers and investors. If a company is letting phishers trounce all over my data then in a way I am glad that my data became encrypted so that the company can no longer hide the fact they were negligent not only to keep the thugs out but also neglected to properly back up my data. I am more concerned about all the companies that were popped and were able to hide it because they only lost my data to the phishers. Ransomware is exposing the incompetent businesses and embarrassing their leadership as it should. Securing data in an ever growing and large company can be challenging due to internal politics especially if being security focused from day one was not their priority. Backing up data is easy.